Sitting of 18 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read the Third time.

BRITISH ALUMINIUM (SALTBURN PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provision Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to British Aluminium (Saltburn Pier).
To be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    National Police Computer
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will have access to the National Police computer; how many terminals there will be; and what arrangements will be made to guarantee the confidentiality of personal information stored in it.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Access will be limited to the police. About 200 terminals will be provided initially, probably increasing to about 800 over a period of years. Special attention is being paid to confidentiality. All the terminals will be located in police premises and the system will use a private line network; other safeguards will include the coding of messages and various computer checks.
    Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his detailed answer, but this will be a very big data transmission system, and is he satisfied that adequate safeguards can be made, particularly in the transmission stages? What proposals does he intend to introduce to enable individuals to see certain parts of their files, and who will be the first British J. Edgar Hoover?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not know the answer to the last question, save that it will not be me. I quite accept what the hon. Member, with his great knowledge of this subject, says about confidentiality, but the new system with the computer as it is being worked out will give greater safeguards than there are at the moment.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Has my right hon. Friend considered the training to be given in the use of this computer? I am advised that those concerned in its operation have not yet received any training. This is an urgent matter. Will my right hon. Friend report soon to the House that an adequate training programme is going on so that the operators will be ready to participate effectively as soon as the computer is ready?
    Mr. Maudling: It is certainly of the highest importance to have adequately trained people available when the computer comes into operation. We are advised on this by a distinguished firm of computer consultants, but I will certainly look into the point raised by my hon. Friend.

    Immigration Bill, 1971 (Representations)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Race Relations Board and the Police Federation concerning the Immigration Bill, 1971; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.
    Mr. Davis: Is it not a fact that neither the Police Federation nor the Race Relations Board was consulted before the introduction of the Bill? If so, why were they not consulted? Has not Mr. Reg Gale indicated that registration with the police is bound to cause friction between the police and Commonwealth immigrants, and has not Mr. Bonham Carter indicated that the Bill is dangerous and unnecessary?
    Mr. Maudling: The right principle in preparing legislation is to confine consultation outside the House to those who must necessarily be consulted. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I am aware of certain criticisms of the Bill, which I am afraid I do not understand.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that many people are extremely unhappy about the Bill at a time when young coloured people, in particular, feel that they are being picked on? By imposing new duties upon the police it looks as if we are checking up only on coloured people.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not agree that there is as much concern among the immigrant community as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In so far as there is concern, it is largely due to the misrepresentations about the Bill which have been all too common.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: At a time when the police are making great efforts to improve their relationships with and to help the coloured people in this country,
    1620
    is it not a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to reflect upon the police by saying that immigrants or coloured people have something to fear by registering with the best police force in the world? Is it not also improper that Mr. Bonham Carter in his position should descend into the arena of racial politics? If he wants to do that, should not he resign?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I think that it is perfectly proper for Mr. Bonham Carter to express his views. I do not necessarily agree with him, but I have great confidence in him and in his ability to do the difficult job he has taken on at my request. On the first point, I repeat that criticism of any Bill based on fact is to be welcomed, but some criticisms of this Bill made outside the House have not been based on fact and misrepresent it.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Home Secretary still have an open mind on the problem of registration? If in Committee, with good will on all sides, we can find a way of improving it, will he accept it?
    Mr. Maudling: I said something very close to that effect on Second Reading. What I said then still goes.

    Coroners' Officers (Statements)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable all interested parties to have access to statements obtained by coroners' officers for the purpose of inquests prior to the opening of such inquests.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): My right hon. Friend will consider the desirability of changes in the law and practice relating to coroners and coroners' courts when he receives the Report of the Committee on Death Certification and Coroners.
    Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not consider that it is grossly inequitable that, where allegations are being made against the police at an inquest, those representing the police should be armed with the statements of all the witnesses, whereas those representing other parties involved

    1621
    at the inquest do not have this advantage?
    Mr. Carlisle: I know that the hon. Gentleman's question relates to a particular inquest. A coroner is an independent judicial officer who is solely responsible for the conduct of his inquest.
    Mr. Buck: Is my hon. Friend in a position to say when he is likely to receive the report to which he referred?
    Mr. Carlisle: The Committee is expected to report later this year.
    Sir Elwyn Jones: As that Committee has been deliberating for five years, may we have some expedition within the next few months? Five years is a long period of gestation even for a Committee.
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the anticipation with which the report is awaited by everyone in the House. The Committee has found its task somewhat complicated, but it hopes to complete its report this year.

    Magistrates' Courts (Administration)
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set up a committee to examine the administration of the magistrates' court.
    Mr. Carlisle: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is considering, in consultation with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, whether any change in the present system of administration is necessary, and he will consult the organisations concerned before reaching a final decision; but he does not think that a committee of inquiry is necessary.
    Mr. Lyons: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absurd that the magistrates' courts are partly under the control of the Home Office and partly under the control of the Lord Chancellor's Department? Is it not also the case that some magistrates are underemployed while others are over-employed? Could there not be a committee, on the lines of the Beeching Commission, although not necessarily a Royal Commission, to look into the magistrates' courts administration to do for them what Beeching has done for the higher courts?
    Mr. Carlisle: In the end the magistrates' courts are under the control mainly of the magistrates' courts committees, although the Lord Chancellor appoints magistrates. It is not necessary to have a Royal Commission in the form of the Beeching Commission, but my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor are considering the matter.

    Police, Leicester
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Leicester concerning the number of part-time, of civilian and of retired persons used in the city of Leicester to relieve full-time uniformed police officers of routine and clerical duties.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I understand from the Chief Constable that at the end of February 84 traffic wardens, 63 full-time civilians (excluding cadets) and 13 part-time civilians were employed in helping the police in the three police divisions which cover the city of Leicester. In addition, 114 full-time and five part-time civilians were employed at force headquarters; 10 of these were retired police officers.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that in spite of the excellent use of civilians within the Leicester force, the force is still considerably under its established strength? Both for Leicester and elsewhere, will he consider whether more use cannot be made of retired, part-time and civilian people so as to relieve full-time officers of routine and clerical duties?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir. The police are encouraged to use civilians wherever possible. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are limits to that and that there are duties which cannot be undertaken other than by police officers themselves.

    Prison Building Programme
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT full details of the prison building programme proposed by his Department.
    Mr. Carlisle: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I accept that he genuinely wishes to see improvements made within the prison building programme and generally within the prison service. Generally, is he satisfied that he will be able to find sufficient prison officers to man any new establishments? Morale among prison officers is at a very low level. This is due basically to the very low basic rates of pay which officers earn. Could he therefore assure the Prison Officers Association that he will fully support the efforts which it is making to obtain substantial increases in the basic rates of pay?
    Mr. Carlisle: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says about the prison building programme, which is larger than ever before and contains 20 major schemes with which we are pushing on as quickly as possible. On the other point, I appreciate the need for more prison officers. As for their pay, they are classed as civil servants and there is negotiation through the Civil Service machinery over their pay.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would not the Minister agree that it is obvious by now that by the end of 1974 the prison population will have increased by some 8,000 to 10,000 and that about a quarter of the men will be sleeping two or more to
    1. Work started in the financial year 1970–71 on the following projects:—

    Place

    Size and Type of Establishment

    Ranby, Nottinghamshire

    …

    350

    Category C prison.

    Glen Parva, Leicestershire

    …

    840

    Young offenders complex including allocation centre.

    Norwich Prison

    …

    100

    Category C unit (first phase of a scheme to include also a remand centre).

    Holloway Prison

    …

    Complete redevelopment.

    2. Planning clearance in principle is held for the following new male establishments:—

    Place

    Size and Type of Establishment

    Likely year of start

    Lockwood, Oxon

    …

    492

    Closed prison

    1971–72

    Wrabness, Essex

    …

    816

    Category C prison

    1971–72

    Hollesley Bay Borstal, Suffolk

    …

    185

    Unit (next phase of scheme which will also include a new establishment for 300).

    Werrington, Staffordshire

    …

    100

    Unit in detention centre

    1971–72

    Erlestoke, Wiltshire

    …

    100

    Unit in detention centre

    1971–72

    Low Newton, Durham

    …

    80

    Extension to remand centre

    1971–72

    Thorp Arch, West Riding

    …

    75

    Extension to remand centre

    1971–72

    Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire

    …

    50

    Extension to remand centre

    1971–72

    Ulnes Walton, Lancashire

    …

    816

    Category C prison

    1972–73

    Gartree, Leicestershire

    …

    816

    Category C prison

    1972–73

    Low Newton, Durham

    …

    465

    Closed prison

    1972–73

    Featherstone, Staffordshire

    …

    484

    Category C prison

    1973–74

    Eastchurch, Kent

    …

    816

    Category C prison

    1973–74

    Stocken Hall, Rutland

    …

    600

    Two closed young offender establishments

    1973–74

    a cell? In such circumstances, is it not vital to have a substantial prison building programme and to consider a reappraisal of the policy on non-custodial sentences?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree entirely. That is why we have a larger prison building programme than ever before. There are 20 major schemes in operation. We are bringing additional premises into the scheme. As we have announced on many occasions, we are also pressing ahead with consideration of alternatives to imprisonment.
    Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that one of the causes of disillusionment in the prison service is the very long hours and compulsory overtime, often extending to 60 hours a week, which they have to work week in and week out? Can he do anything to reduce this very heavy load?
    Mr. Carlisle: Yes, Sir, the Government are fully aware of the concern about long hours of overtime. It comes in the end to the ability to recruit more prison officers. At present they have to be divided among the existing establishments and I am afraid that overtime does, therefore, have to be served.
    Following is the information:
    3. Planning clearance has been sought, or informal discussions opened with the planning authority, in respect of a considerable number of further proposals, including those listed below. If planning clearance is obtained it is hoped that a start could be made on these projects in the period 1971–72 to 1975–76:—

    Place

    Size and Type of Establishment

    Denbury Camp, Devon

    …

    484

    Category C prison.

    Acklington, Northumberland

    …

    450

    Category C prison.

    300

    Young offender establishment.

    Griston, Norfolk

    …

    484

    Category C prison.

    Bovingdon, Hertfordshire

    …

    484

    Category C prison.

    Full Sutton, East Riding

    …

    465

    Closed prison and in addition a Category C prison.

    Duxford, Cambridgeshire

    …

    600

    Young offender establishments.

    Tudworth Hall, West Riding

    …

    300

    Young offender establishment.

    West Malling, Kent

    …

    450

    Young offender establishment.

    Deerbolt Camp, North Riding

    …

    420

    Young offender establishment.

    Hewell Grange, Worcestershire

    …

    300

    Young offender establishment.

    Feltham

    …

    1,000

    Young offender complex including allocation centre and redevelopment of psychiatric borstal.

    4. A major part of the prison building programme will continue to be devoted to the improvement of facilities at existing institutions. There are a wide variety of such schemes including new living units, improved security, new workshops, upgrading of works services and extensive refurbishing. Total expenditure on such schemes in the current financial year is estimated at over £5 million. Examples of the schemes now in progress are:—

    Kingston (Portsmouth) Prison

    …

    Reconstruction.

    Reading Prison

    …

    Reconstruction.

    Albany Prison

    …

    Improvement of security.

    Chelmsford Prison

    …

    Improvement of security.

    Parkhurst Prison

    …

    Improved association and dining facilities, etc.

    The Verne Prison

    …

    New living accommodation.

    Hollesley Bay Borstal

    …

    New living accommodation.

    Shepton Mallet Prison

    …

    New workshop.

    5. Expenditure on the erection or purchase of quarters for staff of existing establishments is about £2 million a year.

    Public Houses and Hotels (State Management Districts)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what offers he has received from private brewers for the purchase of public houses and hotels in the state management districts.
    Mr. Maudling: None, Sir. I do not expect to receive offers for assets of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme until the method of sale has been announced.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when these pubs are "flogged off" to private speculators—private breweries—the House will be informed as to the amounts which those companies have contributed to Tory Party election funds?
    Mr. Maudling: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's Question was framed in rather pejorative terms, but no doubt these are matters on which he will dilate during the course of the Bill.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Speaking as a non-imbiber of the products of the brewers
    1626
    or of the distillers— I ask my right hon. Friend whether he clearly understands that there will be no shortage of offers for the purchase of these State assets, the sale of which to private enterprise brewers is about 50 years overdue?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot reply on the same basis, but I take heart at what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Callaghan: To prevent any unworthy and unfair allegations being made about the motives for disposing of these assets, could not the Home Secretary help us by giving an undertaking that the 35 major breweries who have contributed £120,000 to Conservative Party funds will not have their offers accepted, but that the assets, if to be disposed of, will be offered to some public authority, for example, the county council?
    Sir G. Noboru): The co-operatives are offering.
    Mr. Maudling: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's intense desire to avoid any unfair imputations. I trust that he will continue in that practice during the passage of the Bill.

    Immigrants (Housing Problems)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the likely effect of the proposed new immigration law on the housing problems of immigrants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not consider that the effect will be significant.
    Mr. Moyle: In view of the delicate nature of race relations problems, should there not be Departmental-sponsored research into the social implications of new legislation on this subject before it is introduced?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not see that that arises from the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Lane: Will not one of the benefits of the new Bill be that, when an effective system of immigration control is seen to be operating, it will be easier to concentrate on the vital issues in community relations, such as housing and education, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that.
    Mr. Freeson: The Secretary of State said earlier that the Measure will have a minimal effect on housing. Is he aware that there are about 18 million people living in Britain in slums and grossly substandard houses as compared with a total of three million to 3½ million immigrants of all kinds? What possible connection has the Bill with solving community relations problems such as have been referred to in housing matters?
    Mr. Maudling: I was asked what effect the new Bill would have on the housing problems of immigrants. My point is that as none of those already here is affected, it will have only a minimal effect.

    Enzyme Washing Powders
    Mr. Normantonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received the report from his Department's medical advisers on enzyme washing powders; and if, in view of the widespread concern among housewives he will give an assurance that the use of biological washing powders is safe, or
    1628
    ensure that appropriate warnings are Immigrants (Housing Problems) issued to users by his Department.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to require manufacturers of enzyme detergents to print a warning of possible hazards to users on detergent packets; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend expects to receive this report within the next two months and will then consider what action, if any, is necessary.
    Mr. Normanton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the assurance of his awareness of the anxiety which exists. Will he take into account the growing evidence of such anxiety in the United States and assure us that, in the event of this being justified, he will draw the attention of the public and of the industry to the dangers which might be apparent?
    Mr. Sharples: Certainly, but first we must have the report. The committee will take into account what has been happening in the United States.
    Mrs. Butler: Is it not unreasonable that this report should still be delayed, as it was asked for more than a year ago as a result of cases of housewives in Britain complaining about health hazards apparently arising from the use of enzyme washing powders? In the meantime they have had no guidance from the Department or in the form of instructions on the packets as to how such washing powders can be used safely.
    Mr. Sharples: As I think the hon. Lady knows, it was hoped that the report would be submitted at the end of June, 1970. It was found at that time that the evidence was not sufficient to justify any firm conclusions. For that reason, the investigation has been continued. I very much hope that the report will be available within the next two months.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement of policy on steps to improve relations between the two religious communities in Northern Ireland by way of a peace council or otherwise.
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in view of the fact that in Corby, Northamptonshire, as in other towns in Great Britain, many Protestants and Roman Catholics live in mixed communities without religious friction, he will set up a Peace Council or Tolerance Council to advise on policies such as housing, with the aim of enabling Protestants and Roman Catholics to live in harmony in mixed communities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maudling: The basis for the improvement of community relations in Northern Ireland is the maintenance of peace and order and the implementation of the Northern Ireland Government's reform programme.
    I saw the leaders of all religious communities during my recent visit and I am quite confident that they are doing what they can to help.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the critical, if not desperate, situation now existing in Northern Ireland, and in view of the very moderate speech made recently in the House by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the unqualified condemnation of violence made by Cardinal Conway, the Primate of All Ireland, could not the Home Secretary take the initiative now, before it is too late, and call a meeting of the spiritual leaders of Northern Ireland to exercise their undoubted moral influence in favour of a peaceful settlement?
    Mr. Maudling: I have certainly considered that suggestion and discussed it with those concerned. The general view is that at this stage the calling of such a conference would not be likely to contribut to harmonious relations. I greatly welcome the new contact which is taking place between Cardinal Conway and the Northern Ireland Government; I think this is very fruitful.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency, according to the Registrar-General's Report, there are more people from Northern Ireland than in any other constituency in Britain and that they live together in mixed communities—Roman Catholic and Protestant—next door to each other, in the same street? Will the
    1630
    right hon. Gentleman bring this fact to the attention of the Northern Ireland authorities?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, but it is also a fact which is sometimes overlooked by those outside Ireland that there are many parts of Northern Ireland where the same holds true.
    Mr. Longden: I do not believe that the question of inter-denominational troubles is the real problem at the moment. But did not the Act of Settlement, 1922, contain a proposal for a Council of State between the two parts of Ireland? Nothing has been done about that. What is the position in that regard?
    Mr. Maudling: That goes far beyond the suggestion made in the Question and raises very deep issues.
    Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman did not hold out any hopes of there being a conference or council in the near future. Can he give some indication of the proposals which are likely to be made in Stormont today about measures to bring peace between the communities and give an undertaking that none of these proposals involves the question of internment or the searches of areas of such a nature as might further inflame feelings rather than keep them down?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think I should anticipate what may be said in another place. I assure the House that the principles which I enunciated in the statement I made the other day about the murder of the three soldiers are observed by all concerned.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend support the Prime Minister and Government of Northern Ireland, recognise the comprehensive reform programme they have embarked upon, and condemn the Republican gunmen who by their seditious and violent campaign continue to attack the security forces of this country?
    Mr. Maudling: We have made clear at all times our support for the reform programme. I have made clear at all times our condemnation of violence from any quarter. In addition to our condemnation, we are furnishing the Army, which takes the lead in dealing with the terrorists,

    1631
    with all the authority and all the resources it requires for that purpose.
    Mr. Thorpe: As the improvement of relations between the two communities is a matter to which the House attaches vital importance and on which there is no difference in the House, and as Question No. 16 to the Prime Minister is unlikely to he reached today, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the outcome of the talks with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the context of this Question?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that there is a Question to myself on that point later today.

    Women Offenders
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has for the treatment of women offenders.
    Mr. Carlisle: Improvements in the arrangements for the custodial treatment of women and girls, in which the redevelopment of Holloway Prison plays an important part, are in hand. Studies in progress of various possible developments of non-custodial treatment will, if they bear fruit, be relevant to women offenders. The arrangements for the treatment of young offenders, including young women, are being reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Penal System.
    Mrs. Short: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that only a small minority of women offenders require the close security conditions of Holloway or any other prison? Would it not be more useful if, instead of spending £6 million on the rebuilding of Holloway, some of the money were used for hostel accommodation and community care to prevent many women from returning to prison for trivial offences over and over again?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree that only a small proportion of women offenders end up in prison and I accept the importance of and need for more hostels, but there will always be a need for a women's prison and surely it is right to rebuild it.
    Mrs. Knight: When may we expect action to end the totally inexcusable delay in the implementation of the promise to re-provide remand home accommodation for women in the Midlands?
    Mr. Carlisle: That is a different question, but the Home Office is urgently attempting to find suitable premises for such a remand home.

    Immigration Bill (Status of Children)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the status will be of children born in Great Britain of West Indian, Indian or Pakistani parents if and when the Immigration Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Maudling: Whatever the parents' nationality, unless the father has full diplomatic immunity a child born in the United Kingdom is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Unless he renounces that citizenship he will remain free of immigration control.
    Mrs. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very satisfactory reply and that it goes all the way to repudiate the nonsense put out by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his Carshalton speech in which he said that children born here are citizens of the countries from which their parents came and that the doors are open for them to return? I am very grateful to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Maudling: So far as I know, it has always been our law that anyone born here is a citizen of this country.

    Drug Taking
    Mr. Joplingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to increase public awareness of the dangers of drug taking.
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend has been keeping this matter under consideration, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services and with the Health Education Council, but no Government measures are contemplated until the results of a survey of public attitudes are available.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is especially important to educate young people about the dangers of drug taking and that at present lamentably little is done to tell them of the problems and horrors of drug taking? Will he take

    1633
    steps to ensure that all children at some stage of their school life receive education as to the horrors of drug taking, preferably by the use of visual aids such as films?
    Mr. Sharples: This is a matter for the Health Education Council. I very much welcome the efforts which have been made by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service which has initiated training programmes for children.

    Identity Cards
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to introduce a system of identity cards similar to those in use in many European countries.
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend think again about this? Surely it would be of great advantage to introduce a system of identity cards whereby the ordinary citizen could be recognised and identified with the minimum amount of trouble. The cost would be very small.
    Mr. Sharples: I seem to remember having to carry an identity card at one stage, and I also remember how extremely unpopular it was.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is not the cursory dismissal of this suggestion inconsistent with the Government's wish to go on to make second-rate citizens of immigrants by requiring them to register with the police, when there seems to be something derogatory in merely carrying an identity card?
    Mr. Sharples: I do not accept that at all. The Bill at present being considered in Committee does not alter the status of those people who are already here.
    Mr. Marten: As Britain never has been and never will be part of Continental Europe, will the Government continue to resist the odious form of suggestion in the Question, particularly in terms of identity cards and matters like metrication?
    Mr. Sharples: While I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's premise, I agree with the latter part of his question.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), that, under the new Immigration Bill, some of our citizens will not have to carry identification documents around with them?
    Mr. Sharples: They will not have to carry identification documents around with them, in the same way as an alien today does not have to carry an identification document with him.

    Letters to the Prime Minister (Departmental Replies)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that letters from members of the public passed on to him by the Prime Minister receive prompt attention and that replies are dispatched at an early date.
    Mr. Maudling: My Department seeks to reply to all letters as quickly as possible. I am aware of the particular letter which the hon. Member has in mind. I am sorry that there was delay in replying to it.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the letter to which I think he referred was sent to the Prime Minister on 4th October, that I did not learn until today that it had not been sent to the Home Office until November, that a reply was requested in December, and that one was not received until 10th February? Is he further aware that a matter of greater concern is the fact that the letter contained a basis of support for hare coursing and otter hunting which is, to say the least, very questionable?
    Mr. Maudling: Whatever the contents of letters, we try to answer them as soon as possible. I have to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the lapse of my Department in not having done so earlier.
    Mr. Conlan: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not only a matter of letters from members of the public and those passed on from the Prime Minister? I wrote to him on 28th July last year and did not receive a reply until 24th December.
    Mr. Maudling: I trust that the reply was satisfactory. It is fair to say that,

    1635
    in an average year, the Home Office receives nearly 1½ million letters.

    Borstal Institutions (Psychiatric Treatment)
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the facilities for psychiatric treatment at borstal institutions.
    Mr. Carlisle: Work has recently started on a new establishment at Glen Parva, near Leicester, which will include a hospital and have good facilities for psychiatric treatment for young offenders. Increasing use is being made of the facilities already available in five training borstals and at the psychiatric establishment at Grendon Underwood in Buckinghamshire.
    Mr. Lyons: I am grateful for that information. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's judges still find themselves having to send people over 17 and under 21 to prison rather than to borstals because of the inadequate facilities for psychiatric treatment in borstals? Will he accept it as a great priority to see that the situation is remedied swiftly?
    Mr. Carlisle: I was not aware of that until the hon. Gentleman said so. There are four boys' borstals which have full-time officers for psychiatric treatment. They are Feltham, Rochester, Portland and Lowdham Grange.

    Prisons (Care of Young Children)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities exist in Her Majesty's Prisons for the care of young children while visits are taking place.
    Mr. Carlisle: The arrangements vary. At some prisons there are rooms where children can be looked after by staff or voluntary helpers, and more of these are planned.
    Mr. Cox: Is not it a fact that the lack of facilities presents problems to women, especially to those with young children, who often have to make long journeys, some of them more than 100 miles, to visit their men folk in prison? Surely there should be some speeding up by the Department to ensure that such facilities exist in as many prisons as possible.
    Mr. Carlisle: I accept that there are many difficulties for wives with young children visiting people in prison. That is why we are grateful for the help and the facilities provided by the voluntary organisations. Certainly we will do what we can.

    Police (Wastage)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the police wastage in 1968, 1969 and 1970 for London and the remainder of the country, respectively.
    Mr. Maudling: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend keep a close eye on this in relation to the new pay scales? If wastage continues after the new pay scales are introduced, something may be radically wrong.
    Mr. Maudling: I intend to keep a close eye on this. One of the main reasons for the structure of the new pay scales is to deal with this problem of wastage.
    Following is the information:

    Wastage (including normal loss, e.g. through retirement, but excluding transfers)

    1968

    1969

    1970

    Metropolitan police

    843

    872

    814

    City of London Police

    30

    48

    27

    Other police forces in England and Wales

    4,369

    4,449

    3,709

    Total

    5,242

    5,369

    4,550

    Obscene Publications Acts (Amendment)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the need to amend the Obscene Publications Act.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in favour of amending the law regarding obscenity.
    Mr. Maudling: I have received very few representations recently about the Obscene Publications Acts, but a considerable number in favour of strengthening the laws against indecent exhibitions, advertisements and displays.
    Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while hon. Members are unlikely to agree on what constitutes an obscene publication, probably we all agree that the mailing of unsolicited and offensive material at random which is designed to advertise such publications is a growing and indefensible public nuisance? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the law bites on this abuse?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir, and I am aware of the concern. The Post Office Act, 1953, prohibits the sending by post of material that is obscene or indecent. My right hon. Friend will have seen in the last few days that a conviction has been obtained under the Act. That shows that the law bites.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least part of the reason for the Conservative Party's victory in the recent General Election was the belief that a Conservative Government would promote higher standards of moral behaviour.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Thorpe: Arms to South Africa?
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend cease to be complacent about a problem which is recognised as urgent by every decent citizen? Does he know of a sillier reason for neglecting to take action than the alleged difficulty of defining as obscene matter which disgusts every decent citizen?
    Mr. Maudling: The task of the Government is to deal with abuses. We have a number of instances. For example, the public advertisement of films often causes great disapproval, and we are sending a circular to licensing authorities, which already have powers, recommending a more resolute use of their powers. I am also contemplating an amendment of the law to deal with the abuse arising from cinema clubs.
    Mr. Callaghan: Was it in pursuance of the higher moral standards to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) referred that the Government decided to bilk the shareholders of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and Rolls-Royce? Leaving aside the hon. Gentleman's naivety, is the Home Secretary satisfied that the Post Office Act is sufficient for the purpose, in view of
    1638
    the large number of circulars which go out and which clearly never get caught? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will welcome a review of the procedures to prevent unsolicited circulars being distributed?
    Mr. Maudling: Leaving aside the right hon. Gentleman's naivety, I am aware of the concern about this matter. I wanted to stress that the law already can operate where indecent circulars have been distributed, and there has been a recent successful prosecution. The Younger Committee is looking at these matters and, in particular, at the broad question of the propriety of people sending round unsolicited documents.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding that in recent days we have had such a case successfuly prosecuted, the major problem of obscenity is where it intrudes upon people who do not wish to receive it? Is not it still true that many people feel that it is the advertisements for films rather than the films themselves and the advertisements for books rather than the books themselves which cause grave distaste, and that the Post Office Act does not bite there? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that it is a surprise to many people to read that any kind of prosecution has been achieved, after all the months that we have complained about a certain company which has recently gone bankrupt?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that my hon. Friend is confusing two things. The first is the circulation of indecent material through the post. Where there is evidence that this offence has been committed the police will prosecute, and they have recently been successful.
    The other point is the control of the public advertising of films. I said a moment ago that I was sending out a circular to licensing authorities, which already have powers, urging them to use those powers to more effect.
    Mr. Strauss: If the right hon. Gentleman is considering any broad amendment to the Obscene Publications Act, will he bear in mind that this is a controversial question, but non-political, on which there is a divergence of strongly held views about the value and efficacy of the present law? Will the right hon.

    1639
    Gentleman, before contemplating any broad amendment of that Act, consider following precedent and set up a Select Committee to consider the problem?
    Mr. Maudlin: I have made it clear that I am not contemplating an Amendment of the Acts. I am taking action, both by urging the licensing authorities to use their powers and by considering an amendment of the law dealing with cinema club abuse. In those ways I am strengthening the existing law, which is often more effective than it is given credit for.

    Arrested Persons (Solicitors)
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether police officers are entitled to refuse to permit arrested persons to communicate with their legal advisers, or vice versa,until police inquiries have been concluded; and for how long such inquiries may continue.
    Mr. Maudlin: It is an accepted principle that every person at any stage of an investigation, even if in custody, should be able to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor, provided that no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of the investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the policy of the police in certain areas to refuse to allow access to prisoners to solicitors, when solicitors seek to contact them, until investigations have been concluded, and that these investigations sometimes take a long time? Since the Question was tabled, circumstances have arisen which have given cause for considerable public disquiet about the matter. Would the Home Secretary care to interpret the provision in the Judges' Rules which he has enunciated, as holding a prisoner until he confesses constitutes a travesty of the rules, and it would be more honest to repeal them?
    Mr. Maudling: The police have clear instructions on the matter, which are right and consistent with my answer. If there are examples where the hon. Gentleman thinks that the police have not been following these rules, perhaps he
    1640
    will let me know. In any case, the right procedure for anyone affected is to complain under the existing legislation.

    Chiswick Fire Station
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the application to him by the Greater London Council to reduce the number of fire appliances at Chiswick Fire Station to one.
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend is awaiting further information from the Council before reaching a decision on its application to reduce the establishment of the brigade by a reduction in the number of men and appliances at certain fire stations, including Chiswick.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern in Chiswick about the proposal to reduce the number of fire appliances to one? Many people who have lived in the area all their lives do not accept that the area could be as well served by help from neighbouring stations. Will the Minister assure me that he will give the fullest weight to the many representations which have been made to him on this subject?
    Mr. Sharples: Certainly; but I think that we should await the further information for which we have asked.

    Adoption Act, 1968
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to appoint a date for the coming into force of the Adoption Act, 1968.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend hopes by early summer to lay a first order under Section 4 of the Act which will recognise adoption orders made by a considerable number of overseas countries; and to appoint a date under Section 14(2) bringing the relevant provisions of the Act into force.
    The rest of the Act relates to an international convention which is not yet in force.
    Mr. Archer: While that answer is welcome so far as it goes, may we be told what the difficulty is? Apart from the international obligation, is this not an

    1641
    uncontroversial and rather useful Measure?
    Mr. Carlisle: Concerning Section 4, which will recognise adoption orders of other countries, I should have thought that it was a most useful Measure, and we are proposing to lay an Order under it shortly.

    Licensing Hours (Extension)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many communications were received at the Home Office during 1970 from organisations and individuals wishing to extend the present licensing hours; and what replies have been sent.
    Mr. Carlisle: Twelve from individuals and four from organisations; they were told that the views expressed had been noted.
    Mr. Price: Will the Minister tell the House how the Home Secretary arrived at the conclusion that the present licensing laws were archaic, despite the fact that they were reviewed only 10 years ago? Will the Minister tell us who wants to drink at three o'clock in the morning—[Interruption.]—apart from Members of Parliament?
    Finally, does the Minister understand the disastrous social and industrial effects of anything approaching unlimited drinking?
    Mr. Carlisle: I think that everyone must be his own judge whether he wants to drink at three o'clock in the morning. But I should think that, merely by the application of common sense, one would realise that the licensing laws of this country were archaic. That is why an inquiry is being held.

    NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister when he will make an official visit to Nuneaton and Bedworth.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the Prime Minister aware that I put down that Question because it is one of the few Questions which he actually answers when I put
    1642
    them down? Will the Prime Minister at least give an assurance that the next time he is rushing through on the train to the North-West he will look out of the window, where he will see unemployment which is the highest for many years as a direct result of the Government's policies in restraining the economy? Is the Prime Minister also aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am not reading at all. Is the Prime Minister also aware that his friends on the Warwickshire County Council, who rejected my proposals for a local development association, set up a local employment panel which, since the Government took office, has not produced one extra job? Will the Prime Minister get in touch with the Tories on the Warwickshire County Council and tell them to pull their fingers out?
    The Prime Minister: I am prepared to take an opportunity, when it offers, of going to the hon. Gentleman's area. Concerning employment, I fully realise that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is affected by other industrial areas nearby because it is a travel-to-work area for a large part of the motor industry. At the same time, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the situation there is the result of Government policy. The cause of recent redundancies in the hon. Gentleman's area, which, so far as I am informed, have been comparatively small, is undoubtedly the fact that firms are reducing their labour forces because of costs.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman two years in succession forecast that under the Labour Government there would be three-quarters of a million unemployed in the succeeding winters, a figure which was nowhere near reached, and since the right hon. Gentleman has now achieved that figure—which includes Nuneaton—will he tell us which alibi or excuse he will employ on this occasion?
    The Prime Minister: The unemployment figures, which have increased, as has been seen today, are pointing out the lesson which the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he was in office, was always prepared to tell us: that if wages rose beyond productivity there would be high unemployment.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman would no doubt like to quote what I said on those occasions. I said that if they did not co-operate in our policies, which they did, they would have to face a Tory Party whose only answer would be unemployment.
    The Prime Minister: If that were the case, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain why he abandoned his statutory incomes policy without having a voluntary policy to put in its place and why, therefore, he confines himself now to nothing except incitement to high wage demands.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Since I have been challenged—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Since I have been challenged—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot take it. I was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question.
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Three times."] I should warn the House that there are a great many Questions on the Order Paper on the Prime Minister's travel arrangements.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman sometimes asked five supplementaries from this Bench at Question Time. Since the right hon. Gentleman challenged me, I refer him to his speech in this House on that very subject on 17th December, 1969, and, further, to his speech about reducing unemployment "at a stroke" on 16th June.
    The Prime Minister: I was not responsible for the right hon. Gentleman's abandonment of a statutory policy or a voluntary policy, nor was I responsible for the right hon. Gentleman's incitement of higher wage increases—
    Hon. Members: Answer the question
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not only Question Time. It is also answer time. If there is so much row that I cannot hear the answer, it is very difficult to keep order.
    Mr. Molloy: On a point of order. If, as you say, Mr. Speaker, you cannot hear the answers, may I tell you that we are not receiving answers—only glib evasions?

    WALTHAM FOREST
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the London Borough of Waltham Forest.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: My right hon. Friend's answer will very much disappoint my constituents, who would make him most welcome. Is he aware of the remarkable success story of the Waltham Forest Conservative Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—which, in the past three years, has maintained expenditure on education and social services, has built 2,000 new houses, seven new schools, and one old people's home, has just introduced a concessionary fares scheme, and this year will not increase either rates or council house rents? Would he not agree —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that this is a good example of Conservative local government giving the ratepayer value for money?
    The Prime Minister: From what my hon. Friend says, the record of his council appears to be so commendable that the Opposition can do nothing except resort to their usual tactics of trying to scream him down.

    ST. ANDREW'S HOUSE
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to St. Andrew's House before December, 1971.
    The Prime Minister: Although I shall be in Edinburgh on 27th March my programme does not include a visit to St. Andrew's House. I shall, however, bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind for some future visit.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that his answer is a grave disappointment, because the people of Scotland would like to know, before the winter of 1971–72, what plans the Tory Government will have to reduce the high level of unemployment, which today has reached the figure of 122,500, 16 per cent. of the British total? For every man unemployed in Scotland, there is a total inadequacy of jobs. There are

    1645
    12 people chasing every job available in Scotland. What is his Government going to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: Although I am not going to St. Andrew's House, I am going to have a meeting with the Scottish Economic Council, and we shall there have the opportunity of discussing economic policy for Scotland.

    PRICES, INCOMES AND UNEMPLOYMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment and other Government Departments in dealing with the relationship between prices, incomes and unemployment.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Sheldon: But referring to today's appalling unemployment figures, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever he may say, the whole House knows, as he must know, that he has the power to reduce unemployment immediately by reflating the economy? Why does he not do it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman also knows clearly what the cause of the present unemployment largely is—[HON. MEMBERS: "You!"] Hon. Members will not avoid the fact by trying to shout me down, because they will not succeed and they will have to face the facts. The facts are these—that, over the last 12-month period for which full information is available, import prices rose by under 4 per cent., company profits fell by 2½ per cent., indirect taxation rates remained the same, but labour costs per unit of output rose by over 12 per cent. And that is the cause of men becoming redundant today.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this very unfortunate and grievous state of affairs[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—of falling company profits is responsible for the low level of investment today, which is a fundamental cause of rising unemployment in the industries responsible for manufacturing capital equipment? In the
    1646
    forthcoming Budget, will he do everything possible to encourage an increase in company profits?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement, but my hon. Friend is, of course, quite right: it has been the squeeze on profitability which has prevented so many companies from having the necessary resources for investment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor took action about this last October, when he reduced corporation tax by 2½ per cent., effective from 1st January last.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: For how long, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, have increased labour costs had this terrible effect on inflation? Did they, for instance, have this effect during the years when he led his troops into the Lobby in support of every group who tried to break the maximum imposed by the Labour Government's income policy?
    The Prime Minister: The attitude of the Opposition at that time was quite clear—that a satutory incomes policy would not work. The fact is that it did not work, and the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that when that statutory policy was removed, the dam was broken and then the large wage demands came forward. But it is very odd, in these circumstances, to hear this remark from the right hon. Gentleman, whose Government said that wage increases should not exceed between 2½ per cent. and 4½ per cent.

    WAGES (PURCHASING POWER)
    Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from trade unionists on matters for which he is responsible since 1st January 1971; how many of them referred to the declining purchasing power of wages; and what replies he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: I have received about 150 letters this year on the cost of living. It is not possible to identify how many of these have been from trade unionists. The replies have pointed out that inflationary wage settlements lead to increased prices, and thus reduce the purchasing power of wages.
    Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have a meaningful dialogue with trade unionists while his Government are not only forcing up prices but putting thousands of workers on the dole in a vain attempt to hold down wages?
    The Prime Minister: This Government are putting no one on the dole [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and have no intention of doing so. The dialogue between the Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and myself and my colleagues in the past fortnight has certainly been meaningful, as they themselves have said.
    Mr. Awdry: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many people are unemployed today directly due to the politically motivated strike which is taking place?
    The Prime Minister: Surely there can be few things more foolish in these circumstances than for men, today engaged on a political strike which is condemned by the Leader of the Opposition, to cause damage to their firms, to their industries and to our exports, and to put their jobs in jeopardy. That is the sheer foolishness —[HON. MEMBERS: "Heffer! Heifer!"] That is the sheer foolishness of trade union leaders who are leading their members to that fate, and the regrettable thing is that so many have followed them. The only thing more regrettable is that those who refused to follow them have been fined.
    Mr. McBride: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do in relation to Wales, where a great gap exists and where unemployment is mounting? Will he instruct the Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment to come forward with positive proposals for job restitution to offset the mounting redundancies which are occurring with ominous frequency? Is he aware that all his policies in Wales lie in ruins?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the special measures which were being taken for Wales with the creation of certain additional special development areas. This is of value to Wales. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be fair enough to
    1648
    say that, under both Governments, what has been remarkable during the past three winters is that the level of unemployment in Wales has remained roughly stationary. This has shown that Wales, over the past 25 years, has built up a much more stable economy.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: While agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman said about today's strikes, which is the view that the T.U.C. have taken and which I have taken and others have taken—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Not Heffer.
    Mr. Mellish: Shut up!
    Mr. Wilson: Agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, as I have just said, would he not agree now, after today's Questions on this subject, that it would be better and more convenient to the House if he were to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT his catalogue of alibis and excuses, and then to stand on his own two parliamentary feet and answer the questions which are put to him?
    The Prime Minister: It might be better for the right hon. Gentleman and his party if he ceased to forget his past and exercised some sense of responsibility as Leader of the Opposition.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. I call Mr. Harold Wilson to ask about the business for next week.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I was slow in rising, but I was overcome with the Prime Minister's effrontery.

    QUESTIONS
    Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. While I do not wish to delay the House and my right hon. Friend in asking for the details of next week's business, may I return to some earlier remarks that you made about the Prime Minister's travel arrangements?
    According to both Erskine May and the Committee on Procedure, the rules of the House applying to Questions apply to all questions. There is no difference in the criteria applying to the selection of Written Questions and Oral Questions appearing on the Order Paper and

    1649
    supplementary questions. Nevertheless the Table Office has refused to allow certain Questions which you have allowed to be put today orally in the form of supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that there is a difference between the rulings given by the Table Office and those given by you while in the Chair? If Erskine May and the Committee on Procedure are correct in saying that there should be no difference between the eligibility of Questions appearing on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister and questions which you allow to be put as supplementary questions, why did you not rule out of order, as the Table Office has done in respect of the original Question, the questions in supplementary form which you have allowed today? There seems to be an inconsistency here. May we have a Ruling from you on the subject?
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me further and better particulars, I will certainly look into the matter and rule upon it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 22ND MARCH, TUESDAY, 23RD MARCH, and WEDNESDAY, 24TH MARCH—Industrial Relations Bill: Completion of remaining stages (4th, 5th and 6th Allotted Days).
THURSDAY, 25TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
FRIDAY, 26TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 29TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of a particular point which I would like him to consider, namely, that when the House comes to debate Statutory Instrument 340 on the
1650
National Health Service (Charges) Regulation, 1971, to which we shall be tabling a Prayer, it would not be for the convenience of the House if that debate were confined to one and a half hours at the end of the day. Will he endeavour to see that more time is provided for that debate? If he cannot answer this question now, will he undertake to give it his consideration?
In regard to Thursday's debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, which I understand is not the normal one but is a Measure designed to mop up Supplementary Estimates, while you, Mr. Speaker, will rule on what will and will not be in order in that debate, would it not be helpful to the Leader of the House if you were to indicate how far the House and individual constituency hon. Members will be permitted to go in debating this subject, since in general one can debate only the reasons for the increase? As one of the reasons is a new payment in respect of Rolls-Royce, could it be confirmed that on Second Reading we shall he able to debate Rolls-Royce?
Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if I were to say now what I had intended to say later, which is that in the debate on Thursday, 25th March, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9.30 on the morning of Wednesday, 24th March, their names and the topics which they wish to raise. The Ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. Hon. Members should give their full name plus the topic. Hon. Members may hand in only their own names and topics.
The Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill includes the Defence Vote on Account for the financial year 1971–72, House of Commons Paper No. 234, certain Civil Supplementary Estimates for the current year set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 232, 292, and 301, certain Defence Supplementary Estimates for the current year contained in House of Commons Paper No. 231 and excesses on the Civil Estimates for 1969–70 as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 313. It will be in order on Second Reading of the Bill to raise topics falling within the ambit of the expenditure proposed in these papers. I shall put out the result of the Ballot later on Wednesday, 24th March.
Mr. Whitelaw: I thank you for that announcement, Mr. Speaker, which will help me very much indeed.
The answer to the first point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is that of course I appreciate the importance of the subject and I am grateful for the way in which he raised it. I will do my best to meet the point he put. Perhaps I may have further discussions about it.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I renew with my right hon. Friend a request which has been made on several occasions, namely, that we should as soon as possible have a debate on the Report on Defence Research from the Select Committee on Science and Technology?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the point my hon. Friend puts. I am afraid I cannot see an opportunity to do so before Easter, but I have noted the importance of the subject.
Mr. George Thomas: Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion on the Order Paper dealing with the freedom of religious expression on the B.B.C.?
[That this House, believing that the free expression of religious views on current controversial issues is an essential part of our democratic way of life, deplores the surrender by the British Broadcasting Corporation to Government pressure following the religious broadcast made on 1st March by the Reverend Dr. Colin Morris; and strongly supports the Reverend Dr. Rupert Davies, President of the Methodist Conference, in his request for an inquiry into the extent to which limitations are placed on religious broadcasters.]
In view of the importance of ensuring that the Government are not able to decide who shall give religious broadcasts and what they shall say, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to provide an opportunity for a debate on this subject, because the treatment which Dr. Morris has received is monstrous?
Mr. Whitelaw: What it does with its programmes and what is in them is rightly and properly—the House has always recognised this to be so—within the jurisdiction of the B.B.C. [Interruption.] Wait a minute. I am coming to the rest of the question. That is the answer to the first part: that the B.B.C.
1652
is responsible for what is in its programmes. It is also responsible for taking decisions to maintain a proper political balance in those programmes. [Interruption.] I never noticed that the Labour Party was particularly slow in objecting to various parts of the B.B.C.'s programmes.
Mr. Braine: As British Railways has announced massive increases in rail fares, to take effect from 28th March, without giving an adequate explanation of why these increases are being levied on commuter lines which have never been subsidised, may I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange for the Minister of Transport to make a statement to the House next week or else to provide time for us to debate the matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the importance of the matter which my hon. Friend raises, and I will see that the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Transport is drawn to his comments.
Mr. Edward Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the breakdown in the teachers' pay negotiations and the concern that is felt among all hon. Members about the present position? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall be in touch with my right hon. Friend and will speak to her about the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. If appropriate, she will, of course, make a statement.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to speed up publication of the list of those who will serve on the Franks Committee to investigate the Official Secrets Act? The House would like to know the names of those who will serve, and perhaps we can take a step forward to more open government.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend about that.
Mr. Maclennan: When will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food clear up the confusion which has been created through the failure of his Ministry to observe statutory obligations in regard to the laying of a scheme

1653
for fisheries grants? Will the Government provide time for this subject to be debated in Government time so that they can clear up the highly ambiguous and misleading remarks that were made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture about the evaluation of costs in the Annual Price Review?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I promised last week that my right hon. Friend would make a statement, and he will do so. I cannot say when, but I promised that it would be as soon as possible. I said that last week, and it will be so.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I was not aware of the point which he has raised, but I shall look into it and speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about it.
Captain W. Elliot: When will the Navy and Air Estimates be debated? Second, when the debates take place, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they are not curtailed as was the debate on the Army Estimates?
Mr. Whitelaw: They will both take place after Easter, and I shall certainly do my best to ensure that they are not curtailed.
Mr. Pardoe: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's answer just now on the question of political interference in B.B.C. broadcasts, is he aware that there are some of us in the House who are not happy that the fact that the previous Labour Government, now the Opposition, did something which was evil and monstrous should be regarded as a satisfactory excuse for his Government doing the same now? In view of the contraction of the alternative media, namely, the Press, into fewer and fewer hands, is there not the danger of increasing concentration of the power of the media in the hands of the State through television and radio, and will the Leader of the House, therefore, ensure that on every future occasion when a member of the Government interferes with the freedom of the media a statement about it is made to the House of Commons?
Mr. Whitelaw: Since I had considerable responsibilities in this matter over
1654
a long time, perhaps I might just tell the hon. Gentleman that what he says is not strictly true. The B.B.C. is responsible for its own programmes, and it is responsible also, as is the I.T.A., for providing political balance. All parties are entitled to complain—I should be surprised if I discovered that the Liberal Party have never complained at any time —if they think that the balance has been wrong.
Mr. Orme: Or not.
Mr. Whitelaw: Or not—yes, I shall come to that. They are entitled to complain. If they do, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are fully entitled either to agree with their complaint or to reject it. I think that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will find, if he looks back to the time when I was Opposition Chief Whip, that there have never been fewer complaints from any one party in such a period of time.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since on the 5th Day allotted to the Industrial Relations Bill there could be, I am given to understand, as many as 197 Divisions, requiring 17 hours, and since the country as a whole will be watching with close attention to see whether this House sets an example in the resolution of its own conflicts—which both sides constantly preach to the country—could my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has sought through the usual channels to achieve a rational and positive solution to this problem, or, if the usual channels are still blocked, whether he will seek to unblock them, or, if he fails to do that, whether he will at least ensure that some charity benefits from the marathon?
Mr. Whitelaw: I would only say that each hon. Member is responsible for the actions which he takes. I am quite happy to leave it there.
Mr. Kelley: Will the Leader of the House provide time before the Easter Recess to debate the threat to our fuel supplies arising out of the present situation in the Middle East?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the extreme importance of the matter which the hon. Gentleman raises. I do not think that in the present situation a debate would be appropriate, but my right hon. Friends concerned will

1655
naturally wish to keep the House informed, as appropriate.
Mr. Burden: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the last Conservative Government showed their concern for the conditions in which animals in research establishments are treated and set up the Littlewood Committee, which reported almost four years ago. Can he now say that there will be a debate on that Committee's Report in the not too distant future?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot add anything to what I have said to my hon. Friend in the past, except that I shall continue to do my best.
Mr. Lipton: In order to reduce the extent to which the Order Paper is cluttered up with stale Questions, will the Leader of the House soon give effect to the recommendation of the Procedure Committee to reduce the period of notice from 21 days to 10?
Mr. Whitelaw: I hope to put a Motion down on the Order Paper on that matter before Easter.
Captain Orr: In view of the very grave turn of events in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend please take note that we may require an urgent debate early next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the importance of the matter which my hon. and gallant friend raises. I would only say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, I know, wish to keep the House as fully informed as possible.
Mr. Callaghan: On another topic, as the citizens of Carlisle are anxiously waiting for the benefits of cheaper beer and beer of higher specific gravity which will result from denationalising the State enterprise, could the Leader of the House give the reason for the delay in producing that excellent Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because my constituents have a small and passing interest in the matter as well. The Bill will be brought forward for Second Reading shortly.
Mr. Laurance Reed: Can my right hon. Friend yet say when legislation will
1656
be introduced concerning the safety of rigs and platforms operating in the marine environment, and, when fixing the date, will he bear in mind that the "Sea Gem" inquiry which recommended such legislation is now more than two years out of date and that we are about to have a rapid expansion in off-shore activities in the northernmost part of the North Sea?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. I cannot give the information for which he asks, but I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Carter: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the motor industry so that the Prime Minister may explain why he believes that, apart from the introduction of American law, we have anything more to learn from the American motor car industry, which in the not too distant past used the law of the gun to impose its form of industrial relations?
Mr. Whitelaw: I could not promise time for such a debate, but it seems to me that there are ample opportunities for raising just such questions in many of the debates already announced.
Mr. Ridsdale: Could I press the request already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) for an early debate on transport policy, especially in view of the rising fares which commuters are having to face due to escalating railway costs?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the point which my hon. Friend makes. I have nothing to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East.
Mr. Dalyell: In view of the seizure in California of five RB211 engines and their legal attachment, could we have an early statement on this particular aspect of Rolls-Royce?
Mr. Whitelaw: In view of the legal issues involved, I must first say that I do not necessarily accept the full import of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to his remarks.
Dame Irene Ward: For the third week running, I ask my right hon. Friend when we are to have the Shipbuilding Bill, and more particularly since a rather

1657
odd speech was made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which is rather difficult to interpret. It would help everyone in the shipbuilding and shipping world if we knew when we should debate the Bill, for we could then find out what the Secretary of State really meant.
Mr. Whitelaw: Without commenting on the various other points which she put, I can only say to my hon. Friend that, just as she has asked me that question over the last three weeks, I am afraid that I must give her the same answer as I have given in the past three weeks, which is, "Very soon".
Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), there may or may not, for all we know, be a statement made in the Stormont Parliament this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for that, of course, but since the matters involved are ultimately the responsibility of this House, will he take it that we should have preferred a statement to this House to be made concurrently. If that is not possible, we shall expect a statement immediately following, at the earliest possible moment, the statement made in the Stormont. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, if the Stormont statement is today, we shall have a statement on these matters tomorrow?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think it fair to say that in the sort of situation in Northern Ireland all parts of this House have in the past, very rightly, shown forbearance and, while always wanting statements, have forborne to have them if they could, perhaps, make the situation worse in any way. I am very grateful for the forbearance which the House has shown in this matter. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep the House as fully informed as possible, and will make a statement when that is appropriate. I do not think that I can promise one tomorrow.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. While I appreciate the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, there is an important point in connection with the matter the Leader of the Liberal Party has raised. There has already appeared on the tapes, concurrent, I believe, with the statement being made in Stormont, though I am open to correction on that, the news that 1,300 men were going to Belfast and that there was to be no internment. That sort of statement should have been made in this House, and the Home Secretary could have made it to me when I put my supplementary question to him earlier.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and the very courteous and proper way in which he has put it. I shall call this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Callaghan: Some of us have forborne from pressing the Home Secretary, because he has given assurances both publicly and in other ways that there is to be no departure from the principles he laid down in the House only a fortnight ago, but if by any chance a statement in Stormont should depart from those principles I trust that the Leader of the House will ask his right hon. Friend to make a further statement tomorrow.
Mr. Whitelaw: My remarks about forbearance were directed to the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Front Bench, and indeed all hon. Members. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is grateful to them. If there is any question of a departure from the principles my right hon. Friend laid down, I will speak to him and of course he will wish to keep the House informed thereafter.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that there has been a Thursday on which the Chair has been in greater difficulty. There is to be a statement and then a debate on the steel industry, and I have had many requests from hon. Members from all parts of the country to speak in that debate. I therefore hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I pass on to the next business.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the meeting with the European Economic Community which I attended in Brussels on 16th March.
We noted the progress that continues to be made in meetings at the level of the Deputies, and in discussions with the Commission, on a number of questions such as capital movements, fiscal harmonisation, the modalities of British participation in the European Investment Bank, the method of agricultural transition—
Mr. Marten: On a point of order. I apologise for interrupting my right hon. and learned Friend, but we cannot hear what he is saying. Could he please start again?
Mr. Rippon: If that is the wish of the House, I will start again.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the meeting with the European Economic Community which I attended in Brussels on 16th March.
We noted the progress that continues to be made in meetings at the level of the Deputies, and in discussions with the Commission, on a number of questions such as capital movements, fiscal harmonisation, the modalities of British participation in the European Investment Bank, the method of agricultural transition, and the question of tariff quotas on certain commodities of importance to British industry. We noted also that exploratory contacts on the Community's common fisheries policy, which are without prejudice to our position generally on this issue, would continue between the Commission and the British Delegation.
I reiterated to the meeting the importance of the problems of New Zealand and of sugar from the developing Commonwealth. On the latter I recalled the extent of the dependence of these countries on sugar; the impossibility of their being able to diversify their production in the foreseeable future; the fact that this is not only an economic
1660
but a human problem with alternative employment to that in the sugar industry difficult to find; the need for certainty about future markets in order to assure the necessary financial credits; and the need to ensure the economic and political stability of the countries concerned.
On New Zealand I stressed that, as with sugar, we were not seeking special economic benefits for the United Kingdom but provisions for reasonable access by New Zealand for dairy products to the enlarged Community as a whole. Nor were we seeking permanent arrangements for New Zealand's dairy produce, but continuing arrangements subject to review. I emphasised the efficiency of the New Zealand industry, the extent of her dependence on those exports, and the difficulty in the way of diversification either of products or of markets.
I felt certain that on both these questions an acceptable and equitable solution was essential, not least in the interest of the enlarged Community's relationships with the outside world.
M. Schumann, speaking on behalf of the Community, said that it was accepted in principle that special arrangements needed to be made to deal with each of these problems.
I noted that the Community had proposed for agricultural transition a period of somewhat over four years proceeding in five steps. I recalled that we had said we needed a full five years for this process. We shall have to revert to this question.
I reminded the Community that we were still waiting for its proposals on the question of our contribution to the Community's budget.
I suggested that it was entirely reasonable and possible that we should reach agreement on the main issues at or shortly after the next Ministerial meeting. It was agreed that the Ministerial meeting already scheduled for 11th May should be extended to include also the afternoon of 12th May; and that a further Ministerial meeting might be arranged for later in May. Meetings of Deputies will in the meantime take place regularly to prepare the ground for these Ministerial meetings.
It was certainly disappointing that, in the absence of any proposals from the

1661
Community, it was not possible to make progress at Tuesday's meeting. But I think that the agreement that Ministers should meet for a longer period in May reflects the feeling of the Conference that real progress should be possible in that month, not only on the sort of issues I mentioned at the outset of this statement but on the major decisions which are crucial to the success of the negotiations.
The House will know that earlier this month I visited Ottawa and Washington for discussions with the Canadian and United States Governments, both of which have a close interest in our negotiations for entry into the Community.
Mr. Orme: When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us something?
Mr. Rippon: On 5th March I met Canadian Ministers, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce, and discussed with them the specific aspects of the negotiations which relate to Canada. In particular we discussed the problems of the Caribbean. I emphasised our belief that an enlarged Community would be in the interest of all the members of the Commonwealth, and our desire to work for liberal trading policies towards third countries.
We also discussed agricultural questions, linked with the introduction of the interim levy scheme about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement to the House yesterday.
On 8th March I met members of the United States Administration, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce; and, at the White House, Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Peterson. In Washington my talks covered much the same ground as in Ottawa.
I emphasised the need for satisfactory arrangements for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries in the event of our entry into the Community. I said that it seemed to me that association of these countries with an enlarged Community would be the best means of securing their interests, but that they should not, as I told the House on 22nd February, be obliged to choose in any way between Europe and the United States. The
1662
Americans are of course concerned about their trade with these countries, and I hope that I succeeded in allaying some of their anxieties.
As in Ottawa, I discussed with the United States' Administration the Government's interim levy scheme. For the longer term we also discussed the possible commercial effects on the United States, particularly in the agricultural field, of the enlargement of the Community.
In Canada and the United States I found that both Governments reaffirmed their traditional support for our efforts to join the Community.
Mr. Milne: On a point of order. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has treated the House with such scant respect with his statement, may we appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to have a debate on the issues raised by him before negotiations take place during May?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, and the Chair must be very careful about sticking its neck out, if that is what a Chair does. It might be considered whether a statement such as we have just heard could be made in a different way, or at a different time.
Mr. Orme: It was absolutely disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not made a statement he would have been subject to criticism, but there are difficulties on a day like this. Perhaps it would be better if other methods could be found of giving such information, because we have a very busy day's business ahead and very many hon. Members want to speak. Therefore, I hope that I shall be interpreting the will of the House correctly if I am pretty tough on supplementary questions.
Mr. Harold Lever: I shall be brief. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that we on this side of the House welcome the firm position taken up on the questions of New Zealand and sugar. But will he keep in mind that what we shall judge the matter upon is not firm interim statements but firm actual deals done on these subjects which satisfactorily protect the interests

1663
of New Zealand and the Caribbean countries?
While I welcome the orientation of the latter part of his statement, emphasising the need for Europe to play its full part in world relationships and world trade, again will he bear in mind that the criteria which we shall apply will be what is actually achieved in this direction rather than statements, however brief, in the meantime?
Mr. Rippon: I shall certainly bear those criteria in mind. As you and the House will know, Mr. Speaker, the criterion I have borne in mind is the insistence of the House that I should make a statement as soon as I returned from Brussels, and this I have done.
Mr. Turton: Are we to understand from my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that on only two subjects, New Zealand lamb and butter and sugar from the developing countries, are we asking for more than transitional relief? Is he aware that the vast majority of his fellow countrymen believe that too much of the negotiating position has already been surrendered?
Mr. Rippon: I followed very much the negotiating procedure and the matters which were raised by the former Government. There has been no departure from our arrangements in this matter.
Mr. Oram: In the early part of his statement, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to progress in fiscal harmonisation. Did discussions on that matter include the question of value-added tax? What progress has been made in that respect? What estimate has he made of the increased cost of living as a result of the progress he has made?
Mr. Rippon: We have asked for a five-year transitional period. There is no harmonisation within the Community on a value-added tax. The effect on the cost of living would depend on the rate of tax and the commodities on which it was levied.
Sir T. Beamish: Is it understood in Paris that trying to drive too hard a bargain could be just as effective a veto as a straight "No"?
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that after this last meeting it is well understood in
1664
France and elsewhere that we must make substantial progress fairly soon.
Mr. James Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's alleged statement was simply a calendar of his visits on both sides of the Atlantic. Even those of us who did not hurl abuse at him feel that he insulted the House by it. But I heard the word "fisheries". Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman honestly fighting the battle of our fishermen in the negotiations? Does he tell his colleagues in the negotiations that inshore fishing, particularly in Scotland, faces total disaster if we enter on the terms of the common fisheries policy? Does he say that? Does he honestly fight for us? We do not believe that he does.
Mr. Rippon: As to the nature of the statement, I was very much pressed by the House to follow the practice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in earlier negotiations in the way in which I gave the statements. That is what I have done. I do not think it is very easy to complain now, but I shall try to make shorter statements in the future, if that is the wish of the House, or to delay them, if that is regarded as more satisfactory.
I have made it perfectly clear that the Government have reserved their position on the fisheries policies. I have had a great many representations on the subject, and I know the strength of feeling on it.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: When my right hon. and learned Friend expresses optimism about the solution of what he calls the main issues, would not he agree that whatever the previous Government did or failed to do the major issues lie beyond the transitional period, and that only if the scope of the negotiations is enlarged to include these can there be any possibility of allaying the concern of the British people about entry?
Mr. Rippon: Many wider issues must be borne in mind in determining our ultimate view on the matter, wider issues which go far beyond the immediate transitional difficulties which we are trying to sort out.
Dr. Gilbert: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that both the scope and even the direction of the

1665
alleged dynamic effects of our entry would depend very much on the state of our economy at the time of our contemplated entry? Has he taken this into account both as to the question of timing and as to the substance of the Government's decision? Can he tell us where the Government think the break-even point will come and below what level of economic activity in this country the dynamic effects in the end will go to the Germans and Italians and not to us?
Mr. Rippon: We shall be able to enjoy the dynamic effects provided we are able to negotiate fair transitional arrangements.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us appreciate the comprehensive statement he has made and the patience and tenacity with which he has pursued these negotiations in difficult circumstances? I express the hope that he will concentrate on coffee rather than cognac and get these negotiations through to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure the House will believe me when I say that I try to make these statements in a form which I hope will be acceptable to the House, and I take note of any criticisms about their form and content. But I have been pressed very much in the past to make statements as soon as I return from Brussels. The occasion fell today and I have made a statement. I also agree that it is important now that we should make substantial progress pretty quickly.
Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of us understand that his inability to give the House any news results in large part from the refusal of the French Government to allow the Six to adopt a negotiating position on the major issues, and that the behaviour of the French Government in paralysing these negotiations is leading many objective observers to the conclusion that they wish to prevent our application from succeeding for the third time? Will he make it clear to those with whom he is negotiating that if substantial progress is not made in the main negotiations the patience of
1666
this House, irrespective of the views of right hon. and hon. Members, will be exhausted?
Mr. Rippon: I never blame any particular member of the Community for the delays in putting forward their proposals. I have always acknowledged that France has a particular interest, like other countries, including ourselves, in many of the difficult and complex details. I would certainly rather the Community failed to reach conclusions quickly than that they reached wrong conclusions. But I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we are entitled now to expect the Community to put forward reasonable proposals on the main issues which have now been before it for some time.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I should tell the House that in the steel debate there are to be four Front Bench speeches and that over 20 hon. Members have asked to be called. We must get on.

PACIFIC AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION (RB211)
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent matter of public importance, namely,
"The seizure of five Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, valued at £2 million, held at the factory of the Pacific Airmotive Corporation in California."
I regret to take up the time of the House on this matter, but I must do so in view of the reply given by the Leader of the House and the absence of a statement by the Government. The matter is specific because the Whittaker Corporation claims that Rolls-Royce owes it about £335,000 under a contract to supply Rolls-Royce with nickel. It has obtained a court order for legal attachment of the engines, which are physically in the possession of the Pacific Airmotive Corporation, a company which does maintenance work on the engines, after they have arrived from Britain and before they go to the Lockheed Plant at Palmdale.

1667
The Whittaker Corporation has instituted other proceedings against Rolls-Royce in United States States other than California, in Canada, in Japan and in France. These proceedings involve the American distributors of Rolls-Royce cars, they involve S.N.E.C.M.A., the French engine makers, for work on the M45 turbo-fan, and may affect Rolls-Royce engines supplied for the Concorde.
I am sure that every hon. Member will appreciate the importance of this grim development. This action and action against Rolls-Royce customers could have powerful consequences for the new Rolls-Royce company which will inherit the defence contracts, and in the opinion of some lawyers could open the flood gates for legal action against Rolls-Royce products and Rolls-Royce customers all over the world. The consequences for British industry as a whole, once the matter is in the United States courts, of such a multitude of legal wrangles does not bear contemplating. It could involve years of litigation with uncertain results.
I say to those hon. Members desperately concerned about the debate following on steel who may wonder about the urgency of the matter that I would not have raised it now had it not been immediately urgent. I will confine myself to only two of the reasons why it is so urgent.
First, it is urgent that we know before advising the desperately worried subcontractors whether what Whittaker is up to represents a practice recognised in international law in dealing with bankruptcies. Secondly, those hon. Members who feel that the renegotiation of the RB211 contract is the only path for the Government to take, who are worried
1668
that no serious approach has been made by the Government to world airlines, to airlines' bankers or even to our own B.E.A., as potential customers, and must therefore doubt the seriousness of purpose of the Government in renegotiating, feel that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of expressing its general will before it is too late. Monday or Tuesday next may be too late, and that is why I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 now.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention. He asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 in order to discuss a specific and urgent matter of public importance, namely,
"The seizure of five Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, valued at £2 million, held at the factory of the Pacific Airmotive Corporation in California."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into occount the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Gentleman has made about a matter which merits very careful consideration, but I have decided that I cannot submit his application to the House.

PACIFIC AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION (RB211)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That, in the case of the Questions which under the provisions of paragraphs (7) and (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith at Ten o'clock, he shall this day put such Questions forthwith as soon as the House has entered upon the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered
  Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put by paragraphs (7) and (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

VOTE A: NUMBERS
Question,
That 87,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service, for the year ending on 31st March, 1972.
put and agreed to.

VOTE A: NUMBERS
Question,
That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen not exceeding 113,900, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service; that a number not exceeding 14,385 all ranks, be maintained for the Royal Air Force Reserve; and that a number not exceeding 400, all ranks, be maintained for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, during the year ending on 31st March, 1972.
put and agreed to.

VOTE ON ACCOUNT
Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £851,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence for the year ending on 31st March, 1972, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 234.
put and agreed to.

CIVIL AND DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1970–71
Question,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £335,429,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1971, for expenditure on Civil and Defence Services, of which notice has been given under paragraph (9) of Standing Order No. 18.
put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, (EXCESSES), 1969–70
Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,272, 386·49, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended 31st March, 1970, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 313.
put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the third, fourth and fifth of the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Patrick Jenkin.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1970, 1971 and 1972, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to hon. Members for these preliminaries, but without them we could not have the debate on the steel industry.

STEEL INDUSTRY
Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: Unfortunately, we have only a short time for this debate. I emphasise at once that we on this side, and, I hope, hon. Members opposite, regard the subject as one of extreme national importance, particularly in view of the shocking and, as I would describe them, shameful unemployment figures published today.
We are concerned about the future of a great British industry. We are concerned about the livelihood of many of our constituents, particularly on this side of the House since we represent most of the steel constituencies. If in my speech the famous name of Ebbw Vale intrudes into what I have to say, I know that my hon. Friends will forgive me. What we are all seeking to do is to bring to the attention of the House of Commons and the Government the fears, the passions, the uncertainties and the agonised controversies which now grip every steel town in the country.
I begin with some of the awkward financial facts which we must face. The British Steel Corporation made a profit in the first six months of the current year of some £30 million, but it is now heading for an overall deficit during the year of probably £25 million. During recent months costs have risen at a figure of well over £100 million a year, and if that position were to continue without any remedy in the forthcoming year the probability is that the loss of the Corporation might amount to as much as £125 million. That is a bleak prospect and one for which remedies have to be provided. But one of the things we are concerned about in this House is that panic measures should not be advocated, much less taken, in order to deal with such a situation, and I would first like to put some of the difficulties in another and perfectly legitimate perspective.
There is the question of the financial situation which the Corporation inherited. I shall not go over the old controversies about the state of the industry, although we would be willing to do so. But if one takes the 13 companies
1672
taken over by the Corporation in 1967, under the new and better form of accountancy which the Corporation has applied to the industry their collective loss would amount to something like £56 million in the last year under the old owners.
However the figures of the losses of the Steel Corporation are taken, including the £25 million loss this year, it did not make as big a loss as in the last years under the old companies. The last fact which puts the figures in a slightly different perspective is that if the Corporation had been permitted—and whether it should have been is a matter for argument—over the past two or three years to charge the same prices as those which have prevailed on the Continent of Europe, it would have had an extra revenue of £200 million, which again would put these figures in a somewhat different perspective.
That does not mean that we do not have to remedy the situation. We have, but it puts a different light on matters. I dare say that this is one of the major factors that has to be taken into account in deciding upon the application which I understand the Corporation has made to the Government about a price increase.
Over the past year or so, or at any rate until fairly recently, there has also been another picture in the steel industry, a hopeful and adventurous one. That was the picture that the steel industry presented through the investment programme which the Corporation has spent much of its time devising. It is a £3,000 million programme designed to raise production in the steel industry from the present level of something like 25 million tons to 42 million tons by the year 1980—a most comprehensive and ambitious programme and, as some of us believe, one that should have been embarked upon many years earlier.
If the programme is carried through it makes a startling change in the industrial affairs of this country, because over the past 15 years or so the annual percentage increase in production in the steel industry has only been about 2·6 per cent. or 2·8 per cent., a derisory figure. If this plan were put through it could be built up to 6 per cent., 7 per cent., 8 per cent. or more. It would begin to make the steel industry, while not exactly comparable with the Japanese

1673
industry, at least one to be thought of in a similar context.
That was a hopeful development. Throughout the country what the Corporation did was to propose methods, to have discussions with the different industries and plants as to how that development programme could be carried into effect. Undertakings, proposals and commitments have been made by the British Steel Corporation and, in my opinion, this was one of the most hopeful developments that had taken place in the industry for generations.
My accusation against the Government in the debate is that they have done nothing to assist those hopeful developments but have begun a whole series of measures which have injured the position. I know that the Prime Minister never likes to accept responsibility for anything done by his Government. What I propose to deal with are measures taken by the present Government which have influenced the position of the Steel Corporation. I do not say that everything the Corporation does is right by any means. I do not say that every detail in the development programme is right. Many of my hon. Friends have criticisms to make of particular parts, but I believe it should have been a major responsibility of a Government genuinely concerned with the prospects of a great industry of this character to assist in the development programme.
Soon after the General Election the exchanges started between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his Department and the Corporation on the whole question of the structure of industry. Ever since, for about nine months, a large part of the energies and resources of the Corporation have had to be devoted to the task of dealing with the proposals or suggestions or innuendoes or rumours circulated by hon. Gentlemen opposite about cutting off this part of the industry or that part of the industry.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies)indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell us whether or not reports have been required by him from the Corporation dealing with these matters. Does he not think
1674
that a large part of the time of the Corporation has been spent dealing with these matters? We all know that it has been going on. Perhaps he will tell us who in the whole country has been in favour of the dismantling of the present structure of the Corporation? It is not the City of London, it is not the C.B.I.—the right hon. Gentleman can tell us about that—and it is certainly not the T.U.C. or the trade unions, or those who work in the industry.
I have talked to people working in the industry throughout the country over the past weeks and months and there is one proposition above all others on which they are agreed: they want an end to the uncertainty about the structure of the industry. This is the view expressed to me not just by people who happen to agree with me politically but by people who are Conservatives, by those who are working in the industry—and there are a lot of Conservatives working in the industry—in management and elsewhere. All of them without exception say "For heaven's sake let the Corporation get on with the job of carrying through the development programme".
Perhaps I can say a word or two in parentheses about Lord Melchett, the head of the Steel Corporation. I do not want to say anything too friendly about him which could do him damage with the Government, but I think it would be churlish of me not to point out that when Lord Melchett was appointed to his position as head of the Corporation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) I did not heap upon my right hon. Friend the bouquets that I always like to offer him—with which I normally tried to sustain the last Government when they were engaged in good works.
I am quite ready to acknowledge now that he was right and I was wrong—a most staggering development, almost unique in modern parliamentary history. I say, quite seriously, that I believe that the steel industry at this critical time in its development has the good fortune to be led by a man of courage, honesty and intelligent judgment, a man who has, despite all these difficulties, gained great support throughout the country among management and unions. This part of what I say I say officially on behalf of representatives of the Steel Committee of

1675
the T.U.C. who saw me and said this. In these circumstances of the industry it seems a considerable achievement of management, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that if Lord Melchett were forced out of his position by pressure from the Government it would be a calamity for the industry.
I hope that one result of this debate will be that we will end this tomfoolery about carving up the structure of the Corporation and that the Corporation under the leadership of Lord Melchett will be enabled to go ahead with the real task of carrying through the modernisation of the steel industry.
I come to some of the other measures which have been taken by the Government—things for which they cannot blame anyone else. These are measures which have imposed fresh burdens on the steel industry. There is the abolition of the investment grants, likely to cost the Steel Corporation £100 million in a full year. The investment programmes of the Corporation are proposed to run at something like £300 million a year. Investment grants amount to a third of that figure.
I do not know what discussions the hon. Gentleman had with the Corporation before he decided to abolish the investment grants. Perhaps he will tell us. He should have had discussions, because the fact that investment grants play such a major part in the Corporation's finances is an indication of the major part which the operations of the Corporation play in the activities and hopes of all the development areas. The Corporation will be denied that assistance in carrying through its development programme unless the Government put forward alternative financial proposals which offer it equally good prospects.
Then there are the proposals which have not been fully carried into effect—we have been told about them in the way in which the Government carry out their operations—for ending the control over the export of scrap. I do not know whether those proposals will be carried through. If they are, they will add another £20 or £25 million to the Corporation's burden.
There is also the question of dealing with the jagged edges between the dif-
1676
ferent parts of the industry. It is a question, not of hiving off, but of hiving off slightly and hiving on in respect of proposals which the Corporation put to the Labour Government before they went out of office to which it has had no answer from the present Government.
All those measures, together with the uncertainties about the structure, are making it much more difficult for the Corporation to do its job. However, formidable though they may be in creating difficulties for the Corporation, they pale beside the other measures which the Government have been taking, particularly in recent months, such as the merciless financial squeeze which has been applied to the steel industry, and the day-to-day interference in its borrowing operations which has meant that in some weeks the Corporation has not known from where it would get the money to pay the wages.
We saw one of the most spectacular consequences of the Government's measures last week with the announcement of 2,600 redundancies in many of the steel areas. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he expects another 5,000 to be added to that total. What the Government have been doing in this respect, worse even than all the measures I have described, is to impose such an economic squeeze on the Corporation that it has had to make its closures earlier than it had calculated. I understand many of the investment projects are being postponed as a result of direct representations by the Government. If that is so, it could go far towards wrecking the whole development programme. The idea of the development programme is that the run-down in certain parts of the industry should take place only in parallel with the build up in other parts of it. That was the proposition put to us in Ebbw Vale.
Do not let anyone talk as if all these developments will not mean awkward changes. Over a considerable period there will be a big reduction in the number of people working in the industry. The Minister knows that the steel unions and the people working not merely in London but in the different areas have been prepared to accept the proposals because they realised they were sensible. But if one says, particularly under Government pressure, that one proposes to alter the intelligent calculated pace of

1677
the development programme by making the closures much faster and by postponing the investment projects, one will wreck the whole development scheme of the Corporation and will stir furious anger in all the steel towns.
Mr. Christopher Tugendhat Mr. Christopher Tugendhat (Cities of London and Westminster) rose—
Mr. Foot: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know how much steel is produced in the City of London.
Mr. Tugendhat Mr. Tugendhat rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) must resume his seat.
Mr. Foot: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak and I do not wish to speak at great length. The hon. Member and everyone else in the House knows that I normally give way, but this is a very abbreviated debate and I want to address my remarks to the people directly involved.
Mr. Tugendhat: The hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.
Mr. Foot: I want answers from the right hon. Gentleman about the Government's attitude to the various investment proposals put forward in the development plan by the Corporation. He had better give them to us in detail because of the suspicions and rumours which have been spread.
What is the position in Shotton? What will happen at Ravenscraig? What will happen at East Moors in Cardiff to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred in the Welsh Grand Committee? I am sure that what my right hon. Friend said has been reported to the Minister. What will happen at Rotherham and Llanwern? A document was issued by the Corporation only a few days ago, on 4th March, saying:
"Llanwern development is given the go-ahead".
1678
Are the Government trying to hold up the development? Let the Secretary of State tell us exactly the position. Let him tell us whether he is in favour of all these development programmes or whether the Government have a new kind of surveillance over them. If the Government intervene and prevent the Corporation from carrying out these carefully devised schemes, they will face a very grave industrial situation.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: More threats.
Mr. Foot: I will tell the hon. Gentleman where the threats come from. There are threats to the employment of people in Ebbw Vale and to the people of Wales and elsewhere as a result of Government "leaks". I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman read the article in the Economist of 13th March in which it was asked:
"Is British steel really worth an investment of £3 billion?"
Let us have the answer from the Minister. The Economist says:
"A Cabinet office study on the plan is now sufficiently advanced for Mr. John Davies to postpone any other scheme for hiving off …"
The Minister shakes his head. We shall be glad to hear that there is no such study. Perhaps his hon. Friends do these things without telling him. When the journalists in Fleet Street telephoned the right hon. Gentleman's office to find out whether this was true they were told that such a study was indeed proceeding. We shall see.
The question raised by the doubts which the Government have cast on the development programme of the industry is this: are we to have a steel industry at all? Perhaps I can give what I believe to he the proper answer to that question, taking my constituency as an illustration.
Ebbw Vale over its history happens to provide classic refutation of the doctrine of rigid laissez faire economics which seems to be so lovingly accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let me explain. In the 1920s and the 1930s the iron and steel works at Ebbw Vale was silent. That was at a time when this country largely lost its industrial pre-eminence by allowing other countries to provide much more steel at the elbows of their workers than we did in this country.

1679
This happened because of the ultra-cautious investment policies of those who believed that there were considerations which were much more important than carrying through the expansion of a great industry.
However, at the end of that period, in Ebbw Vale, a new industry with new methods, which were eventually adopted in the rest of the country, started largely as a result of the industrial genius of William Firth and those who supported him. We remember very well that, because the Government of the day could not see a swift early profit, they wanted to strangle that industry before it even started. The ugly bird had scarcely been allowed to escape from its shell when some of the wise people in the City and the Conservative Ministers were shaking their heads and saying, "Is it really wise for us to try to keep this lame duck alive?" Fortunately it was kept alive, and the steel industry of Ebbw Vale helped to win the Second World War. Up until recent months—[Laughter.]—I do not know what hon. Gentlemen are laughing about. We are concerned about a great industry and the employment of our people. In Ebbw Vale, which I use as an illustration, thanks to the fact that we went ahead with bold and adventurous investment, despite all the cautionary cries from Conservative vested interests at the time, that great industry was sustained and continued to make a profit right up to the last few months, when the blizzards which were blowing in the steel industry all over Europe swept across our country as well.
We are facing the same question that we had to face then. Are we to have a real steel industry in this country at all? That is the question which the Government have to decide. If we are to have such a steel industry, we must have the £3 billion investment programme that the Steel Corporation has devised and which it has largely agreed with trade unions and others throughout the country. If that programme is to be carried into effect—
Mr. Peter Rost Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East) rose—
Mr. Foot: I cannot give way. I want people from the steel constituencies to speak in this debate. If we are to carry that programme into effect, the Govern-
1680
ment must be prepared to provide for the Steel Corporation the resources it needs to carry out the programme. In the next few months the Government may have to decide whether we are to have a steel industry at all. We on this side of the House have already given our answer. Indeed, many of the projects to which I have referred are projects which were approved by the Labour Government. The general programme commanded the support of hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends. Our answer to the question is clear. It would be industrial defeatism of the most dangerous kind for the Government to refuse to the Steel Corporation the resources to carry out its programme.
We are concerned about the welfare of this great industry and the livelihood of our people, and I hope that even at this eleventh hour the right hon. Gentleman will speak today in the interests of the steel industry, which are so closely concerned with the interests of the nation. Let him not tell us that the difficulties suffered by the steel industry are the same as the difficulties from which the rest of the country is suffering. It is partly true, of course. There is a squeeze everywhere. Let him not say, "Why should the steel industry complain about being stuck in the mud?". Do not the Government know that they are steering the whole national economy into the ditch? That is not a good excuse.
The best way for the Government to deal with this economic situation is by building up the investment of the nation. I thought we were all agreed that the investment of the nation should be expanded. In the last few weeks, and in the last few days I understand, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been curtailing some of the most essential investments of the nation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to speak words which will give us hope that we can carry out this programme, the greatest programme in the history of the modern British steel industry. Let us carry it through. It is one way of saving not merely the jobs in the steel constituencies but the nation as a whole.
4.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): I hope that

1681
I shall give, in response to what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said, a reasonable and balanced account of the steel industry, in which, believe me, I have as great an interest and as deep a hope as he has. I will do so by giving a review of the years that have gone by since vesting day three and a half years ago and saying something of the build-up of the industry, what has happened to it, what it sets out to do and explaining the context in which we have to take decisions.
About 120 plants spread over the length and breadth of the country were taken over at that time, with great concentrations in the North-East, Scotland, Lincolnshire and South Wales. They were massive, disparate plants and their production in terms of crude steel—although that is perhaps not the perfect method of describing the complexity of the production of this industry—was in 1967 nearly 22 million tons. The turnover in the first financial year was about £1,000 million. The numbers employed at that time were about 257,000 people.
The commencing capital debt which the industry owed to the Government was £834 million together with a further £271 million outside the Government, £700 million of the commencing capital debt being subsequently transformed into public dividend capital, which was a novelty at the time. The object was to simulate as far as possible something like equity capital in the private sector. The intention was that the earnings of this public dividend capital should be at least equivalent to the earnings on the loans but that they should progressively increase as time went on.
The prospects of the industry with this vast capital behind it were-at that time a matter of great concern and interest and entailed great planning by the Corporation and others concerned. No one should underrate the immense tasks that faced the management of the Corporation. It had on its hands an organisation which constituted in aggregate one of the biggest industrial enterprises in the world, which had not grown up, as many have, as a planned unit starting from small beginnings and growing progressively by its own internal planning, but which had been created by a series of disparate decisions taken in different
1682
decision-making centres and then aggregated into a whole.
Essentially, the management's task was threefold. Its first task was to try so to frame the structure of this aggregation of disparate parts that it had effective control of the enterprise which it had taken over. Second, it had to overcome the deficiencies of an industry which had been beset since the war by uncertainties and changes in predictabilities and to try to overcome the dangers before they were fatally incurred. Third, it had to chart a course for the future to try to make sure that it could see that industry growing at least on terms with its overseas equivalents, able to match their advances in productivity and able equally to realise the economies and improvements. They had therefore to devise mammoth investment programmes to procure all these different things. At that time, vesting day in July, 1967, and in the immediate ensuing period, the prospects of attaining all those objectives seemed quite bright. In looking forward, the Corporation saw, from the end of 1969, an encouraging future and spoke of profits thereafter increasing. It foresaw profits, it said
"before depreciation, interest (other than on short term borrowings), taxation and dividends on Public Dividend Capital presently expected to amount to about £200 million in 1970–71."—(Finance for Steel, May, 1969.)
I shall be looking later at the extent to which these encouraging forecasts were fulfilled, but the fact is that there has not been any dividend paid on P.D.C. for want of profits from which to pay it.
In its 1967–68 annual report the Corporation outlined the means by which these improvements were expected to be achieved and recognised that a crucial part of the whole process lay in a major rationalisation of the industry. Subsequently, in January 1969, it announced a seven-year programme involving the scaling down of the total manpower to some 50,000 jobs by 1975, largely arising from the closure of outmoded or unwanted plants. In saying all this I am simply seeking to set the scene against which the present situation of the industry has to be viewed. The whole prospect then, both according to the then Government's utterances and to the expectations of the B.S.C. itself, was one of reorganisation, rationalisation and a return to profitability.

1683
No one for a moment should underrate the task which the management had been set to accomplish. To anyone with the least experience of mergers, the fusion into a single organisation of this mammoth and disparate industry simply bristled with problems.
In the light of hindsight it can well be felt that the optimistic forecasts in the early months and years after vesting day were too sanguine of what could be achieved, but that in no way diminishes the understanding of the scale of the reorganisation proposed. Nor should it be allowed to cloud one's judgment as to what has already been achieved. In what I have soon to say it may well be considered that the performance of the Corporation has been disappointing in contrast with its bright hopes of a few years ago, but the sheer scale of the task and problems encountered must not be lost to view.
I will not dwell upon the various structural changes, the first objective which I outlined earlier, although it is, rather obviously, of immense importance. The debate is concentrated primarily on investment, manpower and finance. I shall not, therefore, dwell at length on the structural changes which have taken place within the Corporation and which sought to do that which I have mentioned, to bring under control what were such fragmented and disparate elements to start with. Suffice it to say that the changes which have been made have encountered no fewer problems than has the rest of the reorganisation and restructuring of the industry.
The Corporation is now organised in a form that largely concentrates the major decision-making capacity at the centre, and it has devolved a considerable measure of operating autonomy to its divisions.
I come to the more recent situation in the Corporation. I start with consideration of its present financial performance, with particular reference to the expected out-turn of its operations for the current year 1970–71. I ask you to remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the year when, as I earlier mentioned, the Corporation predicted back in May 1969 that it would achieve an approximate
1684
level of profit of the order of £200 million before charges.
When the present Government came to power, they found a forecast made in March last year by the B.S.C. to the previous Government that the B.S.C. would attain a profit for this current year of £101 million. But that is after calculating charges. The figures are not comparable, and I do not wish to make them so. Already, in July, that forecast had been greatly reduced from £101 million to £37 million, the reduction being attributed to operating difficulties of various kinds with the plants rather than to cost increases. In August the £37 million had become £15 million. In October a £7 million loss was advised. In the light of these events a price increase took place in that month at a level sufficient to convert the loss to which I have referred into an anticipated profit of approximately £20 million for the whole financial year. It will be remember how at the time I expressed the grave concern felt by the Government at the deterioration in forecast performance and told of the urgent steps which we were taking to seek to clarify the financial position, so that firm financial objectives could be specified and attained, both in relation to the effective result to be anticipated and to the implications for future performance of the Corporation. I will come later to the work in course now to analyse the expected outcome of operations of the B.S.C. and the consequences for investment.
Despite all this, by January of this year the expected result for the current year had slid again and we were warned of a loss of £5 million, despite the price increase. By the end of the month that loss had escalated to £20 million, at which level it is currently understood to stand.
Looking over the span of the year, there has been a turn round of about £150 million in the expected results of the Corporation, that is, from a profit of £101 million at the beginning to a loss of £20 million, despite the £27 million arising from the price increase. This rapid and vast change round has been constantly arising, almost at short notice, without great forewarning. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will realise what shifting sands such a deterioration constitutes in which

1685
to draw up an effective and proper plan for the future.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale referred to the vacillation that we were showing in the face of the investment funds of the Corporation. But any reasonable enterprise should show caution when faced over the course of a year with a turn-round of this order.
Another consequence of this enormous change has been that instead of repaying £22 million to the National Loans Fund and £75 million to other sources, as forecast in the April, 1970 White Paper on the National Loans Fund, the Corporation has borrowed an additional £43 million from the Fund and has not repaid anything to other sources. I mention this in view of what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had to say about the extraordinarily rigorous nature of the financial squeeze which has been placed upon the Corporation. The National Loans Fund has made available the very large sum of £43 million during this period.
Arising from these disappointing developments, I have found it necessary to take certain action. I have arranged for a very deep-seated review of the whole of the Corporation's financial and development position, in co-operation with the Corporation, which will, in particular, examine immediately the Corporation's short term financial position and investment programme for the coming year, and will subsequently assess the longer term options for the Corporation in both development and financial terms, to which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale referred.
Mr. Michael Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us in detail what these proposals mean for the commitments that have already been entered into by the British Steel Corporation? In the case of the area that I have mentioned, firm commitments have been made. Will he tell us what will be the effect of this investigation on those commitments?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman was so impatient with interruptions from this side when he was speaking that he might exercise a little patience in respect of any answers that I might have to give him.
I intend that this review should be very thorough and that realistic decisions on development, finance and financial
1686
objectives should flow from it. I stress that this in no sense impinges on the Corporation's management's own financial responsibility, but in the sense that I act in some ways as both banker and shareholder it is only right that the Government should take a deep and profound interest in these factors which so enormously affect the financial outlook.
In the meantime we must ensure that options which are still open remain open until the way is clear to reach decisions upon them. This in no way affects existing development, which accounts for the vast bulk of the current investment programme. For instance, it does not affect the Lackenby basic oxygen steel plant which I had the pleasure of seeing the other day, nor the vast Anchor scheme at Scunthorpe.
However, it does mean that starts on new projects on which the option is still open will have to be deferred at least until the immediate financial situation is re-assessed. The only scheme so far which comes into this category is the Llanwern C development, which as at present proposed would increase iron- and steel-making there to about 3½ million tons a year. I understand that this was accepted by the previous Government provisionally last year, but since then the cost has increased by about 40 per cent. to almost £60 million. I am urgently examining this with the Corporation so that a decision can be reached as quickly as possible within the review, but surely with this kind of escalation of costs it would indeed be an irresponsible person who would simply say, "Sign the cheques and get on with it".
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Secretary of State intend also to calculate what will be the extra cost of the investment programme if he carries through these postponements?
Mr. Davies: Clearly, the Government will take into account all the factors concerned with the cost and the outcome of this investment, as indeed all others.
On its side the Corporation has put to me for urgent consideration a proposal to increase prices by 14 per cent. overall—that is, covering all products. Of course, the effect on individual products will vary, and this is not a rate of increase which can be applied to the lot.
This proposal, which I have had since the latter part of last month and upon

1687
which I have some further elucidation in the first part of this, is the subject also of great study with the Corporation. Its impact upon steel users throughout the country, and thereby upon a wide variety of products both for export and for home consumption, needs no stressing. It is perhaps significant for me to say that the effect of such an increase in terms of money over a whole year would be about £165 million, so that the impact of such an increase upon costs of production in British industry can hardly be over-rated.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: To what extent is the request for a 14 per cent. increase due to the deferments, in part or in whole, of the capital investment programme which the right hon. Gentleman has now announced or confirmed to the House?
Mr. Davies: This increase is sought entirely for the reasons I have earlier specified, namely, the extraordinarily serious rundown in the profitability of the current year. This is largely, as I said earlier, due both to disappointments with plant performance and to escalating costs. It is not because of any factor of deferment, certainly not deferment in any relation of which I have been speaking today.
As to manpower and closures, I do not in any way under-estimate the acute human problems which particular closures cause in localities affected, but industrial change has been recognised as unavoidable by both sides of the House; and a healthy and viable steel industry cannot be achieved without reorganisations and considerable rationalisation.
The aim must be to carry this through with the minimum of hardship and the greatest humanity in terms of the inevitable trouble that it causes. I am convinced that the Corporation is doing all it can to achieve these purposes. For instance, it ensures that a full six-months notice is given of a closure; and of this, three months is definitely allocated to consultation before a final decision. In the case of big closures the Corporation allows and seeks to have a still longer period of advice.
The Corporation effectively controls recruitment in relation to natural wastage. Redundancy payments are generous and are above the statutory requirements by 25 per cent. There is a keen determined
1688
effort to redeploy within the Corporation people rendered redundant by closures.
Perhaps the House will be interested to know that of the 8,600 men who have been rendered redundant already during the period of the Corporation 38 per cent., or 3,300, have been reabsorbed. The Corporation takes quite considerable steps to attract additional employment where a closure is inevitable.
It has long been recognised by numerous authorities that this rationalisation was essential. Before the Act of nationalisation the Benson Report, which looked at the whole scale of the industry at a time when it comprised 315,000 people, foresaw that between the time of that Report in 1966 and 10 years later—in 1975—there would be a compression need of about 100,000 people. This is not far different from the Corporation's own assessment carried out in January 1969, when it foresaw the need for a compression by 50,000 people, 40,000 because of rationalisation and 20,000 arising from productivity, offset by 12,000 new job opportunities.
It is interesting to note that the total employment of the Corporation today is almost exactly what it was on vesting day. The Corporation still employs about 257,000 people, as it then did. Although the United Kingdom output last year was somewhat higher than it was in 1967, it is true to say that it was just about the same as it was in 1965. These crude statistics of steel output are always somewhat misleading in terms of effective values in employment.
As a result of this comparison of the total manpower now with the total manpower then, it must be said that the overall productivity has not significantly improved and we remain still lagging behind many other countries in output per man year. For example, we have been employing about twice as many men product by product as compared with the United States for a given point of output.
Within the total, the Corporation has since 1967 secured some local reductions in manpower through closures, though this has evidently been offset by gains through taking over activities previously undertaken by contractors.
Specifically, by the end of 1970 8,600 job opportunities had been lost through

1689
closures, though these gave rise to only 4,500 redundancies.
For the future, the Corporation—this is a point the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale particularly asked me to mention—has already announced further reductions due to closure and shift reductions: 16,800 is the number it has notified, of which 8,200 are expected to arise in 1971.
This is a matter for the Corporation, but it consults me about it and there will no doubt be a need in the future for further redundancies.
The Corporation has made it clear that a serious decline in steel orders over the past few weeks, coupled with a substantial increase in raw materials and production costs, has led to its announcement last week of the speeding up of its rationalisation plans and the proposed closure of a number of loss-making plants. This, again, is the Corporation's decision, and it must be accepted.
Mr. Eddie Griffiths: It is an insult to the House.
Mr. Davies: The need for rationalisation has always been recognised, as I have said, and this is the working out of what the previous Government referred to in their White Paper which said:
"…central planning …and a far reaching rationalisation of the structure of the industry require common ownership …
Mr. James Callaghan: Nearly every hon. Member who represents a steel constituency wants to know the fate of his own works, and obviously we cannot all ask the Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish in HANSARD a list of the schemes being reconsidered under the plan that he has announced so that we can see whether our own places are affected, and will he try to give us the date when he expects the reconsideration to be concluded?
Mr. Davies: I cannot do better than repeat what I have said. Wherever there has been an effective start, there is no deferment. Where there has not been an effective start, there is a hold-up pending the review. The only case that I specifically mentioned was that of Llanwern. The others will be subject to the urgent review now being undertaken. It is my hope that that review, which affects the shorter-term financial
1690
situation of the Corporation, will be completed within six weeks or two months. I hope that that helps the right hon. Gentleman.
In all this, I recognise that the Corporation has had a difficult inheritance and major problems of reorganisation within the merged industry which have doubtless impeded its progress. But the inescapable fact remains that the industry, under whatever ownership, must be able to pay its way, and the necessary steps must be taken to see that it does.
I come now to future development, to which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale devoted a good deal of his speech. The major review of the Corporation's activities to which I have referred has also to look at the longer-range outlook. The Corporation has submitted a further long-range development plan which is also part of our major scrutiny. It envisages a capacity of 35 million tons in 1975, which is 2½ million tons higher than the previous plan, and 43 million tons in 1980. The cost over the decade 1972 to 1981 has gone up from £3,000 million to £4,000 million, and I need not emphasise the immensely heavy burdens that that implies in terms of capital raising and budgetary provisions.
Clearly, this long-range programme is intimately linked with questions of the longer-term development of the structure of the Corporation and the business of the industry in general. I know that there is great concern. I have been aware of the pressures put upon me to conduct this operation at a speed greater than I think appropriate. The delay is not one for the sake of simple dilatoriness. It is a delay for the sake of finding the right solutions for the profound and difficult problems of an enormous industry in a thorough way. It is a delay to carry out a full review of the existing and future structure of the industry which has emanated from the Corporation. It should not be imagined that it is concerned with ideas which have originated within the Department. The Corporation has ideas of its own about its development which require careful thought.
The industry is in a crucial phase of its existence. The first essential is to put it on a profitable footing, because on that depends its future development and,

1691
with it, so much of the future performance of British industry as a whole. The next weeks and months will present both the Government and the industry with major decisions in the short and the long term. Naturally, it will be my purpose to keep the House informed of progress. But I must reiterate that the scale and implications of the decisions that we have to make are not of a kind which allow me to make snap judgments and over-rapid considerations. I intend that both will be taken with due regard to their importance.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before calling the next speaker, I should re-emphasise the shortness of the debate. It will be clear to the House how many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I ask those who do to make their remarks as brief as possible.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: It must be said, first, that the speech of the Secretary of State was most disappointing. Before entering this House, the right hon. Gentleman had made a very high reputation in industry. Although he, like me, wants to see the country economically strong, what he has done today is to preach the same doctrinaire Tory policy that neglected the economy and led us to the troubles that we have faced ever since the Tory Government were thrown out of office in 1964.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is not merely a question of the profitability of the industry. It is an essential industry. We cannot do without it. It must be considered in that respect as well as in terms of the profit that it can make.
Those of us who represent constituencies concerned with steel are deeply troubled about redundancies. In my own constituency, thousands have been put out of work. In addition, many works are being run down, and short time working is in operation. However, we recognise that in many instances the present state of affairs is necessary if we are to have a more efficient industry to serve the nation. In saying that, we want to know that those workers who are dis-
1692
placed will be treated very generously and fairly considered. Many of them have given their lives to working in the industry.
It is not only my constituency which has been affected by redundancies. They are taking place in the North as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is unable to speak to day because of his Front Bench responsibilities, but I know that he is concerned about the closures in his area.
We all have to recognise that if we do not rationalise and make our steel industry efficient we shall fail the country and prevent it becoming strong economically. Other industries which are developing in the North-East have been slowed down because of the Government's policy of not giving the same opportunity as those afforded by the last Government. But I ask the Secretary of State to do all that he can to see that displaced steel workers to have the chance of employment in other industries. There are opportunities for them to be employed again in the steel industry. On Teesside, for example, we could do with a modern steel foundry. Certainly that would greatly assist the export drive.
I should like to pay tribute to Lord Melchett and his fellow directors for the way in which they have concentrated upon the basic reorganisation and long-term planning of the industry. While concentrating upon this development, it has been necessary for the Corporation to keep many uneconomic units in production. This has been necessary to save the country importing steel, so helping our balance of payments position. In such circumstances, it is asking too much of the industry to expect it to make huge profits.
The Government are right to attempt to save Rolls-Royce. They are trying to make sure that we have an aircraft industry for the future. How much more important it is that we have a steel industry for the future. We have had two major examples of Government intervention in essential industries: the railways and coal. Now we have the steel industry. Shall we never learn from our past mistakes?
I was one of those in 1945 who were not anxious to nationalise the railways and the coal mines. I knew that

1693
they had been run down by private enterprise and that within a few years private enterprise would have begged the Government to take over its industries. What happened was that the Government took over inefficient industries. They had to compensate their former owners. Then those industries were expected to make profits. It was an impossible situation.
To some extent the steel industry is being put in the same position. In the way that we have over the years had to give subsidies to the coal and transport industries because we cannot do without them, so it will be with the steel industry unless we do everything possible to make that great industry equal to the best in the world. I believe that Lord Melchett and his colleagues have been moving in this direction. For that reason I gave thanks earlier.
Steel is the only major British industry which is in the process of getting out of a mess rather than into one. The industry is enabling us to meet our competitors in all parts of the world. For this reason, I make a special plea to the Government to assist the industry by concentrating upon the work in hand and providing the stability necessary to build up a modern steel industry. Do not split up the industry in any way. Let it carry on in the way that it is working now. It is showing that it can be an efficient industry which will serve the nation well. Although it is not realising profits at the moment, it will, I know, ensure not only full production and strength to our economy but profits for the future.
I hope that the Minister will see to it that money is forthcoming for investment in this great industry which, if it fails, fails not only hon. Members on both sides of the House, but, indeed, the country as a whole.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. A. E. Cooper: In these debates I sometimes feel, as it were, like Alice in Wonderland because things get curiouser and curiouser. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). When he reads his speech tomorrow he will probably think, "This is about the worst thing I ever did". He is like an actor. He learns his lines and comes out from the wings and makes his speech. But
1694
when we get him down to details, we find that he knows nothing whatever about the subject on which he is talking.
The hon. Gentleman represents an important steel community, Ebbw Vale, but when it comes to the real details of how an industry is managed he does not know a thing about it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is very good at writing book reviews—two or three a week. That is a job at which he is good.
An Hon. Member: Get on with it.
Mr. Cooper: But getting down to details of running British industry is something the hon. Gentleman knows nothing whatever about.
I make the hon. Gentleman a challenge. I am quite prepared that he should spend one week or one month, if he would like it, with me going round visiting customers, finding out how to develop business and get orders. If he were put in front of a factory he would not know what it was. He does not know such a thing. It would be a different matter if he were put in front of some printing ink.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about investment in industry, the developments and difficulties—
Mr. John Mendelson: Talk about the steel industry.
Mr. Cooper: I do not think that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is in a position to talk about delaying tactics. I shall deal with him in a moment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair to decide whether hon. Members are employing delaying tactics. I hope that no such tactics will appear in this Chamber this afternoon.
Mr. Cooper: It is not my desire to do any such thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to understand that all we want, whether it be in the steel industry or in any other industry, is an opportunity to develop and prosper and to provide jobs for people. There is no desire on the part of management to wake up on a Monday morning and have to sack people and do this, that and the other. We want the money to earn the profits. We want to create a situation in which industry can prosper.

1695
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about our not providing sufficient funds for investment. He should know that it was the previous Administration which in 1965 created Schedule F which took away from industry about 25 per cent. of all the profits which it earned and which today is one of the prime reasons why company liquidity is so bad. This is not a matter for argument; it is there. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is an important matter which has to be dealt with.
I do not want to weary the House, but I should like to give one example. There are many companies in this country with an employed capital of about £5 million, which is quite a lot of money, earning about £1 million profit. Before 1965 a company making £1 million profit would have been able to retain about £100,000 to £140,000, out of which its investment was developed. But in 1965, when Schedule F was introduced, in exactly the same situation that company would be left with only £2,000. So when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talks about lack of investment in the steel industry or anywhere else, he should be reminded that he and the previous Administration are the evil men who created the situation in which we now find ourselves.
It is no use pillorying us today. This is our inheritance and we are trying to deal with it, but it will take a long time. We must get rid of these iniquitous tax surcharges which the previous Administration placed upon industry. When these are out of the way this country will again be able to make its way in the world.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Donald Coleman: I must first declare an interest. I am a member of the British Iron, Steel and Kindred Trades Association which organises the overwhelming majority of workers in this industry. I also have steel interests in my constituency. Those steel interests are not with the British Steel Corporation but in the private sector. They, too, are undergoing serious difficulties at the moment. The Albion Steel Works at Briton Ferry is faced with the redundancy of 300 men as a result of the closure of the billet mill at the end of February.
The steel industry is facing redundancies in areas where unemployment is
1696
already high and is increasing at an alarming rate. To arrest this situation, it is vital that there should be greater investment in the industry.
The need for the modernisation programme of the British Steel Corporation is indisputable. The present plans of the Corporation, in our view are, though not over-ambitious, at least an improvement on those which have been put forward in the past. About £2,000 million, at least, will be required by the end of the 1970s if we are to remain internationally competitive. We are told that the optimum size of an integrated steel works is about 10 million tons of steel per year. Japan, Russia and the United States have such steel works. We have none. The developments which we are told should take place in Port Talbot, Scunthorpe and Lackenby must continue, but we shall regard them only as holding operations. We must also have new works to produce 10 million tons a year. These plants themselves will cost about £1,000 million each. We must have a total of these by the end of the 1980s.
Britain is in serious danger of losing the ability to compete in world steel markets by lack of plants which can produce maximum economies of scale. Any cut-back or postponement in the investment programme would be catastrophic for the industry. We are too far behind our international competitors already, and we cannot afford the luxury of delay.
There is also the human aspect. Morale is very low, because the post-war history of the steel industry has been one of hopeful objectives. This has resulted in overwhelming labour co-operation and enthusiasm from those employed in the industry. But if the Government's present objectives are maintained, I am afraid that the workers will be doomed to final disappointment. The industrial relations record of this industry is exemplary, but I give this warning to the House—there is a limit to the temper and the resilience of the employees in the industry. When that comes about, the traditional attitude of steel workers will give way to the adoption of inflexible attitudes in the face of the repeated disappointments which we have had and the vague future which we see for the industry.

1697
It is now nearly nine months—a significant period—since the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry lost his political virginity, and by now he should have produced something more than cries of pain while holding on to the iron fists of his midwives, the hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and screaming that he is making every effort. This is only an excuse to cover the sterility of constructive ideas about the future of this industry.
The British Steel Corporation must remain and be encouraged, and an announcement must be made about the future of the industry now. Such announcements as these will boost both the demand for steel and the morale of steel workers and will equally ensure that Britain remains in future a major producer of steel based on manufactures.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: I was fascinated by the almost Freudian analogies of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), but he made an understandable contribution, because his constituency, like many others in South Wales, is very much affected by the fortunes of the steel industry. It is appropriate that in such a debate contributions are also made by those with no such direct constituency interest, who nevertheless have an abiding concern, if only, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because we find ourselves today, as parliamentarians, acting in trust as bankers and shareholders of this industry.
There is a tradition that Supply Day debates contain a certain degree of political knockabout, but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) excelled himself. At one point, I thought that Clause 4 was about to be re-interpreted, to have a subsection (a) to include the maintenance of Lord Melchett as the Chairman of the Steel Corporation. I found it slightly difficult to square that with the astringent comments which the hon. Gentleman made later about the City of London.
It may be inevitable, but the extent to which this House engages in discussions of the merits or otherwise of senior officials in the nationalised industries is pretty unhealthy. There was a time
1698
recently when it seemed that there was an open season for the hunting of Lord Robens. That seems to be past. On the whole, it would be just as well if the supposed friends of Lord Melchett kept silent, rather than give the impression that they are allies in a certain amount of careful, publicly-contrived, political arm-twisting.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that the question which was at stake in this debate was "whether we were to have a steel industry at all". These are the very words which one would expect from a double-dyed industrial conservative who could not contemplate any changes in an industry because he would immediately represent them as threatening the integrity and survival of the industry itself. We recognise this symptom. We are confronted with it in our dealings with a range of industries which think that they have some claim—and, indeed, do have some claim—upon the public purse, and which believe that they can use these arguments to legislators.
Sooner or later, we shall have the arguments about regional balance and the balance of payments, both of which have been used by hon. Members today. But the true friends of steel in this country, whether the financing or ownership of it proceeds in public or private hands, will not be found among the double-dyed industrial conservatives. They can be found only among those who are prepared to accept the challenge and the change which must inevitably attend an industry which was so dominant in the first Industrial Revolution and which, of necessity, must make major adaptations to live in a modern industrial situation.
May I therefore address myself unashamedly, in the spirit of the Secretary of State, to two very prosaic points. The first is the question of costs in the industry. It is not just the steel industry which has seen the rapidly escalating costs which are causing the extremely disquieting deterioration of its profit forecasts. This is true of almost all heavy engineering. Therefore, we must ask ourselves what contributions hon. Members are making in the economic debate which can best help to contain the rise in industrial costs. What contribution did the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale make in the debate on the coal industry, when it looked as though there would be

1699
developments in that industry which would increase the cost to steel makers?
There is no doubt that when industrial costs are rising at the rate of recent times, the sheer financing of raw materials, of work in progress, and of finished stocks hits the heavy end of engineering industry and the steel industry much more sharply than it does light engineering and many activities more closely related to the consumer durable field.
Therefore, I wish my right hon. Friends well in their determined policies to control the money supply, as I believe that they are the only policies likely to be effective in bringing about a slowing-down in the rise of industrial costs. I wish all success also to the Secretary of State for Employment. But I can only conclude that they are getting precious little encouragement from the Front Bench opposite. If I had to choose one person who has singled himself out proudly to offer no such encouragement, it would be the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
Clearly, the piece of information divulged to the House today which will, I suspect, when it reaches the papers tomorrow make the greatest impact is the news that the Steel Corporation has placed a request for a price increase of 14 per cent. with my right hon. Friend. I hope that he will be wholly commercially realistic in considering that request. We cannot see the deterioration in the accounts of the British Steel Corporation without realising that it could not proceed without a price increase of some sort. But we know, nevertheless, from the past circumstances of price increases that there has been considerable disquiet and resentment at the way the pricing structure of the British Steel Corporation has applied as between those companies which are solely customers and those which are both its customers and, in a composite character, also its competitors.
I am sure that this will give urgency to the requirement for my right hon. Friend to put before the House at an early date new ideas on the rôle of the Monopolies Commission so that it may embrace the activities of the nationalised industries. I know this to be a policy to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has turned his attention, and I know, also, that in pursuing it
1700
he will be speaking in the interests of both steel users and steel producers.
5.40 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I regret that time is so short that there cannot be a real debate today. I shall be parochial—I make no apology for that—hut I shall be brief.
I am concerned about the steel town of Corby in my constituency. In many ways it is the most complete steel town there is. In 1931 it was a little village of 1,500 people built round its 13th-century church in the heart of rural England, but it stood on a field of ironstone. Today the steel works and the quarries produce 2,000 miles of steel tubes every week. Corby is today a town of 50,000 people, and 87 per cent. of the workers work in the steel works. I criticise the Government for this lack of diversification.
Corby, as I say, is overwhelmingly a steel town. Ever since our debate on steel in February last year there has been great concern about what the Conservative Party might do to the British Steel Corporation which would threaten the prosperity of the town. I do not believe that the Conservative Party in office, however doctrinaire, will hive off the Corby steel works. I do not believe that, but the people of Corby do not know. Month after month I have asked the Minister to make a statement on this matter, but it has been postponed again and again. The Government do not seem to realise how worrying this is for the men and women—not so many women, but particularly the men—who work in the steel works.
Furthermore, we have been told in recent weeks of the closure of the strip mill in September, and the British Steel Corporation has announced a 10 per cent. cut in the Tubes Division staff throughout the country. We do not know how much of that will be in Corby. But what concerns my constituents above all is their fear of a Conservative Government policy of refusing to modernise the steel industry and, instead, forcing British industry to import steel from abroad. That policy would throw more and more people out of work in the industry, apart from the consequences of importing foreign steel.
If that happened, I could in my constituency say, "I told you so". But

1701
that does not help the unemployed, and it does not help the country.
Corby is a new town under the New Towns Act. It has good amenities, a good urban district council and a good development corporation. I have criticised both the present Government and the previous Government for failing to allow other industries to go there. I can explain Corby's problem in this way. Only a few weeks ago, on television, I criticised both the previous Government and this Government for refusing industrial development certificates. I received many telephone calls—this was during the postal strike—from people who blamed the Government strongly for wasting the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money in allowing the continued building of the new town, with an infrastructure for 83,000 people, the population being, as I say, only 50,000 now. The building of the new town is continuing, with all the infrastructure, the roads, the swimming pool, civic centre, theatre and the rest, yet the Government are refusing to allow any industries other than steel to come to Corby. Although the town is being built for 83,000, it is now known that on steel it will not expand to anything like that.
In that respect—I emphasise "in that respect"—this Government are no worse than the previous Government. I must be fair about that. There are firms anxious to come to this steel town so that it may diversify, but they are refused permission. In the last few weeks the Government have refused permission to several small firms and one large one which could have employed 500 to 600 workers. We have the houses and everything ready for them.
The situation is ridiculous. The Department of the Environment encourages the spending of £20,000 a year to advertise "Come to Corby", and then the Department of Trade and Industry refuses industrial development certificates. My constituents and I are very concerned about it.
At this stage Corby needs one great boost to its morale; that is, a large I.D.C. allocation. The workers come, in particular, from Glasgow and Northern Ireland; their first loyalty is to Celtic or Rangers, but after that it is to Corby, and they feel this whether they work in steel or not.
1702
There is enormous potential there, but as matters stand public money is being wasted. The local authorities are waiting for a lead. They may get it from the East Midlands Economic Planning Council if—as I hope it does—it issues an emergency report on what is happening in Corby today. In that event, it will be the task of the local authorities and the Member of Parliament to push a reluctant Government to give Corby special consideration.
I emphasise that the taxpayers and ratepayers have spent £25 million in this town. Its assets are being wasted because they are not fully employed. There are great opportunities. It is ridiculous for the Government to adopt their present policy when they are undermining, or at least making very worrying, the future of the steel industry in Corby. Corby has a great future. For heaven's sake, let the Government press ahead and do their job.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. T. H H. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) made a very fair speech. He spoke of the difficulties in pipes and tubes, and I have often wondered about this myself. At the present time, with the pipelines being constructed under the North Sea and a number of others being built in Africa and elsewhere, there would seem to be a prospect of some of the orders coming to the United Kingdom. I suspect that they are going to the Italians, to Dalmine, and there may be something in it on price.
I was rather surprised to learn that the British Steel Corporation is now asking for a 14 per cent. increase across the board. Perhaps certain items are to carry more than others, but the question which now arises is whether we shall price ourselves out of the European market and the world market. This would be extremely serious. I could then accept the view of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the loss this year might be £25 million, or even more than that.
Mr. Eddie Griffiths: On the question of pipes, if the hon. Gentleman takes advice from his right hon. Friend he will, I think, find that the problem here is

1703
not price competition but one of tolerances and quality.
Mr. Skeet: I am aware that there are certain problems. The Italians make the big pipe and the United Kingdom is inclined to make pipe of smaller diameters. I realise that, but investment over past years, well before we became the Government, could have rectified that.
I come now to the question of investment. I have always regarded two industries as being the indicators of the state of the economy—one, sulphuric acid; the other, steel. When the economy is not expanding fast, there is a good deal of sulphuric acid about and there is a good deal of steel about. However, looking at the general programme, I think that my right hon. Friend is perfectly right in his approach. He has to look at this £3,000 million programme and ascertain to what extent it is feasible in the next five to ten years. After all, what is good for the public sector is good also for the private sector.
A very well organised company, the Royal Dutch Shell Group, has just cut its £200 million investment programme in Carrington very substantially because it saw inflation pushing up its costs to a marked degree. If the Royal Dutch Shell Group does that at this stage, it is not surprising that the B.S.C. is forced to look again at its economics. With the delay in delivery of plant and the escalation of wage costs and so on, inflation is a most material item.
Its last annual report said that recent home price increases were in danger of being seriously eroded by rapidly increasing material costs, such as coal, coke, and fuel oil and by increased labour costs. It referred to the high cost of steel imports and so on. I am sure that the B.S.C. appreciates the problem, and this is why the whole investment programme must be the subject of close examination.
Let us consider the matter realistically. We are planning ahead for a number of years. The Conservative Government have been in office for about eight months. Most of the decisions were taken many years ago, and the results of those decisions are coming to maturity now.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that certain decisions that had been taken
1704
in the past should be retrieved and altered rapidly because we were now running into difficulties. The trouble is that those difficulties would have arisen in any case. After all, the whole purport of nationalisation was to effect economies. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said that rationalisation was an essential feature of nationalisation and would result in economies. However, the Minister pointed out that we employ twice as many, pro rata, as they do in the American steel industry. The West Germans employ fewer than we do. We must get our unit costs right.
In this connection, I congratulate all concerned on what has been done about redundancies. The redundancy payments are good, and there is a procedure for taking the unions into confidence when a steel closure is planned. This enables the matter to be argued out well in advance, and if it is thought fit to close a plant, the decision is taken early and there are discussions with the men well in advance.
Time does not permit me to comment at length on, for example, the subject of finance. Suffice to say that it would be useful if the B.S.C. did not have to go to the Government on every occasion it wants to borrow money. If it were independent in that matter, nobody could say that the Government were setting priorities for the industry. I do not see why it should not borrow on the open market, either on the Continent of Europe or on the British market. Perhaps it could even borrow on the Eurodollar market, though I appreciate that it might have difficulty borrowing when running into losses.
A focal point must be the organisation of the industry. It started on a regional basis, but it has now proceeded to a product basis. I do not suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite would subscribe to the sort of organisation that I would like to see, which is the way in which the industry is now working successfully in, for example, Persia. In 1954 there was a big problem in that country. A lease covering the assets was granted by the National Iranian Oil Company to an international consortium to run the steel plants for that country.
I suggest that it would be most useful here for the Government to grant a franchise for perhaps 25 years—at the

1705
same time the Government could hold the assets—to successful private enter-price operators, who would run it in accordance with modern principles and techniques. Instead of having losses, we would probably have profits.
I do not regard the present structure of the industry as immutable. Indeed, I am amazed that for the last few years two structures should have been available. We must be prepared for further changes. I appreciate the need for stability, but whoever is the Chairman of the B.S.C. must accept that the only way to reach the right set-up for this industry is to conduct a thorough investigation, to get the structure right, to follow that by planning ahead correctly and then to get investment right. Perhaps once that is done we shall be able to turn to the B.S.C. as an important sector of the economy which, by that time, will be making profits and paying its way.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) mocked my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for speaking of the possibility of this country not having a steel industry at all. I wish to emphasise with all the strength at my disposal that there is a real possibility, judging from what has been said by the Government so far, that there will be no steel industry in Scotland within a few years.
One is bound to be led to that conclusion when, for example, the Minister did not say a word about what is to happen at Ravenscraig. We have been told that extensive expansion is to take place not only at Ravenscraig but elsewhere. Indeed, on 3rd February the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), said that the plans were for 4½ million tons of production of steel in Scotland. As recently as yesterday the Secretary of State expressed considerable confidence in the Scottish steel industry.
I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Scottish constituencies really know what is happening north of the Border. We demand a statement from the Government about the present situation there. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State is not in his place. Is he unable to sit through even a three-
1706
hour debate on an issue as important as this?
We are bound to be gravely concerned over what is happening when redundancies are occurring all the time. The B.S.C. has said that when major redundancies arise through rationalisation, two to three years' notice should be given of those likely redundancies, and not six months' notice. Unless notice of that duration is given, the people of Scotland, Wales and the other affected areas should demand that measures be taken to see that those employed in the steel industry are treated no worse than those employed in the coal industry, though we appreciate the hardship that has been suffered when there have been pit closures.
I accept that temporary difficulties arise when steel markets decline. That is, however, no reason for killing off established steel plants in this country. If there must be redundancies because of, for example, a recession in demand, they should be spread over the board. If the nation considers that the industry should be scaled down, it should be accommodated in those parts of the country that are most useful for the industry, such as deep water sites. Unless this happens we shall not achieve any alteration in a smooth and orderly way. There will continue to be disruption. It is up to people like the Under-Secretary of State for Development to fight with all his power to see that smooth and orderly progress is made.
No nation is worth a damn if it does not measure up to challenges from abroad. We have been dropping behind the league leaders in steel year after year. It is no good saying that my hon. Friends took this or that action when they were in Government or that the Tories have taken different steps. We must, as a nation, get our priorities right, and we shall not be doing that if we do not measure up to the challenge from other countries.
The only answer we get from the Minister is that we must look at this from the profitability angle. There is more to it than that. This is not just a question of crude steel. We have been dropping sharply behind other countries even in the production of what have traditionally been highly profitable special steels. We must think of steel in the way we think of defence, as a

1707
vital matter for the Government. It would be absurd to suggest that defence should be left to private enterprise. The same applies to steel.
The nation must set its sights higher when thinking in terms of steel output. Production of 26 million tons by 1980 is not good enough. Let us aim for 50 million tons. At the same time, we should be kicking the steel industry along the right path and telling the B.S.C. that our prospects as a nation are good and that if we tackle the problem in the right way we can measure up to any challenge from any quarter. We have the men, the means and the sites. If hon. Gentlemen opposite fail to rise to this challenge they should be washed out altogether.
If anything would turn the people of Scotland into rabid nationalists it would be the killing of the Scottish steel industry. I could even almost become a rabid Scottish nationalist myself if that happened. Everything possible must be done to see that there is no disregard of the nation's interests because of a miserable idea about making the maximum profit over a short period. The nation's life is at stake, and we must insist that the measures which are so necessary are carried out.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bray: The subject is investment and redundancy. An attempt has been made to stress redundancy, but we recall that on Third Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said:
"The Corporation will, after vesting, be in a position to initiate a co-ordinated pricing policy and measures to improve efficiency by concentrating output on works with the lowest escapable costs and to study in depth such problems as the effects of fluctuations in steel stock-holding in exaggerating the fluctuations in the basic demands for steel."—[OrriciAL REPORT, 26th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 1811.]
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said a minute or so ago that it would be useful to have two or three years' notice of rationalising or thinning out in the industry. The industry had that notice four years ago, but it has been disregarded. Perhaps, like Mr. Micawber, it hoped that something would turn up.
Why have steel output and orders for steel fallen? The answer goes back to
1708
the fiscal policy of the previous administration. Companies have been forced to thin out their inventories of raw materials so that they can finance their businesses. That is one of the basic reasons for the cut-back. In the other European countries that have been mentioned, and in America, in many cases inventories of raw materials are up to 40 per cent. less than ours, and 40 per cent. less material in hand means an appreciable saving in cash and capital employed. Those are inescapable factors.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, forecasts of profitability have fallen by £150 million-odd over 12 months. There is no excuse for that if an organisation is effectively managed.—I shall not say "I like Melchett" or "Melchett out". The simple facts speak for themselves. If an industry is efficiently managed it will have an idea of its affairs. It will not over-budget, it will not over-capitalise, and it will not have a fixed, inviolate programme for five, six or 10 years ahead. Industries need a rolling system which can be fixed three or four years ahead at the most, and not remain virgin for all time. We must be flexible in industry and in demand.
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the review. For all we know, some of the £3,000 million capital investment may be going to fringe activities. How much is going into the basic steel industry and how much to what I term "flanker" industries? How much is going into nonprofit-making investments? Investments will be non-profit-making unless the Corporation is encouraged by the Government to get its house in order in double-quick time.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Ifor Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) brought the House face to face with the real issues of the debate in his forceful opening speech. I deeply deplore the way in which he was insulted by some Conservative hon. Members.
The vital issues in the debate are rationalisation and redundancies. Like other hon. Members, I shall confine my comments to the effects in my constituency, where those two words dominated the lives of steel workers for many years. To many people in other walks of life

1709
they are merely abstract terms but to steel workers and their families they are very ugly words. I depored the detached manner of the Secretary of State's reply on these matters.
Last week those words spelled disaster for 300 people in my constituency involved in the announced closure of the Gorseinon Works. The situation is all the more bitter because it is the second time within a few years that some of the same men have been involved in redundancy.
The steel industry is remarkably diverse, with a host of products and byproducts. I refuse to believe that that plant, with its excellent facilities, cannot still be utilised and some of the jobs saved. Next door to it we have the Bryngwyn Fabricating and Organic Coating Works, which has gained great success in recent years. I warmly congratulate the management and men on their success, which has been so remarkable that the Strip Mills Division now claims that it can offer as wide a range of coated steel products as any company in the world.
The general manager, Mr. Donald Davies, said in Steel News of 4th March that the development of organic coatings meant that many thousands of tons were being sold to customers who otherwise would have chosen material other than steel. He believes that there are still many fields in which it could expand by proving that pre-coated steel was the most economic material.
In the light of this promising forecast I urge the Government, and particularly the Welsh Office—I am glad to see the Minister of State, Welsh Office present—to press the Corporation not to abandon the Gorseinon Works, so conveniently at hand to the Bryngwyn, and to reconsider its closure.
There is no area in the country where the stresses and strains of the industry are reflected more than in Wales, particularly in South-West Wales, where once again all the old fears are returning. The unemployment figures today have cast an even greater shadow there. All these fears were dramatically brought before some of my hon. Friends and myself at a recent conference in Swansea where we met representatives of all the local authorities and the trade unions.
1710
South Wales has a very proud tradition in the steel industry, as have other areas, I am proud to speak as the son of a steel-worker. Names like Margam in Port Talbot, Trostre in Llanelli and Pontardawe, Gorseinon and Velindre in my own constituency are household names in the steel world. Who in this House has not heard of Ebbw Vale, too? Those areas contain an army of skilled steel workers second to none in the world, an army which the Corporation cannot do without, if it is to win the battle for greater efficiency and compete successfully with the Americans, the Japanese and the Germans. Those people must be looked after, those areas must not be ignored in any plans for future investment, whether in the form of a new integrated plant or the expansion of existing units. In this connection 1 commend the Velindre Works with its first-class production records and excellent facilities for expansion.
The whole of South-West Wales deserves and demands the fullest consideration of its rightful claims, especially as a development area.
We all talk about new effort. The record of the people in my constituency is second to none, and the Government will ignore the industry at their peril. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said, we shall not stand by silent, but we shall meet the challenge that the Government have thrown down of an atmosphere of indifference and detachment which I deplore.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Peter Rost: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was particularly insulting to me when I sought to intervene in his opening speech. He shouted across the Floor suggesting that he refused to give way because I did not understand anything about the steel industry or did not represent a steel constituency. Although I perhaps cannot be an expert on the industry in the sense that he is—after all, he is the only person who knows anything about it—and I cannot expect him to understand that there are other steel plants in the country besides Ebbw Vale, there is an important steel unit in my constituency, the Stanton and Staveley Ironworks. There is now redundancy and short-time working at that plant.

1711
Therefore, knowing that the hon. Gentleman is an hon. Member, I naturally expect that he will withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Get on with it.
Mr. Rost: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not jumped up to volunteer a withdrawal, so I will let that be noted.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the £3,000 million of capital expenditure planned by the steel industry should not be subjected to Government scrutiny. That is an extraordinary suggestion, considering that it is taxpayers' money. The Government of the day, apparently, should have no right even to investigate whether that sum is being spent in the most effective way. If the steel industry were generating that capital investment from its own profits, we could perhaps understand that attitude, but we understand that it is running at a loss, which the taxpayer is having to finance. The bulk of the capital investment will have to come from the taxpayer, and therefore it is not just sensible but essential that the Government should thoroughly scrutinise the whole development project.
The main problem of the industry is lack of profitability, something which Labour hon. Members do not appreciate, because they do not believe in profits. The money must come from somewhere, but it must not come from profits, because that is immoral. The lack of profitability is due to lack of growth in the industry, slack production and rising costs. We have slack production because of the general lack of economic growth after six years of Socialist stagnation. The stagnant demand in many industries is only too evident when we consider the stoppages in the motor industry, for example. No hon. Member opposite can tell me that this is not affecting demand for the steel industry or at least one section of it.
The only answer is to put the steel industry under the discipline of the capital market in the same way that private enterprise industry has to undergo that discipline. Only then can we expect a really efficient management, higher productivity and a more adequate return on capital, so that modernisation
1712
can proceed more rapidly. If there is any doubt by hon. Members opposite about lack of productivity in the industry, they should spend a little time studying the steel industries of our competitor countries, particularly the United States, Japan and Germany. There, the steel industries are under private enterprise and the productivity is very much higher. The profitability is higher and therefore the capital investment which is generated from cash-flow is very much higher. Only when we get to that sort of basis and inject the discipline of private capital into the steel industry will we solve these problems. The industry should never have been nationalised in the first place. That is the basic cause of all its problems. Until we tackle that we cannot expect to have a flourishing steel industry.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Brian O'Malley: I wish there were time to take apart the archaic views of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), but there is not.
As late as the autumn of 1970 informed economic commentators were taking an optimistic view of the level of demand for steel and the level of steel production for 1971. The industrial correspondent of the Financial Times wrote of the steel industry on 3rd August:
"All the indications are that the machine will pay out again with another record for the steel-makers in 1971…unless Mr. Heath makes some adjustments."
The adjustments were made by the Government. Today, my constituency faces 1,300 redundancies which should never have happened. The right hon. Gentleman came along to give an account of his stewardship as a Minister but held out no hope for anyone. I do not know what he is like as an accountant but as a politician he is a disaster, and he has brought disaster into my area. He had no proposals which would help the current situation and the current crisis in the industry.
On the basis of the record balance of payments brought about by the last Government, there is room to reflate the economy. There is room to reduce the cost of borrowing and that is something which the Government should do immediately. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would examine

1713
the possibility of the Government financing additional stocking, both in the short term and long term, for ingot stocking by the Corporation and producing some kind of incentives to stock holders to prevent the run-down reaching below defined levels.
The right hon. Gentleman can dress it up as he likes when he is talking about the investment programme but in effect he is saying, "We are holding back and are stopping all starts on new projects at this time. "We need a new high tonnage bar mill near my constituency. We need two new electric are furnaces. Apparently that sort of development is going by the board. Heavy capital investment is going on in Rotterdam, Dunkirk and elsewhere in Europe. If we are to compete in the 1970s, we need massive investment in steel, which is now apparently at risk. Because of some shortfall in production arising from the inadequacy of previous investment the Corporation was having to import foreign steel during 1969–70. We should look at what the French Government did not long ago with low rate interest finance for steel. All over Europe the return on capital and assets in the steel industries is too low to finance the kind of industrial investment they should be having.
I hope that we shall have what we have not yet had, an assurance about the hiving-off of profitable parts of the industry. The Minister for Industry is one of the most vicious anti-Corporation and anti-publicly-owned industry Members of this House. Will he confirm or deny whether an offer or offers have already been made to the Corporation for the purchase of plants whose closure the Government are already discussing with the Corporation?
We do not want to see any change in the scrap export policy. A change would mean that the electric are furnaces in my constituency would face an extra cost of about £3 a ton. Will the Minister examine the possibility of reverting to the last Government's system of investment grants rather than investment allowances? I give an example to illustrate this point. It is not only a question of the Corporation's cash flow, and the fact that the financial help was larger in amount under the old system. Between January and June 1970, in my constituency we had initial inquiries which would
1714
have given us 2,871 jobs. These resulted in planning permission for building which will provide 1,568 jobs. Since the announcement of the change to investment allowances, we have not had one such inquiry. Everything has stopped.
I do not blame the British Steel Corporation for the current crisis. It has made substantial savings through productivity and cost reduction schemes. It took over an industry in which there had been inadequate investment for years and it is doing as well as its European competitors. I blame the Government, as do the steelworkers in my constituency, who realise that they are getting no help at all from the right hon. Gentleman.
6.22 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Unlike the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), I have great confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to strike a right balance—and it is a question of striking the right balance. I see a great advantage wherever possible in the process of hiving-off nationalised industries and in denationalisation generally, but I have never felt that steel was the ideal industry in which to begin the process.
I am much impressed by the line which has been taken by the Corporation and the fact that steel, although a monopoly in national terms, is far from being a monopoly in effective terms since it has to meet foreign competition. But if on the one hand my right hon. Friend is right to resist those who would use steel as an experiment in denationalisation, he is equally right to resist those who would like to treat the industry as a vast system of out-door relief.
I understand that steel is an industry which generates passionate loyalty. I listened with great emotion to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), because they were speaking from the heart about an industry for which they care passionately. It is understandable that for them to talk of the industry in terms of productivity is almost a profanity. Yet no such industry can possibly survive in the modern competitive world unless it makes a profit. We cannot all live on cross-subsidising one another's losses. The industry must be made profitable if it is to survive.

1715
To make the industry profitable implies a double process. First, it must slim down because it has too much fat. Secondly, it must expand on the basis of existing successful works. In this connection, I want to put in a special plea for the steelworks in which a great many of my constituents work at Shotton. This is one of the works operating at a profit and it has land available for expansion. I hope that, when my right hon. Friend and the Corporation come to consider where expansion should take place, they will take account of the advantages of building on success and of expanding Shotton.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. John Morris: It was my privilege, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, to play a small part in drafting the White Paper on the Steel Industry in 1965. We were seeking to ensure then that this great industry should be organised to serve the nation and not the few. We were conscious of the growth of the steel industries in other countries, of the fragmentation of our own industry and of the lack of investment in it in previous years. If we were to compete on a worldwide basis, the industry had to be organised for purposes more akin to the needs of the nation.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about turnround. This industry has always been bedevilled by cyclical patterns. What is needed is confidence to invest not in times of boom but in times of low demand so that we can catch the next boom and not suffer, as we have perennially suffered, from the balance of payments situation. My criticism of the Government is that they have created uncertainty. They have nourished every hairbrained idea to fragment the industry once again. They are the political liquidators of publicly-owned industries, the modern buriers of the British publicly-owned steel industry.
The message that will go out from the debate to every steel constituency is that starts on new projects will be deferred. Instead of the Corporation being allowed to get on with its job of planning this great industry, it is bedevilled by requests from Ministers for hiving-
1716
off schemes or for the B.P. solution—every kind of idea to throw the industry back to the wolves.
I believe that the Government do not believe in public ownership at all, so how can we expect any great increase in public investment from them? The article in The Economist horrified me. The kites were flown so low one could almost see the names of the owners. I would like to know who interiewed The Economist and gave this kind of philosophy to it. That philosophy is that it does not matter about the level of British unemployment, about the lack of British investment or about the British balance of payments. The suggestion is that there should be an import of crude steel from Japan because costs are lower in that case. I hope that the Government will repudiate that article and every kind of consideration which would make such action attractive to the Treasury.
The redundancies are coming at a time when the Government are doing less and less for the development areas. They are being grossly unfair to every development area in South Wales, England and Scotland at a time when the British steel industry is being deprived of £100 million in investment allowances. In an era of expansion, it is difficult to wear this kind of thing but in an era when there are fewer jobs in prospect and less investment is taking place, there is real cause For fear in all the steel areas—and my fear is that this is just the beginning and that more redundancies will take place throughout the country.
Lastly, I want to say something about the new integrated strip mill. I am glad that today we have not had any battle regarding the site. It is not a short-term answer to the future of the steel towns but it is a long-term answer. The first consideration is that a decision should be taken speedily by the Government on the need for investment in a new integrated strip mill. Secondly, it should start soon. Thirdly, it should go to a development area. When my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) asked the Minister the other day for an assurance that it would go to a development area, that assurance was refused him. This decision is needed in the long-term interest of the nation and I hope that it

1717
will not be delayed. Otherwise, the nation will pay a heavy price for the dilatoriness of the Government.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: Whenever we discuss the coal industry I am at one with all those concerned about the problems of running down that industry and the redundancies which put men out of work. Today, however, we are not discussing a contracting industry and do not propose to speak of the redundancy problems. We are discussing an industry which should be expanding. We are speaking of one of the most important and fundamental industries, more important than Concorde in my opinion. I do not want to look at the immediate problems on the hill of difficulties we face—and it is right that these problems should have been examined in detail—but would rather look over that hill to the difficulties beyond and the opportunities beyond, as the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) has done.
This is a great industry in need of great support. I am not happy with the approach of the Corporation on long-term planning and investment. My right hon. Friend may not enjoy what I say now but my principal criticism is of the Corporation for its long-term thinking. To me its plan to develop on existing sites is to face up to the immediate problems of the next few years but not to the fundamental problems of the development of the industry. It is like putting a jet engine into a Dakota aircraft rather than buying a Boeing airframe and matching the two pieces of modern equipment.
What we should be thinking about is the need for a large investment in the future—building of it can be delayed but not for too long. We must have a thoroughly integrated coastal site. I am talking of a large operation, a coastal site capable of producing 10 million tons annually and 6 million or 7 million tons of finished product. It would be a completely integrated site, receiving ore from overseas on a site possibly employing as many as 12,000 or 16,000 men.
Only in this way can the industry compete with the real competition which will develop over the 10 or 15 years in Japan and our doorstep in Europe. In Japan there are already five major companies developing no less than two of these
1718
integrated sites to produce a capacity of 100 million tons annually. It is this sort of competition that we shall have to look to in future and that we may well see growing in at least five different places in Europe. While I recognise our immediate difficulties and the absolute necessity to raise profitability, we must also begin to look over this immediate hill to the absolute necessity for proper investment and proper modernisation so that we can compete in the future.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful for the opportunity of reflecting the concern and disquiet of the steelworkers at the British Steel Corporation plant at Openshaw, in Manchester, in my constituency, over the announcement made in the course of the past few days that 600 workers there are to lose their jobs in a few months time. I would emphasise that these men are not industrial malcontents, unreasonably demanding that the nation or the world owes them a living. If we need evidence of their reasonableness then I could usefully point out that these are the men who recently accepted lower bonus rates which reduced their earnings by £2 10s. a week to make the operation of the plant more economically viable. They accepted the reduced manning of furnaces, they accepted one-man manning, and they have repeatedly urged the Corporation to make fresh capital investment at the plant.
Yet the result of their co-operation is still the same—redundancy, rationalisation. Call it what you will, it means in essence the sack for those 600 men, it will affect their livelihood and their families. I know that it will be argued, and the right hon. Gentleman has made the point, that the decision is not operative for some time at Openshaw. Perhaps the hope will be held out that the plant may yet be saved. My first question to the Minister is: is the decision on Openshaw irrevocable?
The Openshaw steel works is part of the Special Steels Division of the Corporation. The division has its headquarters in Sheffield and to some extent my constituents' fears are motivated by three factors. The first is geographical in that they are remote from the point of decision, the headquarters of the Corporation in Sheffield and London.

1719
Secondly the men are anxious and fearful that this move is a prelude to a Government decision to hive off the special steels section of the industry. If they needed support in this direction then they got it in an article which appeared in the Financial Times on 9th March this year written by Leslie Daniels in which he said:
"In the process of the formation of the British Steel Corporation Sheffield has become the headquarters of the Special Steels Division, which is the most profitable of all the divisions and the one most tipped for hiving off if the Government so decides."
A third factor is the belief that the jobs at Openshaw are being sacrified to make way for low cost imported steel produced by overseas competitors. I hope the Minister will reply to those points. Are the jobs at Openshaw and elsewhere being sacrificed to subsidise low cost imports of steel? These questions demand an answer. I do not accept that the Corporation does not have a future. It has a good future and I hope that the Openshaw works will be part of that future.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member I want to say that I am very disappointed that I have not been able to call all hon. Members who wanted to speak on matters which are of very great interest to them and to their constituents. According to my calculations we have had 15 back bench speeches in about 87 minutes. I want to thank those hon. Members who have made this possible and express my regret that it has not been possible to call all hon. Members who desired to speak.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Eric G. Varley: I sympathise with those of my hon. Friends who have not been able to speak during the debate. I know that they come from important steel constituencies and we will be pressing the Government as soon as it is appropriate for more time for a debate on this important matter. To some extent the debate has concentrated on the redundancies announced on 11th March. My hon. Friends have highlighted the social consequences in their constituencies. As many of them have said, the redundancies are only part of the story. Rumour is rife that there are more to come, that there are more in the
1720
pipeline, likely to be announced immediately after this debate. I hope that that is not the case and that the announcement has not been held over for this time.
We must consider not only the question of redundancies but the 25,000 people who are on short time working. The steel industry is concentrated, to a very great extent, in the development areas, and it is a double blow when redundancies are announced. In view of the background of an unemployment situation which is the worst for 30 years, I can understand the concern which has been expressed today.
The Secretary of State was a little disingenuous in claiming that the question of redundancies was not for him. He said that the matter had been decided by the Corporation in isolation. He suggested that he had been consulted about the redundancies. He cannot try this confidence trick on the House. With economic activity running at such a low rate, with industry in bottom gear and being put in decline by the Government, and with manufacturing investment at rock bottom, the Secretary of State cannot absolve himself from responsibility.
I have talked to workers and management in the industry over the last day or two, and I can tell the Government that morale has never been as low as it is now. Skilled technicians who the industry needs and will continue to need, no matter what its size, are seriously considering whether they should look for new jobs. The people engaged in the industry believed a few months ago in the long term future of the industry; they thought that it was secure. But now they have doubts and frustrations.
Since the announcement of the industry's development plan, the country knew, but, what is more important from the point of view of morale, the men who work in the industry knew what the future held. The productive capacity of the industry was to be increased, but rationalisation was to be a carefully planned operation. Everybody knew that there would be plant closures and that fewer people would be needed to produce more steel. But this was to be a properly planned and phased operation. The Corporation had a well developed

1721
arrangement for minimising the disruption which would take place. We all know about the social policy unit and that, by and large, it had the support of the trade unions involved.
My hon. Friends and I believe that the publicly-owned industries have a special responsibility to their employees. The projected manpower redundancies were to be effected by normal wastage and properly designed schemes. In view of the way in which the redundancies have been announced in the last few days and the manner and nature of them, I do not think the industry will get the co-operation which it has been able to secure from the trade unions in the last few years. This is one of the most disturbing aspects. Rationalisation in any industry can be carried through successfully only with the support of those who work in it.
The Secretary of State did not say one word about structure or hiving off. I should like the Minister for Industry to give a categorical assurance that there will not be any hiving off. The Secretary of State talked about a thorough-going study of the industry. When it was in opposition, the Conservative Party, said on page 14 of its manifesto about the question of State involvement in industry:
"We will progressively reduce the involvement of the State in the nationalised industries, for example, in the steel industry…"
This is the most ruthless scrutiny of the industry. It is not disengagement. The Government are taking over the industry and threatening it with hiving off. It should not be subjected to this doctrinaire nonsense of the Government.
The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He talked about the poor financial returns and said that they reflected a deteriorating position in the economy, and said that we cannot insulate the Corporation from these factors. Do the Government disclaim responsibility for the economy? Is the new theory that if the steel industry is in difficulties as a result of the downturn in the economy it is nothing to do with the Government? If so, it is a strange doctrine. The Secretary of State and the Government should declare openly and forthrightly that they support a steel industry of a size and capability which will meet our long term needs. That is the crucial issue.
1722
Reference has been made by my hon. Friends to the article in the business section of the Economist last week in which it was said that the Treasury was sceptical about the investment plans for steel. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale mentioned this matter, the Secretary of State shook his head. He did not deal with it in his speech. When it was referred to from this side of the House he said there was no truth in it. Can the Minister for Industry tell us that there is not a grain of truth in the article? If it were taken seriously, the situation would be very strange indeed.
Suppose that we took the advice of the Economist or the Treasury and began to import more cheap steel from lower wage countries, of which Japan is a prime example. What sort of implications would that have on our balance of payments? Surely the Government do not want to put our balance of payments at risk. They did it before, but surely they do not want to do it again. They should have at least learned that lesson.
The argument for the importation of such a vital product as steel from the so-called low wage countries is exactly the same kind of specious argument which was used throughout the 1950s and 1960s by the oil lobby about importing oil to replace coal. Not many people would follow that line again. In view of what is happening to oil prices, let us hope that the Government will not follow the advice. The more one looks at the arguments for large scale imports, the more ludicrous they become.
We in Britain can have a strong economy and improve our industrial position only on the basis of a strong steel industry which can meet all the needs of the nation. That is why the development plan must go ahead. It is no good the Secretary of State complaining about the poor financial returns. The industry is under-capitalised, and the development plan must go ahead. It is not the Opposition's purpose to be apologists for the Steel Corporation. We shall criticise it when we need to do so, but it is labouring under difficulties which are not of its making.
The fundamental issue facing the country and the House is this: do we want a steel industry of a size which will meet all our future needs and contribute

1723
to our exports? If the Government declare themselves in favour of further investment in the industry, they will be taking a step in the right direction and, in view of all the anxieties which have been expressed by my hon. Friends, will go some way to restoring confidence and stability in the steel-producing areas on which so much of our future depends.
6.50 p.m.
The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): Shortage of time prevents me from making reference to the many individual and constituency points raised during the debate but, as hon. Members will understand, we shall be giving them careful study when they are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
It has long been recognised that there has been a need to reduce over-manning in the industry. Some hon. Members have referred to the 1965 White Paper. The main justification for nationalisation was substantially based upon the need for rationalisation in the industry. The present director of social policy, a former Labour Minister of Health, Kenneth Robinson, has written in the current issue of "British Steel" of the need to close many older plants. The case for the present closures is best summarised by the British Steel Corporation in its news release of 11th March, 1971:
"The closure of a number of plants and mills which are now making losses is essential if the corporation is to remain economically viable and establish a firm foundation on which to build for the future an efficient, streamlined industry capable of meeting severe competition from foreign producers."
There is no doubt from those views of the men responsible for the management of the industry that manpower savings are an essential step towards profitability.
It could be that some of these measures would have been taken earlier, but there has been a sustained high demand for steel for some years. At the moment there is a market down-turn which has been precipitated by the high wage-cost inflation which has affected many of the schemes of the user industries. The need to close plants has also been brought about by the realities of rising costs, notably the increase in raw material costs which the corporation, like other big industrial consumers, has had to bear. Coal prices have gone up twice in the last year,
1724
and have added more than £30 million to the corporation's costs.
I cannot answer in this short debate for the individual plants to which hon. Member referred. In any event, the future of individual plants is primarily a matter for the corporation. There is a carefully laid down procedure for consultation in the event of plant closure. First, notice of intention to close is given. This is followed by a period for consultation. Then, after a period—
Mr. Charles R. Morris Mr. Charles R. Morris rose—
Sir J. Eden: I have five minutes in which to reply to the debate and I am not taking up any more time than I feel is necessary. After the period of consultation comes the final decision. This decision when it comes to be taken is invariably seen to be based on compelling economic grounds. The unions have habitually come to recognise the validity and force of the Corporation's case, but as before, hon. Gentlemen opposite refuse to face realities.
It is easy to talk ourselves into an atmosphere of crisis. I do not believe that there is justification for the excessive language used by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but no one can be sanguine about the serious position described by my right hon. Friend. We have witnessed a change-round in one year of £150 million, from a forecast profit of £101 million to a loss, on the latest figure, of £20 million—and that despite price increases of £27 million. It is not only the magnitude of the turn-round, but the sad persistence with which one set of firm figures has been so rapidly overtaken by worse ones. We recognise the need to come to decisions, but it has not been possible to do so in the absence of firm figures on which to base a judgment. This is what my right hon. Friend described as the "shifting sands" of deterioration.
There is, therefore, clearly a need for a thorough review of the Corporation's financial and development position. In the short term we shall have to reappraise the investment programme for the coming year and then consider the options which are available to the Corporation in the longer term. Against these harsh financial facts which have been put before the House by my right hon. Friend, it is absolutely right that particular schemes

1725
should be looked at again. The short-term reappraisal will be carried through as expeditiously as possible, within six weeks to two months, or quicker if it can be done. We fully recognise the importance of this, but when the cost of schemes has risen to the extent that it has for Llanwern "C" it is absolutely right to reconsider their justification. Nothing that has been said in the debate so far affects the existing developments already in hand, such as Lackenby and Scunthorpe—
Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson rose—
Sir J. Eden: The main questions for the British Steel Corporation and the Government to consider—
Mr. Lawson: What about Ravenscraig?
Sir J. Eden: —are how big a programme will be a profitable use of resources, and what is the correct balance between investment in the industry and in other proposals making a claim on public funds.
The hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Front Bench opposite built up their case on Press gossip and rumours, some no doubt of their own creation. We cannot tell now what should be the exact shape and size of the industry in the future. We are, therefore, engaged in a major review, in which we have been enormously helped by the valuable advice of the Corporation and B.I.S.P.A. and of
many of steel's principal customers. We are looking at the structure of the Corporation as well as at the broad range of its activities. We shall also have regard to the likely developments in international competition and the need to ensure the most advantageous disposition of our national resources—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are not being fair. The two Front Bench speakers winding up deliberately curtailed their speeches so as to allow more time for speakers from the back benches. It is not fair to treat the Minister like this.
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be replying to a debate—he is replying to nothing at all.
Sir J. Eden: These are matters of immense significance, and they will not be rushed by the Government. They merit the most careful consideration. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about the fever of uncertainty. It is nothing comparable to what took place in 1964 and has taken place since with the nationalisation of the industry. It is the Opposition who are primarily responsible for precipitating the uncertainty and frustration. We shall carefully consider the long-term projection for the industry in the light of the present situation.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 300.

Division No. 257.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Doig, Peter

Albu, Austen

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Dormand, J. D.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Carmichael, Neil

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Allen, Scholefield

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Driberg, Tom

Armstrong, Ernest

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Duffy, A. E. P.

Ashley, Jack

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Dunnett, Jack

Ashton, Joe

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Eadie, Alex

Atkinson, Norman

Cohen, Stanley

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Concannon, J. D.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Barnes, Michael

Conlan, Bernard

Ellis, Tom

Barnett, Joel

Corbet, Mrs, Freda

English, Michael

Beaney, Alan

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Evans, Fred

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Crawshaw, Richard

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Cronin, John

Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)

Bidwell, Sydney

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Bishop, E. S.

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

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dalyell, Tarn

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Davidson, Arthur

Foot, Michael

Booth, Albert

Davies, Denzii (Llanelly)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Freeson, Reginald

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Garrett, W. E.

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

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Gilbert, Dr. John

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

Deakins, Eric

Ginsburg, David

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Golding, John

Buchan, Norman

Delargy, H. J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Gourlay, Harry

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Dempsey, James

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

McCartney, Hugh

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

McElhone, Frank

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

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

McGuire, Michael

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Roper, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mackie, John

Rose, Paul B.

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Maclennan, Robert

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Hardy, Peter

MacPherson, Malcolm

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

Harper, Joseph

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

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

Silverman, Julius

Hattersley, Roy

Marquand, David

Skinner, Dennis

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Small, William

Heffer, Eric S.

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Horam, John

Mayhew, Christopher

Spearing, Nigel

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Meaeher, Michael

Spriggs, Leslie

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Stallard, A. W.

Huckfield, Leslie

Mendelson, John

Steel, David

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Angiesey)

Millan, Bruce

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Molloy, William

Strang, Gavin

Hunter, Adam

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Swam, Thomas

Janner, Greville

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Taverne, Dick

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Moyle, Roland

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

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

John, Brynmor

Murray, Ronald King

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

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Ogden, Eric

Tinn, James

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

O'Halloran, Michael

Tomney, Frank

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

O'Malley, Brian

Tomney, Tom

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Oram, Bert

Tuck, Raphael

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Orbach, Maurice

Urwin, T. W.

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

Orme, Stanley

Varley, Eric G.

Jones, Gwynoro (Garmarthen)

Oswald, Thomas

Wainwright, Edwin

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Judd, Frank

Palmer, Arthur

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Kaufman, Gerald

Pardoe, John

Wallace, George

Kelley, Richard

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Watkins, David

Kerr, Russell

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Weitzman, David

Kinnock, Neil

Pavitt, Laurie

Wellbeloved, James

Lambie, David

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Wells, William (Walsall. N.)

Lamond, James

Pendry, Tom

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Latham, Arthur

Pentland, Norman

Whitehead, Phillip

Lawson, George

Perry, Ernest G.

Whitlock, William

Leadbitter, Ted

Prescott, John

Wiliey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Leonard, Dick

Price, William (Rugby)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Probert, Arthur

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Rankin, John

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Harn, N.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Lipton, Marcus

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Woof, Robert

Loughlin, Charles

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Richard, Ivor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Mr. Donald Coleman and

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Mr. William Hamling.

McBride, Neil

NOES

Adley, Robert

Boscawen, Robert

Churchill, W. S.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Clark William (Surrey, E.)

Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)

Bowden, Andrew

Clegg, Walter

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Cockcram, Eric

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Braine, Bernard

Cooke, Robert

Astor, John

Bray, Ronald

Ceombs, Derek

Atkins, Humphrey

Brewis, John

Cooper, A. E.

Awdry, Daniel

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Cordle, John

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Cormack, Patrick

Balniel, Lord

Bruce-Cardyne, J.

Costain, A. P.

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bryan, Paul

Crouch, David

Batsford, Brian

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

Crowder, F. P.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Buck, Antony

Curran, Charles

Bell, Ronald

Bullus, Sir Eric

Dalkeith, Earl of

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Burden, F. A.

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Benyon, W.

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

Dean, Paul

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Biffen, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Biggs-Davison, John

Channon, Paul

Dixon, Piers

Blaker, Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Body, Richard

Chichester-Clark, R.

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

1728

1729

Dykes, Hugh

Kiffedder, James

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Eden, Sir John

Kimball, Marcus

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Elliott, R. W. (N'c't1e-upon-Tyne, N.)

Kinsey, J. R.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Emery, Peter

Kirk, Peter

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Farr, John

Kitson, Timothy

Ridsdale, Jullan

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Fidler, Michael

Knox, David

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Lambton, Antony

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lane, David

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)

Fortescue, Tim

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Rost, Peter

Foster, Sir John

Le Marchant, Spencer

Russell, Sir Ronald

Fowler, Norman

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

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fox, Marcus

Longden, Gilbert

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

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

Loveridge, John

Scott, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Scott-Hopkins, James

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

MacArthur, Ian

Sharples, Richard

Gardner, Edward

McCrindle, R. A.

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

Gibson-Watt, David

McLaren, Martin

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Simeons, Charles

Glyn, Dr. Alan

McMaster, Stanley

Sinclair, Sir George

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Macmillan Maurice (Farnham)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Goodhart, Philip

McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wllson, Patrick (NewForest)

Soref, Harold

Gorst, John

Maddan, Martin

Speed, Keith

Gower, Raymond

Madel, David

Sproat, Iain

Gray, Hamish

Maginnis, John E.

Stainton, Keith

Green, Alan

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Stanbrook, Ivor

Grieve, Percy

Marten, Neil

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Mather, Carol

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Grylls, Michael

Maude, Angus

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Gummer, Selwyn

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Stokes, John

Gurden, Harold

Mawby, Ray

Sutcllffe, John

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tapsell, Peter

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow, Carthcart)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

Tebbitt, Norman

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mttchell, David (Basingstoke)

Temple, John M.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Moate, Roger

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Haselhurst, Alan

Molyneaux, James

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Hastings, Stephen

Money, Ernle

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Havers, Michael

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Tilney, John

Hawkins, Paul

Monro, Hector

Trafford, Dr Anthony

Hay, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Trew, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Morgan-Glles, Rear-Adm.

Tugendhat, Christopher

Heseltine, Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Hicks, Robert

Mudd, David

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Higgins, Terence L.

Murton, Oscar

Vickers, Dame Joan

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Waddington, David

Hill, John B. (Norfolk, S.)

Neave, Airey

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Holland, Philip

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Holt, Miss Mary

Normanton, Tom

Wall, Patrick

Hordern, Peter

Nott, John

Walters, Dennis

Hornby, Richard

Onslow, Cranley

Ward, Dame Irene

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Warren, Kenneth

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Orr, Capt L. P. S.

Weatheriil, Bernard

Howell, David (Guildford)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Hunt, John

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

wiggin, Jerry

Iremonger, T. L.

Peroival, Ian

Wilkinson, John

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

James, David

Pink, R, Bonner

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Pounder, Rafton

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Woodnutt, Mark

Jessel, Toby

Price, David (Easlleigh)

Worsley, Marcus

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

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

Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Proutrfoot, Wilfred

Younger, Hn. George

Jopling, Michael

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Quennell, Miss J. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Raison, Timothy

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Mr. Jasper More.

Kershaw, Anthony

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: I am not selecting the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and other hon. Members—
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill that so clearly fails to make provision for the good government of London.
The arguments which hon. Members might want to adduce upon it can all be developed in the debate on the main Question.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: I commend the Bill to the House. Each year the G.L.C. initiates and sponsors two Bills. One is a Money Bill, which the Council must initiate under the London Government Act, 1963, and it is the way in which the House can effectively control the Council's spending. The Money Bill will be tabled within a few weeks.
The other Bill, which is the Bill we are now discussing, is a General Powers Bill. This is something of a misnomer. It is not a Bill to regulate the Council's general powers. It is a Bill to amend existing powers.
The powers usually amended in a Bill of this sort tend to be of a relatively minor nature. Every year the L.C.C. existed there was a General Powers Bill, and every year the G.L.C. has existed there has been a General Powers Bill. The provisions of the Bill are usually at the instigation of other authorities within the Greater London area. In the old days various borough councils would often initiate a Bill themselves. It is now the duty of the Greater London Council to speak on their behalf and put forward a Bill.
Of the material Clauses in this Bill, Clause 3 is at the instigation of the Greater London Council, Clause 4 at the instigation of the Greater London Council and of the London Boroughs Association, Clauses 5 to 7 are at the instigation of the London Boroughs Associa-
1732
tion, and Clause 8 is at the instigation of the London Borough of Hillingdon.
The details of the Bill were sent out by the Solicitor to the Greater London Council, Mr. Wilson, on 30th November last in a very helpful and informative letter. Mr. Wilson offered any assistance that he or his department could give to any London Members. He has not heard from any London Member about any matter on which he could offer him information or assistance. As the House probably knows, no petitions have been laid against the Bill.
As for the title "(No. 2)", it is not usual for the Council to introduce two General Powers Bills in any year but, as hon. Members who were here in the last Parliament will recall, in February, 1970, there was a very successful blocking operation of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, 1970. That Bill was delayed by the same hon. Members whose names appear on the Order Paper against the Amendment today. [Interruption.] Not entirely, apparently. On reading through the debate on Second Reading of that Bill I was overcome with floods of nostalgia, because many hon. Members who then spoke are now in the roll call of the Labour fallen. They fell in June. There was Alan Lee Williams, whom many hon. Members on both sides will miss. There was Will Howie, whom many hon. Members on both sides will miss. And then there was Roy Roebuck.
Mr. William Molloy: Has not the hon. Gentleman forgotten to include himself? He was rejected by Acton.
Mr. Baker: I stumbled but quickly recovered.
It is usual for the Government of the day to give some assistance to the passage of the Bill. A year ago the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), whose speech on Second Reading of the Bill last year I have read carefully, was less than enthusiastic in his recommendation of the Bill and could not bring himself to vote for it at ten o'clock. The hon. Gentleman recommended that Bill with all the enthusiasm with which an emaciated vegetarian speaks of good red meat. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place tonight.

1733
This Bill is on the whole a narrow Measure. Clause 1 is the short title. Clause 2 is the definitions Clause. Clause 3 is the first material Clause and repeals Part II of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1924. That Act was brought in because there had been flooding of Beverley Brook in the Barnes district of London. The 1924 Act empowered the L.C.C. to build and maintain a sewer bringing the flood waters from Beverley Brook into the River Thames. It charged the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames for that an annual fee which is at present £850. Under the London Government Act, 1963, the responsibility for the whole of London sewerage was taken over by the G.L.C., and it is, therefore, inappropriate that Richmond should have to pay this extra amount. It is a relatively small amount. The effect of Clause 3 is to relieve the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames from having to pay that £850.
I want to mention in passing the very good record of the G.L.C. in handling its responsibility in relation to main sewerage. In 1969–70 it incurred capital expenditure of £4 million on improving the man sewerage system, and in the current year it has incurred about £9 million. The cost of disposing of all London sewage comes out at about ½p per person per day in London. This sort of expenditure and the increase in the expenditure since 1967 is one of the factors which have contributed towards the cleaning up of the River Thames. We as Londoners should be proud that of all the rivers flowing through capital cities it is only the Thames that is steadily getting cleaner and better. There is more oxygen and less sulphides, and fish are beginning to reappear in the middle reaches of the Thames.
Clause 4 deals with quite complicated building regulations. In the area of outer London matters of drainage, sanitation and lavatories are controlled by the Building Regulations under Section 4 of the Public Health Act, 1961. These can be waived by the London boroughs to allow for new processes or new techniques. For example, on the whole plastic pipes are not allowed by the building regulations, but they are coming to he used more generally, and where a regulation says that
1734
a plastic pipe cannot be used, that regulation can be waived in outer London.
Another regulation prescribes that when a lavatory is added to a house there must be a ventilated lobby joining the lavatory to the house. That regulation can be waived in certain cases—for example, in the case of severely handicapped people.
In outer London these regulations can be waived by the borough council, but, rather strangely, in inner London the borough councils cannot do that because the G.L.C. draws up the regulations and, on the whole, they are not waived at all. But, as hon. Members will appreciate, the pressure to waive them in order to allow for new techniques is very great.
Clause 4 allows the Inner London boroughs to waive these regulations with the approval of the Greater London Council. There is an elaborate system of recording waivers, of appeal if a waiver is rejected, and of extending fines if there is a breach of a waiver by the person who has received it.
As Clause 4 deals with sanitation, it might be appropriate at this stage to deal with a remark made in the House last December by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), when he said in the course of a supplementary question that he intended to oppose this Bill because the G.L.C. had gone back on its word in the matter of sewerage and refuse disposal. The hon. Gentleman was referring to the fact that during the council workers' strike the G.L.C. had discharged from the Crossness sewerage works a certain amount of digested sludge on to 25 acres of land at Thamesmead. That digested sludge has undergone mesophilic treatment. I am advised that it has little smell. It is one of the more harmless sewage treatment products consisting of 97 per cent. water.
The discharge worried the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved), who is an expert on digested sludge, and the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury, who alleged on 16th December that the Council had given an undertaking never to discharge this sludge. The G.L.C. was disappointed, because it drew the attention of the hon. Gentleman to a letter that it had written to the hon.

1735
Member for Erith and Crayford in April of last year in which it said:
"The adoption of such a procedure"—
which is to discharge the sludge—
"at Crossness cannot be discarded out of hand if unreasonable industrial action, or any other unforeseen event, were to lead to a severe emergency in sludge disposal by ships."
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury was ungenerous, to say the least, in suggesting that the G.L.C. went back on its word since it had said in April that it would have to do this if unforeseen circumstances arose.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I shall try to develop the argument later, but the hon. Gentleman is not being fair. What he has said is not in accordance with the facts. The sludge could have been dumped in the Thames if it was not harmful. There was no strike of bargees. However, I was told that it would pollute the Thames. In view of that, it follows that it would pollute the land at Thamesmead.
Mr. Baker: That is a slightly separate point. The point that I am making is that the G.L.C. did not go back on its word. The word was clearly set out in the letter to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford in April of last year.
I turn now to Clause 5, which deals with borough council insurance funds. Certain London boroughs are allowed to maintain their own insurance funds to cover fire and theft of council property. Some boroughs carry their own insurance risk. Others carry some of it and put some out to the commercial market. It is entirely a matter for the boroughs to decide. But some boroughs do not have the power to have their own insurance funds. This is an anomaly, and Clause 5 seeks to put it right by allowing all London boroughs to maintain insurance funds if they wish to.
Clause 6 deals with the rather extraordinary cases where officers of a local authority have to act as receivers under the Mental Health Act or as administrators of deceased persons. When I first heard about this, I thought it would only happen in a few cases. However, I understand that it happens quite frequently, and that the London Borough of Hillingdon, which is concerned about this, has a considerable call on its services. When
1736
someone has to be committed to a mental home and has no dependants, an officer of the public health department may have to take charge of his assets and property. As the London Borough of Hillingdon contains London Airport, it has to take the responsibility of anyone who becomes mentally deranged when passing through the airport. The calls upon the public health services of the London Borough of Hillingdon in this regard are quite substantial.
When an officer of the public health department has to be appointed as the receiver of someone who has been committed to a mental home or has to act as the administrator of someone who has died, possibly a council tenant with no dependants, he has to look after the property that he takes, and it may be that the eventual recipient of the property alleges that he has not looked after it very well.
Clause 6 seeks to allow councils to indemnify their officers if claims are made against them when they act in these rather unusual capacities. I am sure that the House will agree that that is reasonable. The Clause does not grant a general indemnity for malpractice or maladministration of funds. The criminal law is sufficient for that.
Clause 7 again seeks to rectify an anomaly. It concerns the location of crematoria. Under the Cremation Act, 1902, buildings of a crematorium can be sited without consent only more than 200 yards from anyone's property. The London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1935, varied that to 100 yards because there was pressure upon cremated. Burial authorities in Inner pressure is even greater today when over 52 per cent. of deceased people are cremated. Burial authorities in Inner London can build new plant, chapels, new burning appliances or any other buildings required in a crematorium as near to other property as 100 yards. In Outer London, it is 200 yards. In this connection, two Outer London crematoria are experiencing difficulty. The Clause seeks to standardise the position for the whole of London.
Clause 8 is sponsored exclusively by the London Borough of Hillingdon. It deals with the deconsecration of a certain part of Northwood Cemetery. If land is consecrated, people may be

1737
buried there only with the rites of the Church of England. In the London Borough of Hillingdon, people wish to bury deceased relatives with other rites or with no rites at all. The result is that what is required is less consecrated land and more deconsecrated land.
In order to consecrate land in the first place, one needs a bishop et al. To deconsecrate land, one needs an Act of Parliament and the three Estates of Parliament. It is intended to deconsecrate eight acres of Northwood Cemetery. I understand from the London Borough of Hillingdon that the requirement is urgent, since the available plots for burials not according to the rites of the Church of England are now exhausted.
Mr. John Gorst: Having been deconsecrated, could the land be made available for building purposes if the need arose? Is that part of the purpose of these provisions?
Mr. Baker: Strictly speaking, the land could be used in that way after it has been deconsecrated. But that is not the intention of the London Borough of Hillingdon since there is a responsibility placed upon a burial authority to provide land for burials.
Clause 9 is concerned with the costs of the Bill. They will be approximately £4,000 for advertising, printing and agents' fees.
I have gone through the Bill in detail, and the House will appreciate that it contains no provisions which raise important issues of public policy such as would merit the Bill being rejected on Second Reading. I was, therefore, surprised to see on the Order Paper this morning a hostile Motion, in the names of six Socialist Members representing London seats, urging the House to decline
"to give a Second Reading to a Bill that so clearly fails to make provision for the good government of London."
The good government of London depends, and will depend more in the 1970s and 1980s, on how much money the G.L.C. and the individual London borough councils are prepared to spend on improving the basic infrastructure of our capital City. That is what will make government better.
The Tory-controlled G.L.C. has nothing to be ashamed of since it took over
1738
in 1967. Every programme which it has taken over it has extended, modernised and expanded. Indeed, this year in the capital expenditure programme it has allocated £10 million to capital reserve for the improvement of services in London. The Labour opposition on the G.L.C. moved that that capital reserve should be reduced to £7·5 million. So Labour Members in Parliament who are asking for good government should coordinate with Labour members on the Greater London Council who are asking for good government on less money. The two do not go together.
I should now like to touch on one matter which is peripheral to the Bill, but is probably the greatest problem facing London—housing. The first social priority of the G.L.C. is to improve the housing situation in London. I shall not be satisfied or happy until every London family has a decent house in which to live. This is an enormous task. Looking at any forecast over the next 10 years to 1981, there is likely to be a shortfall of upwards of 100,000 houses in London.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to rehouse every citizen of London who wishes to be rehoused. Will he direct his mind to his council's activity at Thamesmead? Does he think it likely that that desirable objective of rehousing London's citizens would be achieved by his Council embarking on a housing scheme where the average cost per unit is in excess of £12,000?
Mr. Baker: The cost of housing at Thamesmead, as the hon. Gentleman well knows as it is part of his constituency, is due in large measure to the difficult problems of building on the low-lying land on that site. The hon. Gentleman has raised an almost irrelevant point. The G.L.C. has completed the first and second stages of Thamesmead. The provison of houses at Thamesmead forms a very important part of the extra provision of houses in London over the next few years.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a problem which is making itself felt throughout a number of London boroughs is that new G.L.C. properties are being left unoccupied because the rents required for them are far too high?
Mr. Baker: I think that the debate has become rather wide. However, the average rent of Greater London properties, taking the old with the new, is £3 10s. this year, which is 9s. less than the G.L.C. in 1967 thought it should be in 1971. I cannot agree that the rents of council properties in London are exhorbitant. I have not come across any case—I have represented both an inner and an outer London borough—where the rent has been a factor in an applicant turning down the offer of a council house or flat.
On lettings, all is not black. In 1971, the G.L.C. will have 16,150 lettings. That is an improvement of 16 per cent. over 1970. Compared with when we came to power on the G.L.C. in 1967, it is an improvement of 36 per cent. If hon. Gentlemen opposite say that that is because of the good work which the L.C.C. did when Labour controlled, I remind them that in 1974 we intend to have over 19,100 lettings a year. It is the lettings figure, the rehousings, the turnover which is so important.
The G.L.C. is in the process of lending £75 million to housing associations. Those housing associations will provide 15,000 homes over the next three years for the people of London. I concede the beneficial effects of the Housing Act, 1969, which increased the grants, which have gone up three times in the last four years in Greater London. Yesterday the G.L.C. announced it was making available £50 million for mortgages. Of that figure £35 million is for newly-weds and engaged couples thinking of setting up their first home. This is positive help with London's housing. The G.L.C. should receive much greater credit for the work that it is doing.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has told us that the G.L.C. has laid out about £100 million-plus for new housing in London. Can he tell us how many million ponds it has spent on purchasing land for its own housing construction over the last year?
Mr. Baker: I have those figures. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises, because he now represents a constituency which I used to represent, that the difficulty of development in the whole of London is the availability of land. That is true of both inner and outer London boroughs. There is a general feeling that
1740
the whole of outer London is full of virgin sites waiting to be developed. Mr. Desmond Plummer, the Tory leader of the G.L.C., is prepared, if the hon. Gentleman can take him to a site anywhere in Greater London, to go with the hon. Gentleman with his cheque-book and buy it tomorrow. [Laughter.] I should qualify that by saying "a site which is available for development." I should also add that Mr. Plummer would buy it on behalf of the G.L.C. This is the greatest difficulty in the development of housing in London.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) knows that the centre of Ealing and Acton will produce a considerable acreage over the next few years, but the time lag between when the redevelopment starts and the first person moves into his council house or flat may be anything from three to 10 years.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The offer which the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of the Greater London Council for Mr. Desmond Plummer to accompany any hon. Member with his cheque book to buy vacant sites is indeed a magnificent statement of G.L.C. policy. Will the hon. Gentleman start by asking Mr. Plummer to accompany the Prime Minister to a site called Crook Log in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency where a scheme for about 72 houses was cancelled by the Bexley Conservative Council and has lain dormant for three years? That would be an ideal site for Mr. Plummer to purchase as the first step towards implementing the pledge which the hon. Gentleman so generously made.
Mr. Baker: I shall be pleased to draw that to the attention of the G.L.C. and of Mr. Plummer. This is a serious matter. The availability, or non-availability, of land in both inner and outer London is restricting both public and private housing development in the capital.
I now turn from housing—
Mr. Spearing Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I have given way once.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman did not give the figure for which I asked.
Mr. Baker: The G.L.C. is also committed to backing up London Transport

1741
in its considerable capital works programme. Over the next 10 years London Transport will spend about £360 million —£36 million a year—on capital equipment. This will go towards the Heathrow link and towards the beginnings, I hope, of the Fleet Line, which is one of the most exciting developments in the underground system as it will open up a great deal of the dockland of London. I hope that the Government will review the request of the G.L.C. concerning the Fleet Line with considerable enthusiasm. It will also go to providing the Northern Line with 30 new trains, and the bus service will have £20 million to spend on the re-equipment of its bus fleet. Behind this capital expenditure programme of London Transport the G.L.C. stands full square.
One of the great problems in London is coping with the environmental difficulties and strains which a great capital city automatically generates. It is in this area that the G.L.C. has wide and far-ranging plans. On combating river pollution, for example, in the last three Labour years, 1964–67, £6 million was spent; in the first three Conservative years, 1967–70, three times as much, £18 million, was spent. In the last three Labour years, £600,000 was spent on flood prevention, compared with £1,400,000 in the first three Conservative years, or nearly three times as much.
The area of pollution of the river and the wider environment of London will provide some of the biggest demands and strains on the G.L.C.'s capital programme. In this, the G.L.C. has everything to be proud of. It has progressive and expanding programmes, it is making life better for Londoners, and it will make it infinitely better for Londoners in the 1970s and the 1980s.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) for the thorough way in which he went through the Bill—a great improvement on the way in which a similar one was dealt with last year. He deserves the congratulations of the House. Also, at times, it was apparent that he anticipated some criticism of the G.L.C. and the Tory-controlled London boroughs, so he went on to explain how tight the Bill is. But the Preamble says:
1742
"It is expedient that further and better provision should be made for the finances, public health and local government services "—
that is a lot—
"of Greater London and…the powers of the Greater London Council…and of the London Borough Councils…"
That is a very wide Preamble, so the hon. Member's hints to Mr. Speaker can probably be ignored and we can have a very wide debate.
Towards the end of his excellent exposition, which he spoiled in his peroration, the hon. Member launched a gallant defence of the Greater London Council and he will be entitled to the accolade of the political Sisyphus of the era, because he is pushing this stone uphill but it will relentlessly fall back on him. He also had a great deal of courage to mention London Transport—a Tory!—and housing—a Tory!
We all know that the difficult situation now is that from last month and up to next May great interest has been and will be expressed in public housing in London by the Conservative-controlled councils and the G.L.C. There will be a wonderful reawakening to the probblems, and we all know why. Something is going to happen next May and they know full well that the democratic system will vent its vengeance on those who have neglected all these services. That is why the hon. Gentleman had to confine most of his remarks to sludge and the mentally disarranged passing through London Airport—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the dead. It was with respect that he mentioned the dead, because in political terms he knew that he was talking about his Conservative colleagues on the G.L.C. and the London boroughs.
Mr. Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the Bill, or will he solely make an election speech?
Mr. Molloy: Within five minutes, I have been able to find that tiny, minuscule object, the Tory conscience—hence that intervention. The hon. Member is afraid that some people might take cognisance of the truths which I am putting forward. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot take it, I understand that the tea room or the bar is still open.
When the hon. Member for St. Marylebone mentioned public transport, I knew

1743
that he understood the problem and appreciated that it has existed for some time. Over the years, there has been neglect by successive Governments of the problem of London Transport. The last Government decided that something had to be done, although they did not do enough. However, after representations, the then Minister of Transport acceded to the argument that London Transport might be more efficient if it were under the control of the G.L.C. This was a reasonable argument, and there was not great opposition to it. There were some financial problems, but they were technical and quickly resolved.
The theory is that London Transport should be the responsibility of the G.L.C. on the grounds that the G.L.C. councillors are much nearer to the public and able to understand what is going on, and that this leads to improvements in London Transport. It is a remarkable thing that I have never heard or seen the three G.L.C. councillors who represent the London Borough of Ealing. We saw them at the election and we have not seen or heard them since.
Of course, this has not happened. It is not entirely the fault of the G.L.C. that there has been no improvement, but it is their fault that there has been a deterioration. I know that they have a problem, just as the Ministry of Transport had, when that ridiculous and absurd formula was imposed on the L.T.E. of having to provide an efficient public service and see that it paid its way. Those last few words almost sounded the death-knell of London Transport. We should have learned the lesson by now, through trying to run a massive public transport system in the greatest capital city in the world on archaic capitalist lines.
London Transport has had to pay its way because the growth of private transport on the inefficient road system has led to a deterioration of the bus services. After that deterioration people resorted to using their private cars, which resulted in fewer bus passengers, which resulted in less revenue, which meant that London Transport was compelled to raise the fares, resulting in fewer people using the transport system.
Then, because of the almost intolerable conditions imposed on our fellow citizens
1744
who drive and conduct London buses, the staff has dwindled. There is no future in driving a London bus or being in charge of it. It has become not only unenviable but almost a distasteful job. I can understand why people have left the L.T.E. staff, particularly the drivers and the conductors. Throughout this time nothing substantial was forthcoming from the G.L.C. to arrest this serious trend. This negligence on the part of the G.L.C. has meant the quality of life for millions of Londoners being damaged.
Perhaps, therefore, the time has come when we should conduct a radical experiment to try to resolve a problem which is frustrating so many Londoners. I refer to the misery of standing in a queue at a bus stop waiting for a bus that never seems to come. When eventually it does come it is one of a convoy. Having waited for so long the passengers are irate and blame the innocent conductress, though the delay has not been her responsibility. This is having a deleterious effect on the life of the travelling public.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, the G.L.C., of which I am proud to be a member, took over control of the finances of London Transport only a year ago and that since then capital expenditure has increased by £2 million last year and £5 million in the current year on new buses and other equipment?
Mr. Molloy: I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the G.L.C. started with a clean slate. He can say, "We have spent more money, we have put up more fares and we have fewer passengers." What a record. The hon. Gentleman's deafening silence indicates that he agrees with me. I hope that those who were responsible for sending him here and for making him a member of the G.L.C. will be sure to give him time off to examine a simple problem like this.
As I was saying, a radical answer may be necessary. Perhaps we should introduce a scheme of free transport. If every London family had to pay 3s. or 4s. more on the rates, they would qualify for free transport within quite a large area.
I accept that there would be arguments about payments by visitors to London,

1745
but commuters already derive considerable benefit from the G.L.C. by way of roads, parking facilities and other amenities. These and similar problems would not be insuperable and, for example, London hotel owners could pay a surcharge to the G.L.C. to cover visitors staying with them.
Mr. Gorst: More bureacracy.
Mr. Molloy: It would be in no way bureaucratic. When the hon. Gentleman has created a licence to print money, he will require his bureaucracy—[Interruption.] —though the money will go into private pockets and not to the State.
The G.L.C. has taken a mean and despicable attitude towards concessionary fares for the aged and infidm. Such a person living in another part of Britain probably receives concessionary travel on public transport. Because of the "generous" attitude of the Tory-controlled G.L.C., any Londoner who is aged or infirm does not enjoy that benefit.
Under the scheme of free public transport in London which I have proposed, we could begin by having limited fares—fares of, say, 5s. for a weekly ticket—but old-age pensioners could immediately be given completely free travel. By so doing we would not only be behaving in a proper manner to those who have made their contribution to society, but would be encouraging those who now use their motor cars to stop cluttering up the streets and go by public transport. Incidentally, industrialists are always very concerned about the ability of their employees to get to work. They never seem concerned about how they get home after work.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. Under the Socialist Act of 1969 the G.L.C. was specifically exempted from having any responsibility, under Section 40, for dealing with concessionary fares by London Transport, and the hon. Gentleman voted for that Act. As a result, the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association introduced a scheme of concessionary fares which, I am glad to say, virtually every borough has accepted. This will mea nthat the alderly who are in receipt of supplementary benefit will get free bus passes, if the local borough approves.
Mr. Ronald Brown: No.
Mr. Baker: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) is trying to improve this concession. Nevertheless, for most London boroughs what I have said applies. Thus, it is not, in fact, a G.L.C. responsibility but a matter for the boroughs, and I am glad to say that most of them are taking it up.
Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman's intervention demonstrates the danger of paying him a compliment. Having congratulated him on the informative way he introduced the Bill and having allowed him to intervene in my speech, he then went into an entirely different matter, and got it all wrong. He knows that that scheme was mean and cunning because it specifically ruled out certain people. Further, the London boroughs had to give their consent and approval to it. Let us simply have a system of concessionary fares for all Londoners and do without this manoeuvering and organising. We can do without the excuses. Let us at least begin by saying that all old-age pensioners should have concessionary travel.
Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) implied that the London Boroughs Association voluntarily came forward with the scheme about which he spoke. There were, in fact, three of us on that association who fought month in and out to try to get the scheme approved, but time and again his Conservative colleagues on the association wilfully said "No"—that is, until December, 1970, and only then did they express the poor and pious view which the hon. Gentleman has reiterated.
Mr. Molloy: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, because it puts the matter in its true perspective.
The G.L.C. has not looked closely enough at the effects of this system. Consider the damage that is being done to the environment. Millions of people are using their motor cars when they should be travelling by public transport, certainly within the confines of Greater London. In both Inner and Outer London we have the serious phenomenon of the motor car that is not moving, leaving aside the traffic caught in the crush.

1747
I am referring to parked vehicles. This phenomenon is seriously afflicting many parts of London, including Perivale, Greenford and Cleveland in Ealing. The G.L.C. does not seem to know that it exists. It seems to imagine that, if motorcars are stopped somewhere, no matter where they go, the problem is solved. In fact, of course, that is no answer.
Particularly in the outer London boroughs, ordinary residential areas are slowly becoming nothing but massive car parks. What is more, an examination of the figures in the works and highways departments of any outer London borough will show that the cost of maintaining roads and pavements has risen enormously because of this growing phenomenon of street car parking.
In addition—this is another result of what I call loose-minded planning—there are parts of Ealing now where, although we have enough industry already and we have made our contribution, what were at one time residential areas are becoming factory sites.
I hope that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) has Mr. Desmond Plummer's permission to hawk his cheque book around, because I shall be one of his customers tomorrow morning. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he goes to the Lyons sports ground which the Labour-controlled Ealing Council had almost purchased, the object being to build homes at rents which people could afford, to make a contribution towards housing the 5,000 homeless families we have in that London borough. Many hundreds of those families would have been decently housed tonight had it not been for the fate of Ealing in having its Labour Council defeated and succeeded by the Tories.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman of another site just over Hanger Hill. Perhaps he has seen it. I have to admit that, because of the actions of the Tory-controlled Ealing Borough Council, there are flats vacant now—very nice, well designed flats, I understand—for any London family who want them. These flats are for sale, so all Londoners can join the queue tomorrow near Hanger Hill and certain other parts of Ealing and buy them for £30,000 each.
1748
What a massive contribution towards solving the housing problem! Hon. Members may be astonished at that figure, but it is there plain enough on the notice boards—£30,000.
In many parts of Greater London, ordinary homes are being damaged by the parking and passing of heavy vehicular traffic in residential areas. I am sure that the whole House agrees that something must be done about this grave problem which is now afflicting so many.
Now, another of our agonies. There was a serious complaint, rightly made, about the parking and passing of heavy vehicles through the streets, but it was noteworthy that no complaint came from one house. That house had been empty for almost two years. It belonged to the Greater London Council. It is criminal neglect that a great capital city with such problems of homelessness and inadequate housing should have an administration which allowed such a situation to develop. It was rectified only when I made a telephone call—I had better not repeat what I said—and sent a letter to the people responsible. One wonders how many other houses in Greater London remain empty because of such disgraceful maladministration.
We must have a fresh look at all these questions, but a fresh look will be possible only when there is a fresh authority. I hope that Londoners will realise that and do something about it when they next have the chance.
The problems of transport and housing are linked with the welfare services. A great city should organise its welfare services in a humane way. In the London Borough of Ealing, however, we have suffered grievously by losing first-class men and women who can no longer stomach the attitudes and practices of those who are now in charge in Ealing. When I say that "we have suffered grievously", I mean the infirm, the handicapped, the aged, those who are housebound, and the rest.
Hon. Members on both sides will, I know, applaud the passing of the Act under the Labour Government which raised the status of the welfare committee to make it a prime committee, with a director of welfare services in charge. I cannot speak for every London borough, but I must say that the Tories of Ealing

1749
are evading their responsibility to get on with establishing a director of welfare and social services and establishing a first-class committee so that our services may rank in the top echelon of local government provision.
In all these respects, my hon. Friends are fully justified in putting down their Amendment. Both the Tory-controlled London borough councils and the Greater London Council itself are exhibiting an conspicuous incapacity to fulfil their responsibilities in safeguarding and raising the quality of life of their citizens. Indeed, it is not so much that they have failed to raise standards and improve the quality of life of Londoners but, by their neglect, they have allowed those standards to deteriorate. I hope that the time is not far distant when the dry, acrid dogmatic Tory approach will be reversed and we can build a London of which we can all be proud.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Toby Jessel: I support the Bill as a whole, and, unlike the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) I shall refer to it. I refer, first, to Clause 3, which would remove a small but inequitable burden upon the ratepayers of the borough which includes both my constituency of Twickenham and that covering Richmond and Barnes; that is, the constituency of Mr. Anthony Royle.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must not refer to an hon. Member by name.
Mr. Jessel: I apologise for that minor error, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. Anthony Royle). The borough consists of just those two constituencies.
There flows through the area a small tributary of the River Thames called Beverley Brook. It rises in New Malden, comes down parallel to the Kingston bypass, through Richmond Park, and into Barnes, where it turns eastward and joins the Thames near Putney.
In the past, this river, like other tributaries of the Thames, has caused quite serious local flooding at the time of major storms. In 1924, the then London
1750
County Council was asked to agree to construct a culvert—that is, a glorified pipe—to relieve the area where the flooding took place and to discharge water into the Thames. The site of that culvert was in the then Borough of Barnes, which was outside the area of the then London County Council. Barnes did not at that time have the capacity in manpower, skill and resources to do the work, and the London County Council, which was expert in these matters, was asked to do it. But the Barnes Borough Council was asked to pay for it and for the maintenance and other charges arising thereafter. This brought about the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1924, which the Bill will repeal.
After the London Government Act, 1963, created the new boroughs and the Greater London Council, the liability of the Barnes Borough Council was inherited by the new Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. However, in the 1924 Act the new culvert of Beverley Brook was classified as a main drain, and under the London Government Act main drains became the responsibility of the G.L.C. and their cost was to fall upon the ratepayers of Greater London as a whole. But those responsible for drafting it omitted the repeal of the 1924 Act, with the result that the cost of maintaining the culvert has fallen unfairly ever since upon the ratepayers of Richmond-upon-Thames, who are also contributing their share of the cost of the main drainage of Greater London as a whole.
There is no reason why the ratepayers of my constituency and my borough should carry this burden any longer, although it is not a great burden, and I hope that all hon. Members will support that part of the Bill in particular.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what percentage of a penny rate is the total cost of the maintenance of the culvert?
Mr. Jessel: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise figure without notice. I agree that it is not a large amount, and no one has said or implied that it is. But there is a principle involved. These anomalies, even if they bear to only a small extent upon ratepayers, should be tidied up, and it is

1751
right that this provision should be included in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North raised a larger matter. He referred to the traffic situation in Greater London and spoke of the phenomenon of the car that is not moving. We should see this matter in perspective. There is an enormous demand in the country at large, including Greater London, to own and use cars. This tendency continues relentlessly year in and year out, whichever Government are in power and regardless of national prosperity. Car ownership has been increasing steadily by 4 or 5 per cent. per year, nowhere more than in the kind of constituency represented by the hon. Gentleman. In outer London suburbs car ownership has been rising even more rapidly than in inner London, but the usage of cars has been rising faster than ownership, because owners seek to get a bigger mileage out of them on average each year, so the mileage covered by cars is increasing at a rate more like 7 or 8 per cent. a year. This has been compound interest. Over the past 12 to 15 years we have seen at least a doubling in the mileage of all cars in Britain and in the Greater London area.
When we recall how severe the traffic jams were back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, we see that it is a most remarkable achievement by the local authorities, the G.L.C. and its predecessor, the London County Council—I say that, because I am not trying to make a political point—that the traffic jams today, despite the enormous increase in traffic, are not worse than they are. The first way in which this has been achieved is by getting more capacity out of the existing road system—by traffic management, to use the jargon, with measures such as clearways, yellow lines, prohibiting right turns, and one-way streets.
The G.L.C., and the L.C.C. before it, introduced an enormous number of such schemes, totalling about 1,700 or 1,800 over the Greater London area as a whole. Besides doing a great deal to help the flow of traffic, the schemes have enhanced road safety. For example, in a one-way system the pedestrian has only to look in one direction for the traffic; and the one-way systems are usually accompanied by yellow lines which ban
1752
waiting in the daytime, with the result that pedestrians do not step out so often from behind parked vehicles, which is a major cause of accidents. The G.L.C. should be given a great deal of credit for the successful way in which, aided by the London borough councils and the police, it has introduced a very large number of these schemes.
Second, the flow of traffic can be promoted by the construction of new roads, which obviously not only help the traffic moving along them but, by the increased capacity, relieve traffic congestion in the surrounding area, often over quite a wide area.
Third, it is the policy of the G.L.C. and most of the London boroughs to reduce traffic congestion by the introduction of larger and larger areas with parking meters. The purpose is, frankly, to deter the all-day commuter into central London and other large centres, such as Croydon, Bromley and Kingston, from driving into them by car when he could be using public transport. It is impossible ever with any available road system to cater for all those who would like to go to work by car and park all day. I believe that about one in 12 of those living in the suburbs and working in Central London, the City or the West End travels by car. If car ownership doubled again in the next 15 years, it would be impossible to cater for twice the number of cars.
However many car parks there were in the centre of London, we would never have the capacity in the road system to cater for all that peak-hour traffic. Therefore, parking meter systems are being extended to deter the car commuter and make it possible for those who must move about by car during the day to do so. I am thinking of doctors, salesmen, business men and executives of all sorts, people making professional, social and business calls of many kinds, lorry drivers, bus drivers, tax drivers and so on. They can now move about in the West End and many parts of Central London more easily than was the case 15 years ago before parking meters were introduced.
The hon. Membeh for Ealing, North particularly mentioned the movement of buses. He said that driving had become distasteful to bus drivers and implied that fewer and fewer people wanted to do it.

1753
But the extra capital expenditure of £5 million sanctioned by the G.L.C. since it took over the finances, but not the day-to-day running, of London Transport a year ago has been and will be expended more and more on the introduction of new one-man buses. The Red Arrow system was started in central London a few years ago. It is being extended by London Transport in central London, and one-man buses are beginning to appear on routes in outer London, including my constituency. I do not know whether they are in Ealing.
On the whole, these have been a great success, particularly with the bus drivers. I recently visited the Fulwell bus garage in my constituency, where I met a number of the drivers and one of the shop stewards. They all confirmed the view of the London Transport Executive that the drivers like to take control of one-man buses. It makes the job more interesting, because it gives them more contact with the passengers. They are in sole charge, instead of having to take orders from a conductor as to when they go and when they stop. It is more economical, and, as it is possible to pay one man instead of two, higher wages can be offered. The G.L.C. has been encouraging London Transport to go ahead with more and more one-man buses. But it should be obvious to everyone that it is not possible all of a sudden to destroy the stock of existing two-storey buses.
Mr. Molloy: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe' that, admirable though they may be in some respects, the one-man buses—the E-type buses, as we call them in Ealing—are answering the problem, or does he agree with the leader of the Ealing Borough Council, who described them when introduced by the G.L.C. as "cattle trucks"?
Mr. Jessel: That is an absurd and misleading description. It is true that some people, such as old-age pensioners, have found some difficulty in getting in and out of them. Not everybody likes the automatically closing doors. London Transport is giving careful attention to improving the design and perhaps altering the structure of the doors of some of the existing buses where possible. This is something that the drivers can take care of. On the whole, the buses,
1754
although not without fault, have been a great success, and the public generally do not dislike them. Therefore, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Molloy: It was not I who said it. It was the leader of the Ealing Council.
Mr. Jessel: The G.L.C. and London Transport have a great deal to be proud ofh ere. I hope that all hon. Members will support the Bill.
8.22 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I enter the debate because I am one of the signatories of the Motion and I believe what I say—that I do not believe that the Bill does anything for the society in which we live in London. I take objection to the Preamble to the Bill. Indeed, I take objection to most Preambles to Bills of this kind. I do so because they include the phrase
"…and the Common Council of the City of London."
It is not a borough council, never has been and never will be. It is a fraudulent, rotten borough and should not be given these extended powers. It has powers which bona fide boroughs are given. It is extraordinary that we should keep on extending powers for the Common Council when the only objective part of its name is "common". I am opposed to the Bill on that ground alone.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) made a point about my altercation with the Greater London Council. It concerned the disposal of sludge and what I regard as the G.L.C.'s bad temper and unwillingness to play its proper rôle in local government, including a wilful refusal to meet people.
Mr. Kenneth Baker indicated dissent.
Mr. Brown: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Cutler of the G.L.C. had something like six months in which to make arrangements to meet the London Boroughs Association's representatives—his own friends, since we on this side have very few friends in that Association. He refused to do so. But because of the action of myself and my hon. Friends over this Bill Mr. Cutler met the association's representatives last Tuesday. He still has not met the representatives of the five London boroughs who have been wanting

1755
to meet him for a year. Yesterday he sent a letter to them saying that because he had met the London Boroughs Association it was not really worth meeting them. Therefore, this problem between me and the G.L.C. has been going on for many years.
I attended a meeting about the question of the sludge disposal on 12th March, 1970. With me were my hon. Friends the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle). We discussed the problem of Thamesmead and the apparent proposal of the G.L.C. to deposit this filthy smelling sludge at the site of Thamesmead. It did not choose to deposit it on the private development side, of course, but on the council development side.
I represent an Inner London area and I have to tell my constituents to consider moving out of London if they are to be adequately housed. I have often had to tell them that Thamesmead is one of the good places to go to. I cannot go on advising them to accept nomination to Thamesmead if they are to get sludge dumped outside their front doors every time the G.L.C. decides to do so. I was at that meeting in March, 1970, because that is my interest. There was a long discussion during which my hon. Friends and I probed the intentions of the G.L.C. I was not satisfied that undertakings were being given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford with his usual generosity and courtesy, was prepared to accept a reasonable argument from the G.L.C. officers that they could not conceive of a a situation in which they would dump the sludge. I said that if they were saying that it was only in a situation of an act of God that the G.L.C. would take the view that it should dump the sludge at Thamesmead, I would be prepared to accept that. I came away with the positive understanding that only in the situation of an act of God—words which I used at the meeting—would the Council consider this step. I was given the clear impression that it would dump the sludge only in exceptional circumstances.
The industrial action taken by workers of the G.L.C. had only lasted a few days before the G.L.C. started dumping its sludge at Thamesmead. I regard myself
1756
then as having been mislead and I still regard myself as having been mislead. How others regard it, I do not know, but I was mislead. If this action had been taken after the strike had gone on for weeks or months, I would have understood it. I would have been prepared to concede that perhaps it was an emergency, although even then the decision would have been taken rather quickly.
That was not the case. I stand by what I said. I understand from the meeting that it would only be in an act of God situation that the G.L.C. would dump the sludge at Thamesmead. My hon. Friend recalls my saying these things to him. I warned him, however, that I did not believe that it would only be done in those circumstances—that given an easy chance to dump the sludge at Thamesmead the G.L.C. would do so. I was proved right. So I do not apologise for having made the statement that I was misled. I stand by it.
This sort of experience has conditioned me very much in my attitude towards the G.L.C. I could quote a number of cases. I will give another illustration following the argument made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I have given undertakings about certain dates in planning matters. I have honestly believed them. I have passed them on to my constituents in relation to work and the completion of work—only to discover that the G.L.C. has been two years out in its calculation. These are not isolated incidents. There are many such cases.
Above all, we come up against the arrogance of Mr. Plummer and his cohorts, who feel that they have no truck with anyone else. If they are to continue this sort of behaviour, we shall continue to fight it and show Mr. Plummer and Mr. Cutler that they are responsible to the people of London and that we as Members of this House will defend our constituents to the utmost. I shall continue to oppose the G.L.C. in this way until it comes to the realisation that it is a local authority, that the London boroughs have a right to discuss things with it, that London must be run for Londoners and that it cannot engineer a takeover of the boroughs.
I find the suggestion that the G.L.C. is improving housing conditions quite

1757
extraordinary, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). Sometimes I wonder whether we are all speaking the same language. On behalf of the G.L.C. Mr. Cutler said:
"The sooner we are out of the housing business the better."
How one can tie that up with the suggestion that the G.L.C. is improving the housing situation is beyond me. Mr. Cutler is busy getting out of it. He is getting rid of the sites: he is refusing to build; he is ensuring that the G.L.C. does not do house building work. I have quoted the figures ad nauseam of the work done under the previous G.L.C. administration before 1967. I have shown how it lent much more money for house purchase under the Labour Government than the G.L.C. had been able to do under the Tory Government. Much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham claimed as a virtue of the G.L.C. was due entirely to the good offices of the Labour Government, who allowed it a large subsidy. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the 1969 Act.
Mr. Bob Brown: I appeal to my hon. Friend to be at least a little more charitable to Mr. Cutler. He must appreciate that the Secretary of State for the Environment is on record as having upbraided Tory councils and their housing committee chairmen for being more enthusiastic even than Labour housing committee chairmen who want to build more and more council houses. The right hon. Gentleman having made these scathing remarks about Tory housing committees chairmen, clearly Mr. Cutler does not want to be put more or less outside the "in" crowd in Tory politics.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that. It is a useful piece of additional knowledge to store away.
I was about to turn to the question of the provision of land. In my constituency, the borough council is doing precisely what the G.L.C. is doing. It regards the G.L.C. as being Pooh-Bah. It believes that what the G.L.C does it must also do. There is a site in Islington, No. 75 to 77 Highbury New Park. It was purchased in. 1968 before the Labour council was defeated, and even before the new Tory housing committee had met
1758
the new chairman decided that he was going to sell the site.
This was for 20 one-bedroom units. These are a very valuable commodity in London, and they are something for which the G.L.C. will not take nominations. It claims not to have any. The Tory chairman decided to get rid of the site and that he would have to do it by trying to find some sort of housing association. I will not retell that story, because I told it only two or three weeks ago. The G.L.C. could have bought the site, and was invited by me many times publicly to buy it. I went to the London Borough of Hackney and asked whether it would hold talks with the G.L.C. about buying the site from the London borough of Islington. This is all on record.
The story I want to tell tonight is that after two and a half years there is not a brick on that site. The leader of the Tory Council has said in reply to a question from me, because I was rather upset about it, "Oh, well, if the council builds it, it will take much longer than two and a half years." I do not know how much longer it could take. He also said that if the Tory Council build it it will cost more.
To my horror the other night I read in the Evening Standard that this same leader of the Tory Council had written to the Secretary of State for the Environment asking the Minister to take emergency action and allow the leader of the council to purchase any of the railway land in Islington. Why would he want to purchase that if the council has not yet built any houses on this 20 one-bedroom unit site? It would be much more costly and would take longer than three years, he said. We begin to see how these silly little men work.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone talked about rents. I do not know what they are in St. Marylebone and I was interested in his £3 concept. In my constituency they are £7 and £8.
Mr. Clinton Davis: What does my hon. Friend think is the likely effect in Hackney and Islington of the Government's rent subsidy policy?
Mr. Brown: This is an interesting point. If what we hear from the trees is true, that with the new housing subsidy rent will have to go up by 10s. and 15s. a

1759
week until they reach some economic rent level, and if we are then to do away with subsidies to reduce Exchequer expenditure, the total rent will be enormous. It is already £7, and we are nowhere near the economic level. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone is speaking about reasonable rents, and he ought to look at this. We know how the G.L.C. does it. There are places in my constituency with a bath in the kitchen. I would throw them out for that if for nothing else.
The G.L.C. has been very active getting rid of its houses to the boroughs, and I have been worried about this. These houses having been transferred to the boroughs, it means that other boroughs will not get the service they ought to have. It is a pretty poor maintenance service now, but it will be even worse when the staff are transferred to the boroughs in whose areas the houses are, leaving other boroughs denuded of maintenance staff. Although we have prayed against the relevant Order, the Government have not seen fit to put that Order down for debate. The Government have not thought fit to lay the Order so that we might have the opportunity of discussing it. Those of us involved in the negotiations want a public statement in the House on the scandalous situation which has arisen.
We prayed against the transfer of parks and open spaces on the second day after the Statutory Instrument was laid. The Government appear to have no intention of allowing us to discuss it. The 40-day limit is up on 30th March, which is not far ahead. There is no indication in the business for next week that we shall be able to pray against the Statutory Instrument next week. Therefore, there will be only Monday and Tuesday of the following week on which we can do it. We suspect that the Government are so ashamed that they will not allow those of us who have been involved in these two unpleasant exercises concerning the G.L.C.'s decision to divest itself of responsibility to discuss the matter.
Who pays for the open spaces in the City of Westminister? Not the ratepayers or the people in the City of Westminister. The taxpayer pays for them. They are called Royal Parks. They have only about
1760
50 acres of their own. Therefore, they are anxious to make sure that the G.L.C. gets rid of its open spaces on the boroughs so that they can divest themselves of their part of the precept. How clever and cunning.
I hope that the Government will allow us to pray against the Statutory Instruments so that we may argue the case and make the public aware of the situation. The London Boroughs of Hackney and Islington will have a great deal of money to pay. The ratepayers should know about that before 13th March so that they can make their own judgment on the Tory G.L.C.'s idea about getting rid of their property.
I come to the question of concessionary fares. This is one of the most unpleasant stories I have ever heard. I do not complain about people changing their minds. That is perfectly reasonable and valid. This is what education is about. We take people from the known to the unknown by logical steps and expect that they understand what it is all about.
For 12 months my colleagues and I on the London Boroughs Association were trying hard to get the L.B.A. to persuade the G.L.C. that, by precepting over the whole of the Greater London Area, a concessionary fares scheme could be operated. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Transport when the Transport (London) Bill was going through the House in 1969. He will forgive me for reminding him that we had many acrimonious discussions about Clause 40 of the Bill and the validity of the G.L.C.'s argument that the boroughs should be responsible for implementing concessionary fares. I argued most strongly that to say that because the boroughs were welfare authorities they should be the implementers of a concessionary fares scheme was not valid.
I recall my hon, Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West saying to me, "If only Mr. Plummer would take on this task it would be much easier for me to do it." Mr. Plummer never had any intention of taking on the task. I resent hon. Members opposite claiming that my hon. Friend placed the onus on the London boroughs to provide concessionary fare schemes when it is well

1761
known that Mr. Plummer refused to cooperate in this exercise and ensured that the Government, if they wanted to get the Transport (London) Bill through and if concessionary fares were to be given to Londoners, would have to rely on the London boroughs doing it.
As soon as the Bill became law my friends and I on the L.B.A. asked for the implementation of Section 40. Time and again the L.B.A., with its Conservative majority refused. This was for several reasons but, above all, because it was argued that it was a national issue. We have to remember that there was a Labour Government then. The argument was that if concessionary fares were to be given, the Government should provide money for them, because this was a welfare service which should not be run by the boroughs. We all agreed that it was the G.L.C.'s job, but our view was that once the law had given it to the boroughs, the boroughs should do it. The Conservative view was that it was a national issue and that it was up to the Government, and for month after month my friends and I tried to get the L.B.A. to change its mind. We brought in new schemes and old schemes which had been varied and did all we could to keep the discussion going, but every time there was a solid Tory vote against it.
My friends and I persisted until December, when suddenly the Tories changed their minds and produced this cooked-up scheme which is so unfair. I do not complain about the Tories changing their minds. Whereas they thought it was a national issue under a Labour Government, as soon as a Tory Government were in power it became a local issue. I can understand the logic of that. Now this scheme has been agreed, and the Tories are pretending that there is more to it than there really is.
Between 9.30 a.m. and 4 p.m., 61 per cent. of the seats on the buses are empty. Those seats are already paid for, so that all we have to do is to put someone on them. The fares have been raised, and London Transport is making £2 million profit, so every seat on every bus must already be paid for. But London Transport will not have that. It is saying that a voucher will be given to enable a person to travel not at half fare but at a child's fare. The
1762
proposal is that this voucher can either be given to an elderly person or be sold to him. London Transport has argued the heinous case that any concessionary fares scheme will have to contribute towards the profitability of the London transport system. It is intended that concessionary fares should be used as a means of raising revenue and making a profit.
The Tory view is that passes should be given to men over 65 and ladies over 60, provided that they are on supplementary benefit or receiving a rate rebate. I assume that the Tories know that the reason why people are on supplementary benefit is that they are below the minimum income level. Therefore, the supplementary benefit which they get is prescribed for certain purposes, including food, to bring them up to the minimum income level. They know that there will be no spare money for travelling, because that is not what supplementary benefits do. Supplementary benefit is not for travelling, but only for very specified reasons.
Those of us who have had discussions on behalf of constituents and of old people, especially regarding increased supplementary benefits, know only too well what is laid down about this very limited range of areas for which money can be given. The Tories knew, when they said that it was only for people on supplementary benefit, that nobody would have the money with which to travel. Old people will understand the phrase "free passes for old people" as meaning that they have free travel. Yet they will not have it. They will be paying child's fare if they travel.
My first charge is that the Tories know quite well that for people on supplementary benefit it will be an impossibility, because they do not have sufficient money with which to pay for travelling. Supplementary benefit will not give them that sort of money but will only bring them up to the minimum.
Take the case of two people on the same minimum income, where one person has had to go to draw supplementary benefit to bring his income up, and the other person is on the bare minimum. The person who did not draw supplementary benefit because he was on the bare minimum would have to pay the full fare. That cannot be fair.

1763
This matter transcends politics. Concessionary fares have nothing to do with politics. We are trying to allow the elderly folk of London to travel about in the main stream of life, visiting their children and their families, and living again in later life.
Mr. Thomas Cox: My hon. Friend's last point is relevant especially to retired people. Even allowing for those people who will be able to scrape together the £3 7s. needed to purchase a voucher, there is no provision made for evening travel. Very often elderly people visit friends and relatives in the afternoon, stay for tea, and then want to return home in the evening. Unless they make use of the vouchers by 3.30 p.m., they will have to pay the full fare. A greater criticism of the scheme is that there is no provision whatever for use of the vouchers on a Sunday. This is the day when the vast majority of people like to travel—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Speech."] and yet there is no provision for that. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend, from his experience on the London Boroughs Association, could tell us what opposition exists on those two points.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has been seized of the real issues involved. I shall come to his points in a moment. We have this complete injustice between one person and another simply because one is on the bare minimum income and the other is below it and has to draw supplementary benefit.
The other case is that of a person who is having his rates rebated. There can be only one householder entitled to that.
There could be two spinster ladies who have lived together as sisters for some considerable time, with one of them in control of the rent book so that only she can claim a rate rebate, according to this cheme which the Conservatives have finally dreamed up after so long, and she will be able to have the "free pass" but her sister, living in the same house on the same money and in the same circumstances, will have to pay.
I argue, therefore, that it is a complete injustice, apart from the inhumanity involved. My hon. Friends have asked me to tell some of the stories out of
1764
school. I will do so, because it has hurt me, more than anything else, to see a political party so miserably—
Mr. Bob Brown: Will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that when I, having on two occasions introduced a Private Member's Bill to extend the right to local authorities on travel concessions, finally succeeded in getting that embodied as Clause 136 of the Transport Bill, 1968, I did not envisage that there would ever be such a shocking hotchpotch of a scheme as is now offered in London?
My hon. Friend talks about this transcending politics. Will he accept that in the County Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne the Tories to their credit, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, (Mr. Edward Short) got his Measure on the Statute Book in 1965, behaved in a far more civilised fashion than the London boroughs are now doing. Pensioners in Newcastle for many years travelled at Id. They are now travelling at 2d., even under a very reactionary Tory authority.
Will my hon. Friend further accept it from me that at the time of the passing of the London Transport Act Mr. Plummer and his friends would not have needed to go down on their knees begging my right hon. Friend and myself to allow them to grant a complete concessionary scheme for London?
Mr. Ronald BrownI am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks from experience. On a number of occasions I myself and a number of other London Members discussed this matter with my hon. Friend and pressed him to take action. I know the feeling of desperation that he felt when the G.L.C. would not accept responsibility.
Mr. Gorst: I have followed with rapt attention the hon. Gentleman's references to parks and open spaces, education, concessionary fares, housing, justice, injustice, and so on. I should be grateful if, before he sits down, which I imagine will be in about an hour or two, he would address himself to the problem of what exactly in the Bill he does not agree with. I appreciate that there are many things he would like to see in the Bill.
Mr. Brown: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not stay in the Chamber

1765
a little longer. If he had done so, he would have heard me refer to the Preamble, which refers to
"further and better provision should be made for the finances, public health and local government services of Greater London."
If it is beyond the hon. Gentleman's wit to understand that concessionary fares, health and welfare are a part of local government in London, I cannot help him beyond saying that I am prepared to give him tuition on Saturday mornings in an effort to increase his understanding a little.
Then this rather poor scheme was brought forward by the Tories on the L.B.A. as their means of trying to salvage what they thought was a political issue. The rapidity with which they have taken this up in Press announcements and Press coverage is extraordinary.
I am grateful to those London boroughs—there are five or six of them, all of which are particularly concerned—which have said, "We will not do this. We will give vouchers to everyone over the age of 60 and 65". This means that in those boroughs everybody will be able to travel and return to the mainstream of life.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: I should like to get one thing straight whilst the hon. Gentleman is making the election speech for the London borough elections and the Greater London Council elections. Is he pledging himself and the Labour Party in London at some date, if it ever gains control of the G.L.C., to total free travel on all days at all times for all persons over 60? This seems to be the case he is making.
Mr. Brown: That is very interesting. But only yesterday I was fighting the hon. Gentleman's friends in the London Boroughs Association. There were no newspapers today, so, unfortunately, there are no reports of the battle. For that reason, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman is to be forgiven for not knowing anything about it.
In the course of those discussions, I asked for a feasibility study into the possibilities of a fare-free transport undertaking. There are a number of good arguments in favour of it, and I think that the time has come when such a study would pay dividends. I was asking for an independent inquiry. I do not want the Greater London Council to do it, as
1766
it says that it has done it. I do not want the London Transport Executive to do it, because it is under a restriction imposed by the G.L.C. to be financially viable, and any scheme which involves a possible rate fund contribution is automatically out. Consequently, I want such a study made by an independent assessor who will take into account all the other factors involved in assessing such a scheme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is very much in my mind.
However, I am dealing with the facts of the case. We now have this very poor scheme—
Mr. Bob Brown: It is a tatty scheme.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I agree, it is a tatty scheme. A number of London boroughs are being extremely harsh. Many of them rely upon the fact that the scheme will not come into operation before 1st April, and they believe that by the time that the elections take place on 13th May the people of London will not have realised how they have been "conned". The boroughs believe that the time scale will be too short for the people to understand the full implications of this scheme.
I hope that this debate will bring to the attention of the people of London how shoddy this scheme is. I hope, too, that we shall get as many boroughs as possible to improve upon it and make it possible for a concessionary fares scheme to be introduced in London that is at least equivalent to other schemes in various parts of the country.
I think I have dealt with the points that I wanted to raise. I believe we have been able to illustrate this evening that the Greater London Council could have brought forward a vastly improved Bill which showed its concern for the environmental health of the people of London and demonstrated its imagination about the requirements of the great Metropolis. It has fallen down badly, and, therefore, I oppose the Bill.
9.3 p.m
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr Graham Page): I hestitate to interrupt in this election campaign rehearsal for the local government hustings, but it is customary for a Government spokesman to intervene briefly in the course of a debate on a Private

1767
Bill in order to inform the House of any respects in which the Bill might run contrary to Government policies.
On this Bill there is only one matter, and it relates to the contents of Clause 7 which is concerned with the distance of crematoria from houses. As I understand it, the intention of Clause 7 is to reduce the distance in outer London from 200 yards to 100 yards. We feel that if that is to be done there must be better provisions for the public consideration of proposed sites.
If the House sees fit to give the Bill a Second Reading and to commit it to the appropriate Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a report on the subject to that Committee. Perhaps the matter can be solved by an extension of what we call "the bad neighbour provisions" of the General Development Order or the planning application advertisement requirements of Section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is probably aware that what he has said will give much comfort to many people, among them a number of my constituents in Chingford who are affected already by a proposal to build a crematorium on a site which does not conform to existing legislation but which would conform to the proposal in the Bill. I have received many expressions of anxiety and requests to oppose these provisions. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that advice will be given to the Committee on the ways in which opposition to such proposals may be best accomplished.
Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the proposals in Clause 7 go a little too far unless we have full public participation in the information about the proposed sites for the crematoria.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) very ably explained the purposes, contents and merits of the several Clauses of the Bill: in Clause 3, the relief of Richmond from a double-drainage payment; in Clause 4, the power for Inner London boroughs to waive building regulations, where appropriate; in Clause 5, the power for London boroughs to operate an insurance fund; in Clause 6, the indemnity of local
1768
government officers acting as mental health receivers or deceaseds' representatives; and, in Clause 8, the deconsecration of the area of a certain cemetery.
During the debate we have had from the Opposition a scraping of the political barrel for charges against the Greater London Council, even from an hon. Gentleman representing a constituency in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), which seem wholly irrelevant to the contents of this useful little Bill which contains subjects well worthy of consideration by a Committee.
I commend the Bill to the House.
9.7 p.m.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Initially, I want to refer to one or two points in the Bill.
Clause 7 creates a neat situation, or perhaps it was created before, whereby the word "crematorium" was substituted for the words
"building fitted with appliances for the purpose of burning human remains."
What a glorious term that is. I sometimes feel that it could almost be adaptable in this House if we called it a building fitted with appliances for eating words. It seems that the most extraordinary language is imported into the drafting of that Clause.
I observe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) noted the disappearance from the scene in Ealing of his three Greater London councillors. I imagine that provision is being made for them in Clause 8.
The Minister for Local Government and Development has berated us for raising the general principles of London government, quite unjustly, I submit, because—
Mr. Gorst: Most unjustly!
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman's berating was unjust, because he clearly omitted to observe the first recital of the Preamble:
"It is expedient that further and better provision should be made for the finances, public health and local government services of Greater London".
Surely, by reason of that Preamble, we are entitled to question the efficacy of the provision which is at present being made for the finances, public health and local government services of London. This

1769
was the gravaman of the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown). He argued with care and knowledge, being in a position of some responsibility in the London Boroughs Association, having occupied that position over a number of years—
Mr. Gorst: Far too long.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Member normally makes his contributions from a sedentary position and they are not normally very useful, but if he wants me to give way I will certainly do so.
Mr. Gorst: Later.
Mr. Davis: I should be pleased to give way, because any contribution from the hon. Member can only help this side of the House.
Mr. Gorst: I would be most grateful to the hon. Member if he would give way when he actually gets to the point.
Mr. Davis: It is a complicated one, but providing that he behaves responsibly in that regard I shall be pleased to offer the hon. Gentleman that open ticket.
Mr. Roland Moyle: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, would he agree that the Bill is intended to introduce a measure of expedient improvement in the finances; public health and local government services not only of the G.L.C. but also of the London boroughs as well? He omitted that point.
Mr. Davis: I did omit that point, but I was certainly going to refer to it. I had pertinent things to say about the situation in the London Borough of Hackney in housing and welfare, which very much relates to the Preamble of the Bill.
One hon. Member rightly said that the first social priority in London must be to improve housing. Unquestionably, this is the gravest problem facing us all. Each one of us, holding his weekly or fortnightly surgery—perhaps monthly in the case of some hon. Members opposite—
Mr. Ronald Brown: Yearly.
Hon. Members: Cheap.
Mr. Davis: I would not go that far, but I know that some of them hold regular surgeries as often as we do.
The main burden of complaint and inquiry by the enormous number of constituents who come to us relates to housing. The indescribable conditions in which people, in Inner London particularly, live is something which each of us must be deeply troubled about. These matters have been discussed recently in the Greve and Francis Reports and the House will debate them at considerable length later on. But I am not being in the least tendentious when I say that all of us, regardless of our party beliefs, would accept that this is the gravest problem affecting the people of London at present.
With housing as inadequate as it is, all sorts of social problems necessarily follow. One of my complaints about the Greater London Council is that there is something of a soulless bureaucracy about the way in which it handles com plaints. May I illustrate this with a situation which I have mentioned in the House before, in the hope that some pressure might have been brought to bear on the G.L.C.? Unfortunately, my hopes have been dashed.
This situation arose during June 1970, and affected a small terrace of houses in Hackney in a street called Paragon Road. My attention was drawn to this because, as a candidate during the General Election, I was asked to meet the tenants, who had formed themselves into an association. I went—the other two candidates in my constituency did not go—and saw conditions which would have done discredit to the meanest private landlord. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury knows something of this problem because I have consulted him from time to time, as a more experienced hon. Member, about the way in which one goes about bringing pressure to bear to resolve appalling situations of this kind.
This small terrace of houses was not merely squalid. Almost every house was structurally unsound, and some of them were in the most deplorably dangerous condition. I wrote to the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the G.L.C. asking him to meet a deputation from the Tenants' Association and a borough

1771
councillor and myself so that his personal attention could be drawn to the plight of these people. He had the grace to receive us. He said in August that he would give the matter his earnest attention, that we could expect to hear from him within six weeks and that he would have a survey done of the whole area.
Six weeks passed and nothing happened. After 10 weeks I eventually heard from him. I was told that there were difficulties with the London Borough of Hackney—difficulties about which Hackney had never been consulted—that the area was designated as an open space and that the situation would be resolved in the course of time because the Architect's Department would be inquiring into the terrace of houses. I was told that the G.L.C. had in mind spending a great deal of money, but that, initially, sufficient would be spent to make the premises wind and weather proof. That was a tacit admission that they were not in a wind and weather proof condition.
I remind the House that I am referring to premises owned by the G.L.C. and not by some tatty landlord in Islington or Hackney. Because of the pressure which we exercised locally, we discovered that the Medical Officer of Health for the London Borough of Hackney had, to the borough's credit, made provision for seven public health notices to be served on the G.L.C.
It must be unprecedented for one local authority to serve seven such notices on another in respect of 12 properties owned by that other authority. It was scandalous that the G.L.C. should have conducted its housing business in that way, instead of properly, fairly and justly.
Mr. Thomas Cox: While I am shocked to hear the example which my hon. Friend has given, his constituents at least had the pleasure, if one can call it that, of meeting the Chairman of the G.L.C.'s Housing Committee. In my constituency we have on one housing estate that belongs to the G.L.C. the annual general meeting of the estate committee on Wednesday of next week. The present Chairman of the G.L.C.'s Housing Committee has, according to the latest information available to me, refused to attend that a.g.m., although he has been
1772
invited. Perhaps I should mention that the G.L.C. members for this locality are Socialists and that they will be in attendance.
Mr. Davis: Scandalous though that may be, I do not find it in the least surprising. My hon. Friend said that my constituents had had the pleasure of meeting the Chairman of the G.L.C.'s Housing Committee. A fat lot of good it did them. Although some work has been done on this terrace of houses, they are still living there. I gather that they have been made temporarily wind and weather proof—[Interruption.] I am not sure which hon. Gentleman opposite commented on that remark, but I will willingly give way to whoever it was.
Mr. Tebbit: I was remarking that it was rather a pity that this House had not been made wind proof before the hon. Gentleman rose to speak.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman, who is notorious for his knowledge of windiness, has made a useful contribution to the debate—a serious contribution, if I may say so—and I have no doubt that contributions of that kind will be heard with great glee in Epping Forest.
Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend is making an important point. He will know that the London Borough of Hackney is suffering under pressure from the G.L.C. to delay action in areas designated as open space because the G.L.C. is trying to get rid of the open space on to the borough. This means that in areas where there is bad housing which has already been subject to clearance orders, action is delayed because the G.L.C. is waiting for 1st April to come in order to transfer the whole matter to the borough, with the consequence that the people living in those terrible conditions will have to remain there owing to this rather silly little political issue.
Mr. Davis: That is absolutely right. The point is made forcibly to me almost every Friday at my "surgeries", when people make the very complaint which my hon. Friend has just raised.
To return to the situation at Paragon Road, it is not just that the G.L.C. has failed to deal with the appalling housing conditions which these people have to endure; it did not listen to the complaints

1773
which were made month after month long ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not new."] Quite so. It is nothing new. It is a state of affairs experienced throughout many London boroughs, quite apart from the G.L.C.
I can illustrate the case by an example, a particularly bad example. I understand that in 1968 or thereabouts people first began to make complaints about the squalid state and the dangerous structural condition of these premises. They would go along to see the housing officer responsible, but nothing was done. During 1968, in one of the houses, occupied by a Mrs. Georgiou, there was a fire.
That fire should not have caught the G.L.C. by surprise, for Mrs. Georgiou had complained for months previously, not only to the G.L.C. but to the electricity board as well, that her premises were in a dangerous condition electrically. Even in 1970 and 1971, one could readily see that the situation had not been drastically improved, but I am told that in 1968 and 1969, when Mrs. Georgiou was making complaints, not only were the premises damp—in fact, wringing wet—but the wires were bare. However, neither the electricity board nor the Greater London Council paid attention to the problems which she was raising.
It took nine months after the fire for the G.L.C. to come and do any works of repair in the premises. Despite the fact that some works of repair were carried out, to this day in the room where the fire took place the charred remains round the window can still be seen, and one of the windows is still broken. Most of these terrace houses are occupied by large families and Mrs. Georgiou's is no exception. But the G.L.C. has not had the sympathy or compassion to go in and do remedial work in her house. Words fail me to describe the attitude of the G.L.C.
I do not know what will happen to those families. We have put such pressure upon the London Borough of Hackney that at the last meeting the Council called for very strong representations to be made for the immediate rehousing of those families who are still living there. Whether the G.L.C. will take the slightest notice, I do not know.
Mr. Jessel: Has the hon. Gentleman attempted to make any use of the three
1774
G.L.C. members for Hackney in drawing these matters to the attention of the authorities?
Mr. Davis: Of course I have. The hon. Gentleman must be naive—
Hon. Members: What did they do?
Mr. Davis: They raised the matter time and again at the G.L.C. Mr. Ellis Hillman was berated by the Chairman of the G.L.C. Housing Committee for trying to make political capital out of the situation, when he was simply trying to have those people's problems dealt with and have them rehoused.
Mr. Tebbit: How many times during the period in which the houses were falling into wrack and ruin, which was obviously not a sudden occurrence, did those same councillors make representations to the old L.C.C.?
Mr. Davis: The question did not arise during the time of the old L.C.C. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these matters needs to be improved. My attention was drawn to the problem last June.
Mr. Ronald Brown: Do I understand that the matter was raised on the floor of the G.L.C. time and time again and that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who protested that he was a member of the G.L.C., did not know that it had been raised?
Mr. Davis: The hon. Member probably was not there. If he consults the G.L.C. minutes he will see the number of times the matter was raised by Mr. Ellis Hillman, whom he will know well as a very tenacious councillor. He will be able to see that I have not invented this, that it has been raised, and that the response has been lamentable.
Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend has rightly put to the House with great care and compassion the case of his constituents. Is he aware that at Thamesmead, a brand new housing development by the G.L.C., there are numerous complaints that the Council is even there failing to deal with many of the leaks and repairs that have already occurred? So his constituents are not suffering anything unique. People at Thamesmead, in new property, are suffering from the same disadvantages of a council that does not care for its tenants.
Mr. Davis: I have no personal knowledge of the situation in Thamesmead. I am fairly well preoccupied with what goes on in the London Borough of Hackney. But I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend said is absolutely right, because one of the most frequent complaints made to a number of my hon. Friends in this part of London is that people make complaints about fairly major things affecting them in their flats and houses and nothing is done, not simply for weeks but for months.
Mr. Gorst: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1966 596 dwellings were modernised by the G.L.C. but over three times that number were modernised last year? Surely that is in itself indicative of an improvement?
Mr. Davis: That is not the point I am making. When people make complaints it is a question of liaison between the tenants and those responsible for administering the properties. When a tenant makes a complaint, he is entitled to receive a reply to his letter fairly promptly and to have people come to see what needs to be done. This does not occur quickly enough. That is why councillors and Members of Parliament are inundated with this sort of problem quite unnecessarily.
Mr. Thomas Cox: I agree with my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides can give examples. I have letters in my hand of cases such as he has outlined. The big criticism made by G.L.C. tenants is that rent increases automatically apply and are enforceable, but that when it comes to essential repairs there is a complete lack of willingness by the G.L.C. to do anything. That is why there is so much hostility on G.L.C. housing estates to the attitude of the authority.
Mr. Davis: That reinforces my point.
I turn from that aspect of the matter, the lack of liaison and the lack of an understanding approach by the housing authority towards the tenant, to another aspect of local government in London that particularly affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury. In Hackney we have one of the gravest of all housing problems. There is a great deal of multi-occupation, and we have many squalid
1776
tenements and a very large waiting list. We have one of the worst problems of homelessness, if not the worst.
I will say this to the advantage of the present local authority, that it has not adopted a hard line on the provision of temporary accommodation—at least, not as hard a line as that of many other local authorities. I want to say something about the provision it is making in a moment.
What has happened in Hackney since 1968—and this is perhaps the gravest indictment of local government in East London—is that the provision that was to be made in 1971–72 of 2,000 new units of accommodation was deliberately and callously cut to 600 as a matter of policy in 1968. I doubt very much whether the figure will approach anything like 600. Here is a borough teeming with housing problems—and this is the attitude of the Tory local authority, which is both inexperienced and has had its policy dictated elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury quoted Mr. Cutler as saying,
"The sooner we are out of the housing business the better."
He had ready listeners in Hackney because the present Leader of the Council had this to say about council building:
"They"—
the local Labour Party—
"have a passion for municipal development with subsidy, rebate and all this unpleasantness."
So subsidy and rebate he finds thoroughly unpleasant—as unpleasant as Mr. Cutler finds the whole business of municipal development.
What the Hackney Council has done, in inheriting Labour's programme, is to rehouse a large number of people from the waiting list. But because it has not made proper provision for decanting, the future of our housing in Hackney has been thoroughly mortgaged in order to gain more electoral advantage. Of course, the council says, "We have rehoused all these people". It is true that it was done under a Labour programme, but the local Tories take the credit. I suppose that the Labour Party in the next three years —because there is no doubt that we shall win the council—can expect obloquy because no adequate provision has been

1777
made for housing in the area. Hackney desperately needs municipal development —there can be no other effective action to provide housing these—and it will be inordinately difficult for us to make proper provision for the people on the waiting list. I ask how the new Labour council will be able to cope with this heavy problem, which need not have occurred if the present Tory council had not followed this idiotic and doctrinaire approach.
The situation does not rest alone on the need for housing for those on the waiting list. There are the homeless as well. Last February I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what had been the cost of providing temporary accommodation for the homeless in each of the Inner London boroughs in each year from 1964 to 1970. The interesting feature of his reply was that Hackney—a stress area, as it is defined in the Francis Committee's Report—had cut its provision by nearly £40,000 in comparison with the year 1968–1969. The figure in 1968–69 was £89,347. In that year Hackney was high in the league of inner London boroughs. In 1969–70 the figure was £50,757. No other London borough faces the problem that we face in Hackney, yet the local council has the gall to provide a policy of that kind. Indeed, the only other borough where there was a reduction was Greenwich, and that was a miniscule reduction of just over £2,000 in provision for the homeless. The problems of Greenwich do not begin to measure up to the problems of Hackney. How can anyone justify a reduction of nearly £40,000 in a year in provision for the homeless in such a borough?
We know the reasons. There had to be a pruning of expenditure so that the rates would not seem to be going up too high. This is what the local Tories were concerned about. They were not concerned about dealing adequately and properly with those who had the misfortune to face all the miserable consequences of homelessness.
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some London boroughs—certainly my own, Ealing—further economies are being effected on the homeless by providing genuinely homeless families who are in the care of the council not with temporary accommodation in hostels but with accommodation in bed
1778
and breakfast lodging houses which, for families or anyone else, is very economic but socially a very damaging way of providing for their needs?
Mr. Davis: That is absolutely right. When my hon. Friend says that is an economic way of doing it I do not agree. The cost is around £20 or £25 a week. This is certainly not a sensible way, quite apart from the appalling social consequences, of dealing with the problem of providing temporary accommodation.
Mr. Ronald Brown: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Hackney Borough Council has done one outstanding thing, it has employed its own bailiffs? In my part of Hackney three families are now under notice to quit. They can be turned out of the permanent accommodation and transferred into the homeless accommodation, which, as my hon. Friend says, is not there.
Mr. Davis: The problem of bailiffs in the London Borough of Hackney is an interesting one because the only innovation to be introduced there, apart from the concessionary fares scheme, was the provision of bailiffs to distrain upon arrears of rent which amount to £20 or more. This is one of the enobling features of local government in Hackney. I know a bit about the housing situation in Wandsworth as a whole because I spoke at a meeting of Shelter, and I know that it was facing an even worse position than Hackney over Victoria Dwellings.
In 1968 the London Borough of Hackney acquired a large block of flats from the G.L.C. called Duncan Rouse. It was built in the early 1920s, and the idea was that something in excess of 100 flats would be utilised exclusively for homeless families. This was a lunatic scheme to undertake, because although the flats were not in very much worse condition than many other G.L.C. blocks of that vintage, the fact remains that the Council did not begin to comprehend the social consequences that would ensue when homeless families were herded together. This was done, aided and abetted by the G.L.C., which very readily fell in with the idea.
This was undertaken against the advice of the Labour Opposition. I have been Chairman of the Welfare

1779
Committee in Hackney, and we considered this and called for reports. The election intervened and we lost the chair, but our recommendation would have been not to undertake a scheme of that kind because of the social consequences. Our prognosis has proved to be absolutely correct, because we find that the people in Duncan House have a stigma attached to them; they are regarded as drifters, no-goods just because they have had the misfortune to be homeless. They have been given temporary accommodation, and this is their reward.
Wandsworth could well have learned the lesson but, unfortunately, that blinkered Tory local authority has decided to pursue an even worse policy. The Victoria Dwellings block in Wandsworth was built in the 1870s. This is a large block, and the Council has spent a good deal of money renovating it. The fact remains that the same error is being committed in Wandsworth as was committed in Hackney, despite the advice proffered by the Labour Opposition and others in Wandsworth. The situation in Wandsworth, as in Hackney, was that the Ministry of Housing and the Department of Social Security were absolutely against this idea. Notwithstanding these warnings, the Wandsworth and Hackney Councils continued with these ridiculous and dangerous policies.
Mr. Thomas Cox: There are three hon. Members who represent constituencies in the London Borough of Wandsworth present in the Chamber. We are therefore interested in the points being made. I should like to take up my hon. Friend's point about Victoria Dwellings. The London Borough of Wandsworth is pursuing the same policy because the number of homeless families is increasing in Wandsworth. The latest available figure is that there are 850 homeless families in the London Borough of Wandsworth—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) began his speech at seven minutes past nine; and interventions should be short.
Mr. Davis: I have covered about three-quarters of what I desire to say.
I am appalled that, notwithstanding the lessons which it should have learned
1780
from Victoria Dwellings and the information fed to it by the opposition in the London Borough of Hackney about the social consequences of Duncan House, the same policy is being pursued yet again. It means that when the Labour Party resumes control the local authorities will inherit these buildings. I do not know what we can do about it, because it is a senseless policy. I think that all we can do is to try to rehouse these people in small units of accommodation at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am sorry that I was not present for the introductory part of my hon. Friend's speech, but, before moving to the main body of his remarks, will he pay attention to the problem of handing over the East Hill Estate to Wandsworth? The G.L.C. is deliberately running down this estate, and when it is eventually handed over to Wandsworth it will be in a very bad condition.
Mr. Davis: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows what he is talking about. I do not want to acquire the reputation of being an expert on Wandsworth, but I think I can claim to be something of an expert on Hackney, having served on the local authority for a number of years.
Mr. Gorst: As a newcomer to the House and an extremely inexperienced novice, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell me where Hackney or Wandsworth appears in the Bill?
Hon. Members: In the Preamble.
Mr. Davis: I have made this point twice. It seems that it is difficult to persuade the hon. Gentleman to read the Preamble of the Bill. It refers specifically in line 6 on page 1 to "London borough councils".
Mr. Gorst: What about the Clauses? Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to those as well?
Mr. Davis: I have referred briefly to Clause 7. But our complaint about the Bill is not what is in it but what it omits. If the hon. Gentleman is not yet seized of that point, I do not know how we can get it through to him.
Mr. Gorst: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that when it comes to voting in due course he will vote against what is

1781
not in the Bill but will have no objection to what is in it?
Mr. Davis: I propose to make up my mind on that issue at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Before my hon. Friend leaves the Preamble, will he direct his attention to the provision that should be made for financing better local government and to the very generous offer made to Londoners on behalf of the G.L.C. by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker), that Councillor Plummer is prepared to accompany any hon. Member round London with an open cheque book ready to buy vacant sites for building houses for Londoners?
Mr. Davis: I listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said that he could take him to certain sites. There are sites in outer London areas which could be successfully utilised to diminish the problem of homelessness and inadequate housing in the inner London boroughs.
Mr. Spearing: In recalling what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone said, does my hon. Friend know that quite near Hackney there are 200 acres of land owned by the Port of London Authority which the G.L.C. is expected to purchase, possibly with finances mentioned in the Bill, and that the G.L.C. has not sent to the Minister the plans which it has had available for nearly two years?
Mr. Davis: I know that the Chief Opposition Whip is particularly concerned about this problem. He has mentioned to me that he would like to see tremendous development in this area. But we have our own little problem of Hutton Poplars in Essex which is used as a children's home. This is being dismantled, leaving a large acreage which could be utilised for municipal development to relieve the pressures on our housing list, but instead the Tory local authority decided some years ago, when the Tories first came to power, to dispose of that land for private development.
The Tories had no regard for the housing needs of the people of Hackney. They were concerned to acquire £1 million or £1½ million to enable them in one fell
1782
swoop, perhaps before the elections, to reduce the rates. It is to the enormous credit of my colleagues in opposition on the Hackney Council that they have so far managed to dissuade the Tory local authority from implementing that proposal. That land is vitally needed, and for it to be sold off to achieve a once-for-all reduction in the rates—which would not last long anyway, with the existing rate poundage—would be a deplorable policy, and I hope in the short time that remains for the Tories to be in power in Hackney this policy will not be implemented.
In 1968–69 when I was Mayor of Hackney, elected on a majority of one before the Conservatives appointed their aldermen, a gentleman came to the Mayor's parlour and announced that he would like to acquire the land at Hutton Poplars. He wanted to know what I could do to advance his interests. He said that he knew I was a solicitor and told me that conveyancing would be very worthwhile from my point of view.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Was he a Labour man?
Mr. Davis: He had done a great deal of research into this problem. The only thing which he had not found out was that I happened to be the Labour Mayor of a Tory local authority. When the council was discussing the sale of this land to a private developer I noticed that this man's name was amongst the names of those who were applying to develop the area. That is a somewhat distasteful feature of the way in which private developers seek to infiltrate into local authorities. I acquit the local authority and the Conservative Party in Hackney of being involved with this gentleman. I do not believe that that would be true. The fact remains that it is an unpleasant aspect of the way in which certain persons seek to corrupt people in local government. Indeed, I am not sure that it is not a criminal activity.
Another feature to which my colleagues on the council attach a great deal of importance at present is the problem of general improvement areas. I do not know how many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House find that their local authorities are dealing with general improvement areas. Under discussion at present in Hackney are two general improvement areas. My local authority

1783
have not even started on the development of those areas, which have only been designated, but are now asking for a further 18 general improvement areas to be designated. I hope that the Minister will indicate very clearly that it would be a criminal folly for land to be sterilised in this way by designation as a general improvement area, until we know how successfully the two initial plans will evolve. I hope that they will evolve successfully.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the second half of his speech, has he heard of the situation, which perhaps pertains in Hackney and other parts of the Greater London area, in which, as in the case of the London Borough of Ealing, if one has an income of £35 a week, plus overtime and so on, one can fish in the house buying market, so whittling down the housing applications and lessening the pressure on municipal housing? Is that happening in Hackney as it is to the unfortunate people in my district, who cannot obtain a 100 per cent. mortgage from the G.L.C. and are between the devil and the deep blue sea, being unable
to do anything except to live in a couple of rooms, in which they remain?
Mr. Davis: This not only affects Southall and Ealing but the whole of Inner London and Outer London too. On 100 per cent. mortgage schemes, one of the great problems is that people find that they are not eligible for one reason or another and simply do not have the capital available to put down the 10, 15 or 20 per cent. required to obtain a mortgage from an ordinary building Society.
Mr. Gorst: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has spoken for 50 minutes?
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman's interventions have not improved with time. My hon. Friends seem to appreciate it. If my speech were appreciated by the non. Gentleman opposite then I should really begin to worry.
Mr. Kenneth Baker Mr. Kenneth Baker rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 23.

Division No. 258.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Kinsey, J. R.

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fidler, Michael

Kirk, Peter

Astor, John

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Knox, David

Atkins, Humphrey

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lane, David

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Le Marchant, Spencer

Batsford, Brian

Fortescue, Tim

Longden, Gilbert

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Fox, Marcus

Loveridge, John

Benyon, W.

Gardner, Edward

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

MacArthur, Ian

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Goodhew, Victor

McLaren, Martin

Boscawen, Robert

Corst, John

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Bowden, Andrew

Green, Alan

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Maddan, Martin

Bray, Ronald

Curden, Harold

Madel, David

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Marten, Neil

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mather, Carol

Channon, Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mawby, Ray

Chapman, Sydney

Haselhurst, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Havers, Michael

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

Clegg, Walter

Hawkins, Paul

Moate, Roger

Cordle, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Cormack, Patrick

Heseltine, Michael

Monro, Hector

Crouch, David

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

More, Jasper

Crowder, F. P.

Holt, Miss Mary

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Curran, Charles

Hornby, Richard

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Mudd, David

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Murton, Oscar

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Howell, David (Guildford)

Normanton, Tom

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hunt, John

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Dykes, Hugh

Iremonger, T, L.

Peel, John

Eden, Sir John

James, David

Percival, Ian

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Jessel, Toby

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Emery, Peter

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Eyre, Reginald

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David

Farr, John

Kilfedder, James

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Ridsdale, Julian

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Weatherill, Bernard

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Tebbit, Norman

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Temple, John M,

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Thomas, John Strading (Monmouth)

Wiggin, Jerry

Russell, Sir Ronald

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wilkinson, John

Scott, Nicholas

Tilney, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Sharples, Richard

Tugendhat, Christopher

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Worsley, Marcus

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

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Soref, Harold

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stanbrook, Ivor

Ward, Dame Irene

Mr. David Mitchell and

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Warren, Kenneth

Mr. Peter Blaker.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

NOES

Bidwell, Sydney

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Spearing, Nigel

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

Hunter, Adam

Spriggs, Leslie

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Stallard, A. W.

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Judd, Frank

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

Lawson, George

Watkins, David

Davidson, Arthur

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, c.)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ellis, Tom

Molloy, William

Mr. Thomas Cox and

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn, P. C.

Oswald, Thomas

Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Isle of Wight County Council Bill set down for consideration at Seven
  o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 26.

  Division No. 259.]

  AYES

  [10.8 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fortescue, Tim

  MacArthur, Ian

  Astor, John

  Fox, Marcus

  McLaren, Martin

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gardner, Edward

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Goodhart, Phillip

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maddan, Martin

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Benyon, W.

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mather, Carol

  Blaker, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, Ray

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bray, Ronald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Havers, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monro, Hector

  Channon, Paul

  Heseltine, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hornby, Richard

  Murton, Oscar

  Cordle, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Normanton, Tom

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Crouch, David

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfok, N.)

  Peel, John

  Curran, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Percival, Ian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  James, David

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Deedes, fit. Hn. W. F.

  Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Eden, Sir John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Emery, Peter

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lane, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Farr, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sharples, Richard

  Fidler, Michael

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Loveridge, John

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

  Soref, Harold

  Tilney, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  stanbrook, Ivor

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Tebbit, Norman

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Temple, John M.

  Warren, Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  NOES

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Judd, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Lawson, George

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Tinn, James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Watkins, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Molloy, William

  Ellis, Tom

  Ogden, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  Hunter, Adam

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. James Wellbeloved.

  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg),
  On Second Reading of Isle of Wight County Council Bill, to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
  However, I think that all the arguments appropriate to the Amendment can be developed on Second Reading.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I thank you for calling me early, Mr. Speaker, because it will be helpful to the House, I think, if I briefly explain the reasons for the Bill and what it seeks to do. There are many miscellaneous provisions, but all but five of these Clauses are either model Clauses or they are with precedent. I therefore propose to confine my remarks to the remaining five Clauses.
  Of these, Clause 29, which sought to impose a landing tax, was the subject of a good deal of objection. The Treasury did not like it, and the Isle of Wight County Council will, by leave, withdraw this Clause. It has given an undertaking so to do. Of the total of seven petitions against the Bill, four were against this Clause, and they have been withdrawn.
  Clause 26 seeks to prohibit camping in parks and Clause 41 seeks to impose planning control and other control over piers beyond low water mark. It is remarkable that these two Clauses are without precedent. Nevertheless, they are quite innocuous and I do not intend to say anything further about them. There are no petitions against those two Clauses.
  This leaves me with two Clauses. Clause 40 contains the power to make byelaws to regulate the use of hovercraft. I would remind the House that the Isle of Wight is the home of hovercraft. This is where it was invented and developed, this is where we built the first prototype and this is where we had the first production run and the first operational services in the world. So we do not seek to hold
  1790
  back the advance of this vigorous new industry.
  All we wish to do is exercise a certain amount of control in the interests of safety and of preventing nuisance to other people. I assure the House that nobody could have a greater interest in the furtherance of this industry than the Isle of Wight, which depends on it so much economically. So I need not weary the House further with that Clause. There is a petition against this Clause by British Rail, Red Funnel and Hovertravel, but I am certain that whatever differences exist can be sorted out in Committee.
  This leaves me with one Clause, which is the main Clause of the Bill. It is Clause 5 which seeks to obtain power to exercise control over large gatherings of people in the open overnight. There are no petitions against this Clause, but I understand that it is the desire of several hon. Gentlemen opposite to have the matter discussed in the House because it is a Clause without precedent.
  Clause 5 has the backing of the County Councils Association and the vast majority of people in the Isle of Wight. It is supported not just by the county council but by the district council, the N.F.U., the ratepayers' associations and almost every other association on the island.
  It arises through the island's experience of three pop festivals. The first was in 1968 on a relatively isolated site. There were something short of 7,000 people there. It lasted for two days and it was of relatively little trouble.
  The second occurred in 1969 and it was put on by the same promoters as the first. It lasted for three days and was at Wootton, in close proximity to a small community of people. It attracted between 80,000 and 100,000 fans and there was a complete lack of control over the whole affair.
  Totally inadequate toilets on the site resulted in other land, and even private gardens, being used. A churchyard was despoiled. Local shops ran out of food and fire and ambulance services had inadequate access. There was a serious potential risk to public health. Only because the weather was suitable did we not have some sort of epidemic.
  Then we had the third festival, in 1970. It occurred in the August Bank

  1791
  Holiday week last year. This attracted between 150,000 and 200,000 people. They stayed for four days and nights during the period of the festival, but they were there altogether for about 10 days. The county council and the rural district council sought to avoid the chaos that had taken place the previous year at Wootton by trying to persuade the organisers to enter into a voluntary agreement to meet the council's requirements covering lavatories, water supplies, access drainage, noise, refuse collection, site clearance and matters of that kind.
  But the terms of the agreement were not met and a local authority has no means of enforcing such an agreement. If people choose to run these enormous events in an airy-fairy way and cause chaos in a small community of 5,000 people out in West Wight and infringe public health requirements, the fines are derisory. When promoters are expecting an income of a quarter of a million or more £s, they will not be deterred by having to pay a fine of £10 because they have not provided enough lavatories.
  I spent two days at this festival incognito in my hippie outfit—[Interruption.)—and the scene both during and after the festival was one of indescribable squalor and filth.
  There is no doubt that local authorities must have complete powers to stipulate the conditions under which these large gatherings are organised, for the present penalties are derisory and they do not deter, especially when the people who organise events of this kind are not people who appreciate the needs of the young but are promoters who seek maximum profit out of what they do. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is Tory philosophy."] I very much doubt, judging from the young gentlemen I know, that they were Tories.
  During the last seven months of the Labour Government, I spent a lot of time with Arthur Skeffington trying to persuade him to introduce public legislation. He was sympathetic, and he was doing his best to sort out the right way of doing it. Since the general election, I have been constantly in touch with the Department of the Environment and having discussions with Ministers, trying to
  1792
  persuade them to introduce public legislation, for that is what is necessary.
  But the Isle of Wight cannot wait. It is threatened with another of these enormous festivals in August this year, as hon. Members will have seen from the Press yesterday. Hence, Clause 5 of the Bill.
  I must make clear, in spite of the trash which the promotors sent to every hon. Member—on glossy paper, beautifully printed, although they are in compulsory liquidation—that it is not the intention by this Clause to ban pop.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that the promotors opposing the Bill have circulated literature to all hon. Members. I assure you that several of us on this side have received no such literature. Should he not withdraw that remark?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Woodnutt: If that is correct, I can only say that the hon. Gentleman must have chucked it in the wastepaper basket [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Our local Press reports the lovely story about how, during the postal strike, 630 of these things were brought up here by hand. I got one. I do not imagine that they would have sent me one if they had not sent one to every hon. Member.
  Mr. Bob Brown: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Brown: I will not sit down. I am raising a point of order with Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened assiduously and with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has spoken of a glossy pamphlet which he alleges was sent to each hon. Member. If that is relevant to his case, should we not have an adjournment while the document is laid in the Library so that those of us on this side who have not had an opportunity of seeing it—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is

  1793
  it in order for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that hon. Members on this side do not read their mail with the same scrupulous care as he does?
  Mr. Woodnutt: I do not suggest that at all, and I am sure that my hon. Friends throw just as many things in the wastepaper basket as hon. Members opposite do.
  But that is immaterial. The document says that the Isle of Wight County Council seeks by the Bill to ban pop festivals. This is not true. All we seek to do is to exercise control over them in the interests not only of the local residents, but of all the fans who come to these pop festivals so that they may have the right to facilities, and of the promoters themselves.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: I am partly with the hon. Gentleman on this, but I should like to have one point clarified. Is he really saying that it is quite outside the bounds of possibility for his county council to make any legally binding contract with the promoters? Are there no sanctions, apart from the normal ones of public health? If not, cannot the contracts be written in such a way that those who allow the use of their land can include penalties for the misuse to which the hon. Gentleman referred?
  Mr. Woodnutt: That can be done only by an agreement voluntarily entered into by both parties. But this happened in the island. The only reason why the promoters entered into the agreement was that they knew jolly well that if they did not sign an agreement to carry out what was necessary under the Public Health Acts the county council would seek an injunction in the High Court to restrain them. So the agreement was signed. The trouble is that when it is signed there is no means of enforcement if it is broken, particularly of the promoters go broke. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about that. In any event, local authorities should not have to go to the High Court and enter into agreements with people. They should have the right to enforce the public health regulations. That is all we are asking for.
  Mr. John Gorst: Would it be fair to say that Clause 5 prevents a form of pollution, pollution
  1794
  by human beings, which lays bare whole acres of land just as locusts lay bare acres of land in other parts of the world?
  Mr. Woodnutt: That would be quite right. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for describing it in that way.
  Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Gentleman has explained that the county council might have moved for an injunction in the courts. Can he explain how it could enforce any legislation without recourse to the courts? If not, what advantage is the Bill?
  Mr. Woodnutt: If the public health regulations say that there is such and such a fine or penalty for a breach it will automatically be paid.
  Mr. Archer: No.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I will come to that if the hon. Gentleman gives me time. I will finish by explaining the Clauses and what the Bill seeks to do. If any hon. Member doubts the wisdom of giving local authorities this power, I would just ask him how he would react to 200,000 people descending on 200 acres of land in his constituency without adequate facilities.
  Now I will come to the main provisions of the Bill. First, it insists that anyone wishing to have any sort of vast, open-air gathering of this nature, whether pop or whatever, shall give four months' notice to the local authority of its intention, the date and the site. This is not just done in the interests of the local authority and the local inhabitants. If promoters are running this sort of thing they need four months in which to do their advance publicity and prepare for it.
  On the last occasion, the county council had only seven weeks' notice of the site. When the agreement was signed the promoters rang me up, as chairman of the committee, the very next day and wanted to change the site about 28 days before the date of the event, and of course we would not let them do so.
  Under the Bill the county council has 28 days in which to say "Yes" or "No" to a particular site. It would do a feasibility study on drainage, the subsoil, the environment and that sort of thing, and if it said "Yes" it would have to

  1795
  set its conditions within that period of 28 days.
  If hon. Members say that the county council is seeking to ban pop festivals, I remind them that there is in the Clause a right of appeal to quarter sessions if the would-be promoters are not satisfied either with the rejection of the site or with the proposed conditions.
  There are, I admit, rather large penalties—£1,000 on each director and the land-owner for each day on which there is an infringement. But the only way to deter people is to make the penalties heavy. There is also a provision requiring the deposit of cash or a bond to defray the county council's extraordinary expenditure and the cost it may incur in having to carry out various works that the proprietors did not do themselves. It applies to gatherings in excess of 5,000 and deliberately it is between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., so that it excludes agricultural shows, rallies and any large meetings in the open air which may take place during the day.
  The Bill has minor imperfections. But on behalf of an island that has suffered very much last year and the year before, I ask that the Bill be read a Second time so that Clauses may be considered in detail in Committee.
  Finally, I quote from Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, as follows:
  "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of the rights except such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: The hon. Gentleman has presented his case in an extremely moderate and even plausible way. I want to take up at once only one point which he made about Clause 5, because it is quite an important one. I shall have more to say about it later.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the first subsection of the Clause, which requires four months' notice of the holding of such a festival. If tonight the House allows the Second Reading of the Bill, I do not know how long it will take for
  1796
  the Bill to complete its journey through Parliament, but it seems pretty obvious that the four-month date will be very nearly approaching by the time the Bill is passed and able to be put into effect by the Isle of Wight County Council. If the council delayed by considering the site suggested, or if it said "No" and if there were an appeal, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has mentioned, to quarter sessions, then the pop festival would be out altogether this year. [Interruption.] I thought that there would be those revealing noises from the haters of youth opposite. That sort of noise makes nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's claim that they are not against pop festivals as such. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are."] That is one point, which hon. Members cheer, which shows that the object is simply to kill pop festivals. Some hon. Members opposite have not listened to the short and simple argument which I was pressing.
  If the notice has to be given four months in advance, obviously there will not be time to do it this year.
  Mr. David James: How many teenage children does the hon. Gentleman have? I have five and I am very fond of all of them.
  Mr. Driberg: I have several step-grandchildren who enjoy pop festivals very much, but I do not know how relevant that is to the debate. It was a rather silly intervention.
  Before I reach Clause 5, there are some other Clauses in the Bill which deserve some attention, and it is our duty to probe this Bill in some depth before we agree to it or decide not to do so. Whatever is said later might influence our attitude. If, for instance, the hon. Member were to give notice on behalf of the county council that he would withdraw Clause 5—perhaps for it to be reconsidered and re-drafted in a less objectionable form—then we would have to reconsider our attitude.
  The Bill as a whole is a most extraordinary hotch-potch of different subjects. The hon. Member mentioned Clause 29, the attempt to impose that egregious landing charge or tax on everyone arriving in the Isle of Wight. No wonder the Treasury and other Government Departments took a dim view of

  1797
  such a proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been withdrawn."] You should not try to make my speech for me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not making the hon. Member's speech. He knows that.
  Mr. Driberg: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you would not want to make it. I am sorry that I was led into saying "you" when I should have said "Would hon. Gentlemen opposite allow me to make my own speech?" I do not know why they try to make one's speech for one. It only tends to prolong it and they cannot do it better than I can.
  An Hon. Member: Yes they can.
  Mr. Driberg: They cannot make my speech better than I because they would not know what I wanted to say. It does not surprise me that the Treasury and other Government Departments persuaded the county council and its rather ill-informed advisers to withdraw this Clause. But the fact that it was withdrawn shows how ill-considered and ill-drafted the Bill was.
  Mr. Gorst: Why?
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member asks "Why?" I do not think that some hon. Members opposite can understand plain English. I suggest that the fact that the Clause had to be withdrawn indicates that the Bill was in the first instance ill-considered and ill-drafted.
  Mr. Gorst: Would the hon. Member not agree that there are other reasons for withdrawing Clauses, such as, for example, a demonstration that the drafters of the Bill are being flexible and reasonable in listening to argument before the Bill comes before the House?
  Mr. Driberg: I should have thought that they would have considered the arguments for and against such an unusual and drastic Clause before putting it in the Bill in the first instance. However, that is a matter of opinion. The hon. Gentleman thinks it was very intelligent to put it in.
  Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Member is really wasting time on this Clause. I would like to tell him that this suggestion was made 10 years ago in a White Paper, through a Working Party set up by the
  1798
  Government, to adjust the fact that the Isle of Wight has no trunk roads. So it was not as ridiculous as he is trying to make out.
  Mr. Driberg: If the Government thought that 10 years ago I find it rather surprising that they persuaded the county council to withdraw the Clause now. However, this is not the most important item to be dealt with. The fact that my speech is going on longer than I intended is because of the interruptions from hon. Members opposite sedentary or erect.
  The hon. Member said that there were objections to Clauses 38, 39, 40 and 42, I think. I do not know whether he can tell us anything more about those Clauses other than what he has said about the hovercraft, which we understand and accept. If one is anywhere near a hovercraft it makes a noise even more objectionable than a pop festival, as we know only too well at Westminster, where there are often a few hovercraft around. I hope that the brilliant engineers in the Isle of Wight who invented and developed this machine are considering the problem of noise, which is a problem of pollution. It is now taken to be part of the general pollution of the environment.
  Clause 23 rather puzzles me. Burial grounds somehow manage to find their way into this extraordinary, mixed-up Bill. Clause 23 provides:
  "The powers of a local authority in relation to a burial ground maintainable by them"—
  not necessarily belonging to them—
  "shall include power—
  (b) to level any grave therein;
  (c) to remove the whole or any part of a memorial therein".
  All that the authority has to do before doing that is to advertise its intention to do so in two successive weeks in a local newspaper, display a notice in the burial ground, and try to discover a relative of one of the dead people commemorated by the memorials or whose remains lie in the grave.
  This seems to me a high-handed and possibly wounding action to take with regard to a grave or memorial of people who may have relatives still alive and still respecting the place where the relatives' remains are laid.
  Mr. Woodnutt: In an effort to help the hon. Gentleman, I should like to tell

  1799
  him that this is a model Clause which was thrashed out years ago in the House.
  Mr. Driberg: That may be so. I am entitled to make my own observations about it, nonetheless, because there is no indication of consultation with any churches which may be concerned with these graveyards. They are not necessarily graveyards belonging to a local authority. They may belong to a church. One would suppose that there would be consultation with the churches concerned as well as with the relatives.
  Moreover, subsection (5) of Clause 23 provides that if a memorial is removed
  "The local authority may put to such use as they think appropriate, or destroy, any memorial removed under this section, unless it is claimed …"
  by somebody within a certain time. This is a very strange procedure. I do not know whether there are in the Isle of Wight any graveyard memorials by distinguished sculptors like Epstein or some of the Victorian sculptors like Thorny-croft. But if there are, it is very odd that the local authority should be permitted to remove them, destroy them or perhaps "pinch" them to install in the councillors' own gardens.
  This is a very dubious Clause, whether it is a model Clause or not. We should be told something about the possible treatment of memorials of some artistic merit.
  Another curious Clause on which my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) feels rather strongly —he cannot be here tonight because he has an engagement elsewhere—is Clause 7. He remarked to me that this "coffee bar" Clause was very odd, and I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight if he can explain it. What my hon. Friend thought was strange about it was that it is only two years since Parliament passed an Act dealing with the control and regulation of cafés and other places which stay oven at night for the purpose of providing refreshment.
  It is curious that there should be a local authority Act cutting across in various particulars the provisions that seemed suitable to Parliament only two years ago. Possibly the hon. Member could explain this to me, and some of the subsections of this Clause which read
  1800
  rather quaintly. For instance, I do not understand subsection (2):
  "For the purposes of this section premises shall be deemed to be kept open for public refreshment at any time during which they are being used for the sale of refreshments to the public whether or not the public are allowed to be on the premises at the time of sale."
  I do not know what that means. I expect it has some meaning to those better informed than myself.
  Mr. Deakins: I might be able to help there. This probably applies to a refreshment place on the beach where people get beach trays and take them back to their deck chairs. It could not be said that they are getting refreshments on the premises, but the refreshments are being served to the public on the premises.
  Mr. Driberg: That is ingenious and helpful of my hon. Friend. It is, however, comforting to see in subsection (7)(a):
  "Provided that the Council shall not impose any condition under sub-paragraph (v) of this paragraph in the case of premises which are kept open wholly or mainly as an ancillary amenity to a bona fide tenpin bowling establishment."
  The next paragraph is a little more doubtful, and is of some concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court who drew it to my attention:
  "(b) Any person concerned in the management of a coffee bar who contravenes any condition imposed under this subsection, or who knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that such a condition was being contravened by some other person, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;"
  That seems rather severe, in the circumstances one can imagine, of a busy holiday evening in a coffee bar in the Isle of Wight.
  It is undesirable that we should have sweeping local legislation creating new offences which are not offences anywhere else in the country—not offences in the neighbouring counties, even—and imposing Draconian new penalties for these new offences.
  The main point of the Bill, with its clear intention to prevent pop festivals from coming to the Isle of Wight, is found in Clause 5. Whatever one may think for or against pop festivals, much more important is the general issue of the right of assembly. This right has grown, or has been diminished, down the ages, from classical times—the Agora at

  1801
  Athens, and so on—with freedom broadening down, unlike this Bill, from precedent to precedent. One thinks of medieval pilgrimages and the equally serious purposes of demonstrations and protests. Any record of the struggle for the right of assembly would be bound to include Peterloo, Trafalgar Square and the anti-Corn Law agitation. So many episodes in the history of this country are concerned with the right of assembly. For that matter, staying in the open air overnight is not confined to pop festivals. It is an old custom on Epsom Downs during Derby week, when, if the weather is fine, thousands of people sleep out. Clerkenwell Green was another great centre of free assembly a century and more ago. There are General Elections. The hustings are also free assemblies, very often with many thousands of people. Only a century or so ago, people like Lord Sidmouth and Lord Castlereagh spoke with great contempt of free assemblies and the right of the common people to raise their voices in assemblies.
  I hope hon. Members will not think it irreverent of me, in any way, if I read a short passage from the description by Wesley of the tremendous impact of the great open-air gatherings that he and Whitefield used to address in the time of their evangelical revival—the great impact these gatherings had on him and many others. There were often 30,000 to 40,000 people involved.
  Mr. Ogden: I must declare my religious affiliation for the first time in this House. My hon. Friend is surely not suggesting that a pop festival on the Isle of Wight has any relationship in spirit with those gatherings addressed by Wesley. I happen to be a Methodist. The two might be the same in numbers but not in spirit.
  Mr. Driberg: I hope my hon. Friend will be patient and allow me to finish. I do not, of course, mean an exact comparison and I do not mean this in any irreverent or blasphemous sense. Wesley described how at Gwenap he
  "… stood on a wall in the calm still evening, with the setting sun behind him, and almost an innumerable multitude before, behind, and on either hand,"
  At Exeter, he preached in the moat of the old castle.
  1802
  "It was an awful sight! So vast a congregation in that solemn amphitheatre …"
  and so on.
  Whitefield also preached on one occasion from a stage which had been erected at a fair for some wrestlers. On another, he erected his pulpit on a race course, with thousands of spectators. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), I am not drawing any comparison between these two very different kinds of event, except to say this: that in a period in which young people have largely lost any sense of belonging or affiliation to any of the orthodox or regular religious churches or communities, I believe—and this may seem strange to some hon. Members—that pop is a kind of religion of the young. It may be a kind of Dionysian religion in some instances.
  Sir Charles Taylor: Fornication.
  Mr. Driberg: It fills them with a sort of exaltation, a euphoria. It has nothing to do with drugs or sex. It is the getting together of thousands of young people to enjoy and share an experience which exalts them.
  Mr. Frank Judd: Is my hon. Friend aware that some churchmen of various denominations who were present at the festival which is being discussed have all borne witness to the fact that, quite against popular misconception, there were elements of spirituality present in that gathering which they as Christians found extremely impressive?
  Sir C. Taylor: Fornication.
  Mr. Driberg: I wish the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) would not keep interjecting "fornication" from a sedentary position. He seems obsessed with the subject.
  Sir C. Taylor: I thought the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) was a very good Catholic.
  Mr. Driberg: Not good.
  Sir C. Taylor: I thought he was a Christian. He is not talking as a Christian or as a Catholic tonight.
  Mr. Driberg: With respect, it is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide, nor

  1803
  indeed for any hierarchy to decide, whether I am or I am not speaking as a Christian or as a Catholic. I speak according to my conscience and judgment, and if it hurts some hon. Members opposite I cannot help it.
  Mr. Gorst: Could the hon. Gentleman help us with a point about religion? At the occasions to which he referred in connection with Wesley there was no pollution of the ground and the whole environment, whereas this is the whole point of Clause 5.
  Mr. Driberg: How can we be sure of that? I should have thought that there was almost certain to have been if 40,000 people were gathered together in the evening for some hours. I do not want to go into too many details of that, but I am sure that there was no instance of the provision of a mile of urinals, as there was last summer at this festival.
  I had reached a rather serious point in my speech. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). I know that what he suggests is true.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with the great evangelists it was a case, in the main, of an hour's stand or a half-day's stand and that they journeyed from place to place? They normally sent their congregations home in peace for their night's shelter. The congregation did not stay for over a week or 10 days, as some of them did at this festival, which accentuates the problem.
  Mr. Driberg: I do not know how long Wesley and Whitefield preached for, but I think that the average length of a sermon in those days was much greater than it is today in any church, evangelical or otherwise.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Is there not a record of at least one instance of St. Paul having preached all night?
  Mr. Driberg: Yes, and a very unfortunate consequence was that one man fell asleep and fell out of a window; that was Eutychus. I hope not to go on for as long as that myself, but I have been interrupted a great deal.
  1804
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West is very sound. I myself talked at some length last summer, after that festival, with one of the local clergy who had helped, as I think several of them did—the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight will correct me if I am wrong—and provided a welfare and counselling service for young people who were in doubt or in trouble. He spoke in very high terms indeed of the average young person who had come to consult him. I do not think that the hon. Member has attacked the generality of young people there. No doubt in any such enormous crowd there would be some who would misbehave and who would not behave according to the standards of Eastbourne. On the whole, the testimony of these clergymen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West says, is rather encouraging about the character of many of those who took part in the festival.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman appears to be recommending a substitution of pop festivals for some degree or any type of religious observance, or even making a comparison between them. Even he must surely realise that if he is doing any such thing he will cause a great deal of offence on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Driberg: I am not recommending any such thing. I am a little surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should so have misheard me and should so misrepresent me. What I said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby—who is a Methodist and I respect him for that—was that in these days most young people—surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows this—are not attached to any regular church community at all. Indeed, they are on the whole rather sceptical and doubtful about the claims of the organised churches. I also said that in the vast crowd at a festival like this, where music is performed of a kind which many hon. Members do not like but which the young people do, they are absorbed into something bigger than themselves, something above themselves—a mass emotion, if one likes to call it that—which is a substitute for a religion. I did not say that I was recommending it—not at all.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman surely made a comparison.
  Mr. Driberg: I said that it was not an exact analogy and I did not pretend that it was.
  Before I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West, the hon. and gallant Gentleman persuades me to read part of a letter which appeared in The Times a few days after that festival. It was written by a young lady who took part in it. She says:
  "After reading many of the reports written about the Isle of Wight Festival. … I do not think that anyone has fairly expressed what actually occurred. Much emphasis … has has been given to the sad minority who caused damage … and to the complaints of the local residents who were caused a few days' disturbance, but no one has spoken of the wonderful and uplifting experience it was for everyone else. What actually happened was that for five days all barriers of class, creed and nationality were totally ignored. People shared their food, money and possessions with complete strangers and the 'natural reserve' of the British was entirely forgotten. This strange and wonderful state of affairs was not only due to the hippies but to the vast majority, who were students and ordinary working taxpayers."
  That is part of a letter which I think is a remarkable tribute to what I call at least a quasi-religious feeling. These young people were behaving like the earliest Christians, in the Acts of the Apostles, who had all things in common.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: What nauseating claptrap.
  Sir C. Taylor Sir C. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Driberg: If the hon. Gentleman has something serious and constructive to say, of course I give way to him.
  Sir C. Taylor: The girl who wrote that letter to the newspaper expresses quite outrageous opinions, and so does the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Driberg: I did not know that the the hon. Gentleman knew the young lady in question.
  Sir C. Taylor: I do not, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order.
  Mr. Driberg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you can keep the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) in order. He is doubling the length of my speech by his constant, stupid and offensive interjections.
  Sir C. Taylor: They are quite permissible. Come off it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) please keep in order?
  Sir C. Taylor: I am keeping order. I am—
  Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?
  Sir C. Taylor: I am merely suggesting that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) should sit down.
  Mr. Driberg: Whether that was a sound point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I leave to you. On the other hand, if it was not a point of order, the hon. Gentleman should not have—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Hon. Members opposite would assist matters if they persuaded their hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne to shut up and behave himself.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for me to ask you whether I might invite the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) to come with me to the bar and have a drink?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be quite out of order, but perhaps a good idea.
  Mr. Driberg: I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The testimony of the clergymen which was referred by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West is supplemented by other more official testimony. The medical officer of health for the island, whom no doubt the hon. Member for Isle of Wight knows, has said that the disorder or the health risks were greatly exaggerated. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is necessarily a greater expert on the health risks than the island's medical officer of health, Dr. Quantrill. I believe that Dr. Quantrill will be reading a paper to a medical conference next month—oddly enough, at Eastbourne. In the course of that paper, I gather that he will indicate that the health risks were very greatly exaggerated, even if some of the provisions of the agreement were broken—and I must accept the hon. Gentleman's word for that. There was no epidemic. There was no very serious health disorder.

  1807
  Probably a few hundred people got colds, 'flu, or something similar, out of 200,000. It all went off remarkably well, thanks largely to the extremely intelligent behaviour of the police, who did not throw their weight about unduly. The Chief Constable was very sensible and lenient, and he also paid tribute to the excellent behaviour of the young people gathered there in such enormous numbers.
  I agree that the position about the debts and bankruptcies needs clearing up. I gather that the promoters intend to use any profits which they make on this year's festival to repay some of the creditors whose claims are now being examined by the receiver. I cannot speak officially for the promoters—I have never met any of them—but I know that one famous American star has offered to hand over her fee, which would be very large, towards paying off the debts incurred last year. The debts also have been exaggerated. The receiver correctly insists that all claims which have been put in must be considered and examined, and the claims of some creditors have been inflated to a remarkable degree.
  I recently came across a pamphlet—a Conservative pamphlet, "Public Order" —the general spirit of which I commend to the House. Its main tenor is that we do not need too much new legislation, the creation of new offences and new penalties, and that most offences can be dealt with by the existing common or statute law. At the end of this pamphlet there is a list of offences with the penalties attaching to them. One which I suppose would be applied to this kind of thing by some people is,
  "public nuisance, i.e., an act or omission endangering the life, health, property, morals or conduct of the public."
  That can be dealt with under the common law by fines and/or imprisonment. I do not see any need for county councils to invent new laws to deal with old crimes.
  I apologise for keeping the House so long, but hon. Members should not allow whatever prejudices they may have against the peculiar clothes, long hair, and so on, of some young people to cause them to impair this tremendous heritage of freedom of assembly, which I believe the Bill could do. I do not share this prejudice which is held by
  1808
  some of the old against some of the young. I think that it was Cyril Connolly who said that the age war is the one war in which everybody changes sides I do not think that all of us have changed sides in that war. Some of my hon. Friends certainly are young either in years or in spirit, or both. The young are entitled to what the Americans call the pursuit of happiness. I hope that they may be allowed to enjoy it, even in the Isle of Wight, for a few days each summer.
  11.14 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): It may be of assistance to the House if I intervene at this stage to indicate the Government's attitude to the Bill.
  Before doing so, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) upon the way in which he introduced the Bill, which I know will be of great interest to his constituents.
  The Government have a direct interest in only two Clauses. We would have objected strongly to Clause 29, so I am glad that my hon. Friend indicated that that would be withdrawn.
  The Clause which is controversial and has formed the main burden of my hon. Friend's speech is Clause 5. My hon. Friend will recognise that there are real difficulties in drafting a Clause of this complexity in a Private Bill. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for the Environment will be sending a report to the Committee when this Bill is examined, putting forward certain reservations about parts of the Clause and suggesting certain alterations to the present drafting of the Clause. I am sure that the right place for discussing these details of the Clause is in Committee.
  The Committee will or course take note of those reports and of any objections to the Clause and of anything said in the House tonight. Having said that, I believe that this long Bill, which is of great importance, the preparation of which has been a great expense to the residents and ratepayers of the Isle of Wight, should be given a Second Reading, and that the details should be discussed in the Committee, as is the normal practice.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: There are one or two points which I should like cleared up. Under Clause 5, it seems not only that the council will be assuming new powers but that the penalties will be very high. Under Clause 5(9)(d) the fine will be £1,000 maximum. Why is this? I appreciate that the council has every right to be concerned about health and sanitary conditions and so on, and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has every right to be concerned that an assembly like this, with so many people, could create health hazards not only for the residents but for those going to the festival. But why £1,000?
  In similar Measures, like the Trade Descriptions Act, the maximum penalty is about £350. This is not just £1,000 but £1,000 a day. In what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman envisage this fine being imposed? I assume that he accepts that a court of law will have to administer the Bill. This is absurd and out of all proportion to the harm which the Bill is seeking to obviate. Nor has the hon. Gentleman explained—or, if he did, I did not understand him—precisely what he means. Presumably he is not suggesting that there are not Public Health Acts which could be enforced or other civil remedies which either party to such a dispute could take?
  Mr. Woodnutt: I made it clear that fines for infringement of the public health regulations are at present derisory, perhaps £5 or £10. This must be related to the enormous takings at a vast festival, where the income can be £300,000 or more. Irresponsible promoters—I do not say that all promoters are irresponsible—will just ignore the public health regulations and such small fines for takings of that magnitude. That is why we have fixed the sum so high. It will be a deterrent, though I remind the hon. Gentleman that £1,000 is the maximum. It would be for the court to decide how much it should be.
  Mr. Davidson: I accept that, but I do not see the circumstances in which a court would impose a fine of that magnitude. What assurance has the hon. Gentleman that any court would be prepared to fine somebody more than it can already impose under existing legislation?
  1810
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said that at one stage the county council had contemplated seeking an injunction. That remedy is still available to any authority. I do not see the need for these extra powers. The existing law seems sufficient to deter everything but the most wilful abuse, and I do not think the majority of those who promote these festivals wish to indulge in wilful abuse of this kind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) was rightly concerned to protect the traditional right of public assembly, a right of which we in Britain are proud. This House has always been concerned to debate at length any issue which could be seen to diminish that tradition. I do not impute base motives to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, and he has every right to raise an issue which affects his constituents, but one must question whether these provisions, which would enable a county council to assume unprecedented powers —the hon. Gentleman used that phrase—would diminish, perhaps only to a small degree, our traditional right of public assembly.
  The House may be interested in this remark which was made by the then Home Secretary in 1916, admittedly at the time of a coalition Government:
  "It is a very good thing that public opinion should be sensitive whenever there is any interference with the right of public meetings, even in time of war"—
  This remark was made during the 1914–18 war—
  "for the free expression of opinion is a matter of the greatest importance, and the House of Commons is well advised to watch any measures taken by the Ministry of the day which in any way threaten or impair the right of public meeting".
  If the House should watch any measures taken by the Ministry, how much more carefully should it watch measures taken by a county council?
  The full implications of Clause 5, therefore, must be examined closely before the Bill is given a Second Reading.
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: None of us on this side would devalue the traditional right of free assembly, but what some of us here, and people in my constituency in particular, are against is the utterly ill organised, chaotic uncontrolled sort of festival which we had

  1811
  last summer. I thought the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) totally irrelevant. He sought to turn a stone of controversy in almost every sentence of his speech.
  We are against one type of pop festival, and that is the type which we had at Shepton Mallet last June. The promoter said that 20,000 to 30,000, or perhaps 40,000, fans would come. Days before it was due to start, large numbers began rolling in. There were no services for those fans because it was before the time of opening. By the time the weekend came, 150,000 to 200,000 fans had arrived, only to find totally inadequate services of every kind. At this hour, I shall not go over what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) told the House about the lack of latrines and so on. At Shepton Mallet, there was only one telephone in the whole festival site, and only six doctors were brought in by the promoter. Those are examples of the lack of preparation in that disgraceful affair.
  I am convinced, many of my constituents are convinced, the Somerset County Council is convinced, the local planning authority is convinced—and I believe that the County Councils Association is thinking along the same lines —that some form of suitable legislation to control such events is urgently needed.
  It is not a question of being against the high art of pop music. I do not understand it as well as the step-grandchildren of the hon. Member for Barking do. Perhaps he does. If they enjoy listeninig to individuals screaming through a microphone, their enjoyment in reasonable circumstances must be protected. But there are other people to be thought of in these circumstances. Other people have rights, too.
  The two innocent groups of people most concerned in my constituency were those unfortunate folk who live in the nearby village of Prestleigh and those who were, perfectly legitimately, using the roads—most of them going on holiday at the weekend to the West Country—who were stopped for hours on the road due to the completely chaotic traffic conditions which resulted from such a large number of people coming to the area.
  1812
  The people living in that village have rights to enjoy the peace of their homes, just as anyone else has. They have liberties to be defended. Those who want to travel for legitimate purposes have liberties to be defended.
  The Bill is not perfect. It may have many shortcomings. But legislation of this sort must come soon. One major weakness, of course, is that, if the Bill goes through, the Isle of Wight will be likely to export its problem to other parts of the country. Certainly, we have a vested interest in this. I believe that there is need of a general Bill to cover the whole country very soon. It may be that the Isle of Wight Bill is not the correct method. I understand that the Music and Dancing Licences (Home Counties) Bill, 1926, is still in operation. It should be looked at to see whether it is relevant for the rest of the country.
  There is a danger, too, of this sort of unorganised festival being exported from abroad to this country. It is interesting that in October last year even the State of New Jersey introduced a very similar Bill to the one that we have tonight. With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to read the Preamble to that Bill. It is
  "An Act for the regulation of mass gatherings … of substantial numbers of persons for the purposes of mass musical or public entertainment of various designations such as 'pop festival', or 'rock festival' or 'rock music festival' … Whereas the experience of the State of New Jersey has clearly demonstrated the need for uniform, adequate and constitutionally permissible Statewide standards regulating the promotions and conduct of such gatherings".
  If that Bill is legislated in the United States, it is more likely that its mass gatherings will be exported to countries where the limitations are less. That is why there is great need for the Government to consider overall legislation for limiting the disorganised affairs that we have seen in this country during the last two years.
  I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Barking wants to defend the sort of liberty and freedom of people to bring about the affairs that we have seen. I received from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight a copy of that glossy document called "The Woodside Broadcasting Ltd.". It was addressed to all Members of Parliament and it did not happen to go into

  1813
  the waste-paper basket quickly enough. It said:
  "We write to lodge the strongest protest against certain provisions in"—
  the Isle of Wight County Council Parliamentary Bill—
  "… we suggest that the promoters of this Bill have, as their real motive, the outlawing of Festivals of Popular Music simply because they themselves do not approve of this type of entertainment. Should such powers be conferred by law then we hate to think of the effect the ultimate outcome would have on the freedom of the individual."
  I have seldom read, even in this Parliament, so much humbug.
  What freedom is there for the unfortunate people who live in the village of Prestleigh, in my constituency, when that sort of thing happens? What freedom is there even for the fans who arrive to find indescribable conditions provided for them? And what freedom is there for those who choose to pass through the area on perfectly legitimate business? I cannot believe that these colossal, chaotic, neo-Bacchanal revels that we have seen lately are really wanted by either young or old in Britain.
  11.34 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) made a profound point during his remarks when he suggested that there might possibly be imperfections in the Bill and that so many of the points raised within the scope of the Bill were deserving of national legislation. I think that I would be speaking for a number of my colleagues on this side of the House if I said that we would look forward to the day when the Government found the time and initiative to bring before the House appropriate national legislation dealing with many of the points raised in the Bill.
  The House will understand if I speak with a certain degree of real concern, representing as I do a constituency very close to the Isle of Wight, but a concern tempered with a certain amount of caution about what I have to say particularly as I have been invited to speak at an important social function in the island tomorrow evening.
  Together with other citizens of Portsmouth, I like to look across to the scenic beauty of the Isle of Wight on a Sunday afternoon. It is very easy for
  1814
  people in my position to take the island for granted and not to look closely at some of the problems with which the inhabitants of the island may be confronted from time to time. I understand them to be proud and independent people. This is very clear from their reaction to the Government's proposals on the reorganisation of local government.
  While I in no way dissociate myself from the points made very tellingly about the fundamental importance of freedom of assembly, we must take into account the price which may be asked of a particular community, such as that in the Isle of Wight, when large numbers of other people decide to enjoy their right of freedom of assembly perhaps at other people's expense. I think that I speak for a number of my hon. Friends in saying that we cannot help being a little amused, with all respect, to find right hon. and hon. Members opposite once more brought face to face with the consequences of the unbridled forces of the market economy. Whenever this happens it is so interesting to see their rapid transition to a refreshing commitment to social planning. We wish that they would be prepared to take the logic of this commitment into a more comprehensive approach to Government.
  It must also be said, in fairness, that amongst all the very important points made about the principles at the basis of our democracy we on this side of the House must not overlook the elements of crude commercialism which exploit the idealism of the younger generation when those young people allow themselves to be exploited.
  But, all that said, I do not want to underestimate the social problems faced by the people of the Isle of Wight as a result of an invasion of the magnitude we are talking about. The over-ridingly important point brought out about the contentious Clause 5 is that even though they live on an island it is impossible for the people of the Isle of Wight to believe that the consequences of the festival affect them and them alone. I was struck at the time of the last festival by the way in which, for example, it was the police of Hampshire who had to go to the assistance of the island's regular police force to do the first-class job to which my hon. Friend the Member

  1815
  for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has referred. I too pay tribute to the sensitive and imaginative way in which the police handled the occasion.
  It is also obvious that it was not just the transport or road system of the Isle of Wight that had to face up to the consequences of a festival of that magnitude. British Rail and travellers in trains to Portsmouth and Southampton also had to face up to the consequences. As to the shipping, we should pay tribute to the magnificent improvisation and organisation which got people away against all the apparent odds. The shipping is not only the concern of the people of the island. We islanders in the rest of Britain are concerned with the shipping operation as well. There are also the people of my city, Portsmouth, and of Southampton, who are confronted with some of the consequences of a festival of this kind and the disruption resulting from it.
  Taking all that into account, one has to accept that if we are considering legislation and appropriate measures, we have to look at the problem in a wider context than simply the Isle of Wight. We should not only look forward to national legislation to cope with situations of this kind occurring anywhere in the country but also, in the context of a particular festival of this sort, realise that the sphere within which the Bill seeks to introduce appropriate administrative measures is probably too restrictive.
  I cannot help but draw the House's attention to the fact that this Clause, taken together with other Clauses to which I shall refer, seems to illustrate a certain illogicality in the apparent attitude of leaders of the island community on the Government's measures for the reform of local government.
  With all credit to the Government, I suggest that what is brought out here is that some reorganisation in Southern Hampshire as a whole is essential in the interests of the people of the Isle of Wight.
  Let me pick out at random several Clauses which illustrate my point. Let us take, for example, Clause 10, dealing with bathing. If one is really concerned about the dangers to bathers and swimmers, presumably one is not only concerned about weather conditions but one will be increasingly concerned in the
  1816
  future about the dangers of pollution, which affect the entire coastline. For a busy waterway like the Solent, there are special dangers which result from accidental or intentional dumping of chemicals or other things. We had a nasty fright in the Solent area last year about that.
  I would have thought that if the people of the Isle of Wight were concerned about the problem, they would be wanting to work jointly and in close cooperation with other local authorities in the area to ensure that the preventive measures are effective.
  Let us take Clause 25, dealing with aerodromes. I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who has done such a clear and concise job in presenting his case to the House, will not take amiss what I am about to say. The Clause is almost ludicrous in the context of modern air transport. How on earth shall we cope with air traffic control and congestion of the airways if we have every local authority reserving to itself certain powers in that respect? If we are to deal with air traffic effectively in South Hampshire, we must have a closely integrated unitary air authority.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I cannot sit and listen to the hon. Gentleman saying this sort of thing. Does he not realise that this is a model Clause which many councils have adopted, giving them these powers? The Isle of Wight is asking for no more than what most authorities already have.
  Mr. Judd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot sit and listen. He has done a helpful job this evening. I do not want to irritate him in any way. But he has suggested to the House that in the Bill the island community is trying to project some new—
  Mr. Woodnutt: It is a model Clause.
  Mr. Judd: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but if it is a model Clause which is no longer adequate to meeting the situation now, why, in a debate such as this, may we not discuss the inadequacies of such a Clause?
  In the context of the increased use of the airways, it is essential that we move towards greater rationalisation in air

  1817
  traffic control. Taking into account the whole community of Southern Hampshire, in the provision of air services and aerodromes, we want a comprehensive approach and not a fragmented policy split up between different local authorities.
  On Clause 38, I should like first to associate myself sincerely with what the hon. Gentleman said in his introductory speech about the development of this unique British invention, the Hovercraft, in the Isle of Wight.
  It is something of which the people of the Isle of Wight should be justly proud. There are consequences of this form of transport which again have implications for far wider communities than those of the Isle. Dealing with the point of noise pollution raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking I can assure the House, as a resident of a part of Portsmouth very near the coastline that this is a major problem which we must look at collectively in the development of this form of transport.
  I congratulate the hon. Member on presenting this Bill and raising issues of profound importance. I would like to re-emphasise that it seems that the Bill, paradoxically, by attempting to deal with very real problems, has revealed its own inadequacies and the urgent need for comprehensive Government legislation to cover the points which concern not only this island but many other parts of the country.
  11.46 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) in his desire to see more comprehensive legislation to meet the situation which Clause 5 is designed to meet. The only question to ask is: how long are we likely to wait for that legislation? The question in the minds of my hon. Friends is: What may happen in the Isle of Wight in the meantime? I do not wish to intrude in the affairs of the Isle of Wight nor to get in the firing line between my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg).
  My interest in this matter stems from the affair at Shepton Mallet touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). I received considerable
  1818
  correspondence on this from the National Farmers Union on an issue which has perhaps not been adequately touched on tonight, namely, the damage done to land, and farmland in particular, when these festivals occupy a considerable acreage and are not properly controlled.
  In the case of Shepton Mallet the damage to agricultural interests was considerable. The point that arises out of this was: by what means could compensation be secured? I am not clear, arising out of the Clause, what compensation will be payable to those who suffer physical loss, such as farmers, who are more likely to suffer such loss than anyone else, through disturbance, damage to fences and gates and all the rest. I would like some assurance on this because the compensation aspect seems all-important.
  I entered into correspondence with the Home Office on behalf of the N.F.U. some time ago. Whatever happens tonight compensation is a big issue. It can be quite simply met by the proposal to deposit a bond. It is incumbent on those who organise these festivals to pay in something from which compensation may be payable to those who suffer damage.
  I am in sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Barking said and I do not want to proscribe pop festivals. What he says is fully justified. It is not so much a matter of proscribing them as ensuring that they do not cause loss to others. What the hon. Gentleman says about free assembly is also right but free assembly which incurs loss for others is something different from the classical instances he has given.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: On this question of the promoters depositing a bond to provide compensation for damage, is he suggesting that a promoter must be held responsible for damage caused by people moving towards the event, going away from it, and for any damage caused within the area adjacent to the event?
  Mr. Deedes: I will not be pinned down by that sort of definition. If a person organises an event he is responsible for the damage done within the curtilage of maybe five, 50 or 100 acres. He is responsible for what occurs in the region. If farm gates are torn down, farm cattle disturbed and losses are incurred by

  1819
  farmers, he is responsible for the consequences. What I am saying is that a bond should be deposited from which damages can be paid.
  Mr. Driberg: What the right hon. Gentleman was saying just before he was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) seemed to me perfectly reasonable. But he is ignoring the point I made at the beginning of my speech, that the time factor sought to be imposed in the Bill means that its purpose is to kill the pop festival, at any rate for this year.
  Mr. Deedes: Yes. But if one proposes to organise a pop festival one must think about it for months before it takes place. It is no great hardship to tell the local authority what one has in mind. The local authority has to take precautions as well. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's philosophical dissertation about pop, we are not dealing here with the philosophical virtues of it; we are dealing with the physical consequences. This is the matter which concerns people in the Isle of Wight and anywhere else that a festival is held more than anything else.
  Reverting to the point about the bond, contrary to what some people say and what the popular Press sometimes suggests, vast profits are not made out of pop festivals. They are often written about but they do not always materialise. More often than not they are pretty speculative ventures. I cannot remember what the figures were for the last pop festival, but they did not come up to what the promoters hoped for. Therefore, those who suffer damage may find that there is nothing in the kitty. We are dealing, not with very large capitalist ventures, but with very speculative ventures. That means that precautions should be taken for those who are in the "fall-out" area.
  It is very easy to be critical about the detail of the Clause. I have sympathy with people in the Isle of Wight who wonder how long they will have to wait for assistance from Government sources and what will happen in the island meanwhile. I accept that there are many difficulties in trying to deal with these matters in a Private Bill. But we have a situation which is relatively new and which will, I think, continue, and it is
  1820
  high time that some more constructive suggestions came from the Home Office, with which some of us have been in correspondence.
  It is easy to be critical about what the Isle of Wight is trying to do. But there is a problem and losses are being incurred. We want a reasonable solution of the problem to be found. Either we accept what the Isle of Wight wants to do on its own behalf now, or we give a fairly strong undertaking that we will do something else better quickly. In the light of my experiences over Shepton Mallet and the rough correspondence I received from the National Farmers Union, I say that the sooner we act the better.
  11.54 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I have a great affection for the Isle of Wight. I was a Portsmouth rating in the Navy and know the island well.
  Listening to some of the earlier remarks, I found it very difficult to relate what was said with some of the scenes I saw on television last summer. When we are talking about 150,000 to 200,000 people, even a small minority can be a very large number of people. I have very great sympathy with the authority in bringing forward this Bill. But it is a pity that such a wide range of other measures has been thrown in with it. Had the Bill concentrated on the central theme of trying to get quick action on this problem things would have been a lot easier.
  Section 7(6) says:
  "The Council may refuse to register or renew the registration of any premises for use as a coffe bar if they are satisfied that …
  (b) the persons intended to be concerned with the conduct of the premises as a coffee bar are such that young persons resorting thereto are likely to be depraved or corrupted;'
  The words are not "may be depraved or corrupted", but "are likely to be depraved or corrupted". This is extremely strong wording which may put the local authority in some difficulty, because a person who is refused has a right of appeal, under Clause 7(11):
  "… the Council shall within seven days from the date of their decision give to him a statement of the grounds upon which it was based."
  The authority may lay itself open to action being taken against it.

  1821
  Clause 7(15) contains powers for a duly authorised officer or a police constable to enter and inspect coffee bars under certain conditions. Late one night when we were discussing Police Pension Regulations I raised the question of a police constable entering premises and being injured in the course of his duty. If an officer of the council went in to inspect a coffee bar and was injured and had to retire, what provision would be made for him? It is all very well putting duties on to public servants, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that provision is made for them. As I have pointed out to the Minister before, this is built up on precedent and decided cases—the 1921 Great Central Railway v Bates. The matter should be cleared up. The Minister may feel that this is tedious repetition, but I shall return to the point until I get satisfaction.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said that certain Clauses were model Clauses. I notice that the provisions about bathing in Clause 10, which are extremely sensible, do not apply to Newport. I thought this was a case of "the Swiss Navy" and that there were no beaches there until I looked at the local authority boundaries and found that in the north-east they stretched to the coast. Why is Newport exempted?
  The question of burial grounds was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). Again we were told that this was a model Clause, but if so, why does it not apply to Ryde or to Sandown-Shanklin? The Bill seems to have been spatchcocked together in a rush, and I am wondering whether, in our desire to do something about a serious problem, we are allowing the Bill to slip through without real scrutiny. The same applies to hackney carriage provisions—there are exemptions there.
  One of two things asked for are rather peculiar. For example, it is to be forbidden to take photographs for sale unless one is either a professional photographer or engaged by a newspaper or periodical. One can imagine circumstances where this could be quite nonsensical. Someone on holiday might take a snap of someone who had escaped from Parkhurst. The photograph might be printed in a newspaper and he might receive a fee and the prisoner might be apprehended as a result of the photo-
  1822
  graph. Yet the person who took the photograph might be liable to a £20 fine. It might seem a trivial point, but some of these provisions seem to be chucked in on the argument that, "We have a Bill going through Parliament; let us throw in a lot of extraneous stuff and get rid of it all at once". I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman and if I could get assurances on these points I would be grateful.
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) moved the Second Reading in a forceful and at times aggressive speech. He supports all, or nearly all, the major parts of the Bill and is prepared to defend it as it goes along.
  His advocacy is shown by the number of his hon. Friends whom he has been able to provide in the Chamber and around it at this time of night, and on that he should be congratulated. I think that he tended to assume that anyone who happened to be on the Opposition benches tonight was automatically opposed to him. That was my impression of part of his speech and it may be that more of us would move towards the views of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). There is more agreement between the two sides of the House on this than is apparent in the debate, but debates always emphasis differences.
  If we can look at this as reasonable men looking for a reasonable solution to a particular problem and not as whether we are pro-pop or anti-pop, permissive or anti-permissive, law-and-order or reactionary, there are hopes for the Bill. I should declare a personal interest which might help the hon. Gentleman. I am going to the Isle of Wight with my family for our holiday if we ever get the Industrial Relations Bill through this Session, and I hope that there will be no pop festival there between 9th and 23rd September.
  There is actually no mention of pop festivals in the Bill and the second interest I have to declare is that of my 16-year old daughter, Deborah Diane, who advises me on these matters.
  The third interest I have to declare is a constituency interest. When the last festival was thought to be a financial

  1823
  failure—I was surprised by that—it was suggested that the next one should be on Aintree race course, so Lancashire County Council and Liverpool City Corporation would have been involved. This is pathfinder legislation. In different circumstances in a different place this could have been a Lancashire County Council and Liverpool Corporation Bill.
  There is interest in pathfinder legislation of any kind. I would have preferred this to be a Home Office Bill. Indeed, it should perhaps be not only a Home Office Bill but a Department of the Environment Bill because it seems to me that some of the problems could have been dealt with under the planning procedure, whereas they are placed under the aegis of the Home Office entirely. I do not, for example, like the idea that any appeal against the Isle of Wight County Council should go to quarter sessions. In planning proposals, appeals might well have gone to the Department of the Environment through a public inquiry. These are possibilities. I do not believe that only the Home Office should be involved. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight will have to do a lot of home work for his constituents, although he seems to have been doing that for a long time on television and elsewhere on this matter.
  I notice that there is a provision for four months' notice to be given. If the Bill becomes an Act by June or July, and the four months' notice provision remains, I cannot see a pop festival or any other kind of assembly taking place in the Isle of Wight in November, despite all its advantages of climate. Some assurance will have to be given between now and later stages that, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, the Isle of Wight County Council will at least talk to the promoters of any proposed assembly to see what understanding can be reached, otherwise this will clearly be seen to be simply a Measure to prevent a festival taking place this year.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the House to be misled into believing that the Bill could become law in time to apply to any festival to be held on the Isle of Wight this year. The Bill has yet to go through its other stages in this House, then go to the other place, and come back here,
  1824
  perhaps with Amendments. I can assure my hon. Friend that if Clause 5 as drafted, with these wide powers, remains unamended there will continue to be vigorous opposition, to such an extent that it will be impossible for the Bill to be on the Statute Book to deal with any festival this year.
  Mr. Ogden: I started by asking one question. My hon. Friend has provided me with a number of others. My hon. Friend has emphasised the difficulties that can arise in legislation of this sort. I join those of my hon. Friends who have said that this is not a one-Clause Bill. There is a great deal of legislation in the Bill. We hope that those who have the fortune or misfortune to serve on the Committee will ask many questions about almost every Clause.
  Clauses 18 and 19 concerning aid to industry are important provisions. If this is pathfinder legislation to provide other county councils with the opportunity of helping industry in their own areas—lame duck industries or not, Conservative-controlled councils or not—let it go through. It might have been better not in the Bill among all these other things, but it is in.
  This is not a public festival Bill. It is a public assembly Bill. As such, Part II could be applied to all sorts of meetings held for all sorts of purposes, whether political or religious. All-night vigils would be covered. Shepherds guarding their sheep at night might have come within the provisions of the Bill if it had been in force 2,000 years ago.
  I find the terms "public order" and "public safety" disturbing. They mean different things to different people. I have no complaint against the dictionary definitions of the terms, but if used with too much emphasis by some hon. Members opposite they cause me concern. Some remarks made by hon. Members opposite about a neo-Bacchanalian orgy do not do justice to the young people who went to the festival. I was, in an intervention in his speech, a little critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) when he was making a comparison. I admit to my hon. Friend now that there are comparisons between the old Methodist revival and what happened at the festival. There was certainly a pilgrimage from every part of the United Kingdom to the festival.

  1825
  There was a degree of unity. In my own church there is a certain amount of jealously that the churches as churches cannot produce this kind of reaction in young people.
  What happens when 40,000 or 150,000 people congregate together depends on what one is looking for. The newspapers and television media had to look hard for something with which to fill the front pages. It is my impression that they were looking hard. There were things at the festival which excited comment and criticism. I did not like law and order being maintained by a group of young people called "Hell's Angels". The difficulties that arise when the police have to try to maintain law and order in such circumstances are tremendous.
  Mr. Driberg: In view of what my hon. Friend said about the Press, may I point out that at least one newspaper offered money to various young people—young girls, and so on—to strip and dive into the pool and that most of them refused to do so?
  Mr. Ogden: We have the difficulties caused by holding large assemblies in certain places which large numbers of people attend for a special purpose. With all its advantages, the Isle of Wight has difficulties because of the ferry. It has difficulties because it is not normally the kind of area which caters for a tremendous number of people coming at one time. It might be that the organisers of such a festival would be better advised to hold it on the mainland.
  What has not been said in this House is that someone on the Isle of Wight wanted it there, and someone there seems to have made a large profit out of it. If there were difficulties with farmers, it was because of the permission and consent of someone and the profit made by someone on the island, apart from the organisers.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight will probably see the Bill receive a Second Reading. If the approach from him is simply one concerned with the difficulties which arise when a large number of people meet for a purpose in any one area, with respect for the rights and responsibilities of others, I do not think that he will have much trouble. But he may have to change slightly from
  1826
  time to time and make certain concessions in return for the passing of the Bill.
  12.11 a.m.
  Mr. David Stoddart: This has been an absorbing debate so far, and it has been interesting to hear the encouragement coming from both sides of the House to the Government to bring forward comprehensive legislation.
  It is clear that hon. Members on both sides are not happy about many of the provisions in the Bill, especially Clause 5, being the subject of a local Act. I confess that, having been concerned with the Industrial Relations Bill for a good part of the week and finding that very difficult to understand, I have had only a short time in which to consider this Measure, and it raises many questions in my mind. If they are to be answered, I am afraid that I shall have to speak for a considerable time, which is unfortunate.
  It would be useful if, at this stage, we heard from the Government whether they are prepared to consider some of the points in the Bill and to bring forward comprehensive legislation of their own to deal with public order and public safety. That would be much more satisfactory than merely sending advice to the Committee which is to consider the present Bill. The Government should undertake to examine the whole basis of public order, not only in the Isle of Wight but elsewhere, to see what changes if any are needed, and any changes should be considered seriously first by the Government and then at length and at the proper time by this House.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Minister of State were to make a clear statement on the exact proposals in respect of Clause 5 that the Home Office will be presenting to the Committee considering the Bill, that might allay our fears. In that event, we could allow the Second Reading to take place without further debate and consider any further matters on Report. In the absence of a statement of the Government's intentions, we are in the difficult position of having to probe the Bill at great length.
  Mr. Stoddart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point so directly. Perhaps I was being devious about it,

  1827
  and it may be that the Minister of State did not understand my point. My hon. Friend has now put the matter clearly, and I hope that we shall have some response from the Minister.
  A number of the Bill's provisions are simply not suitable subjects for local Act powers, quite apart from the provisions of Clause 5. However, before I come to those, there is one small point at the beginning of the Bill which puzzles me. It refers to the publication of notices having to be made in the local Press. Why only in the local Press? Not everybody reads the local Press. It is and has been the custom and practice to publish notices concerning important acts which local authorities intend to carry out in other places than in the local Press. The local Press should not have this monopoly.
  Why not publish notices on the town hall, in post offices, on lamp posts in the streets? In this way a wider range of people is more likely to know what the local council is about.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: May I ask my hon. Friend not to make too much of this point, because it is unfair to single out the Isle of Wight Council. In fact, the statutory provisions for the publication of notices for quite serious changes in the local environment—roadworks, and so on—are quite inadequate. It is the national legislation which needs to be looked at in this instance.
  Mr. Stoddart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. This prediliction by local authorities merely to inform people through the local Press is going on up and down the country. Indeed, we should look into it and see whether we can widen the publication of notices of important acts which local authorities intend to carry out.
  Clause 5 is concerned with the regulation of public order and safety. I believe that there have been many greatly exaggerated accounts of what went on at the Isle of Wight last year.
  Sir C. Taylor: Phooey.
  Mr. Stoddart: There is an hon. Gentleman who is shouting "Phooey". A little while ago he was shouting "Fornication". It is that kind of ill-advised and, indeed, ill-informed remark which gave
  1828
  the pop festival a bad name and created a slander on many thousands of young people who took part in the festival.
  Mr. Ronald Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stoddart: I think, to be fair to other hon. Members, I should say that I am referring to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) who earlier made some very nasty remarks in this House before he left for more spirited pastures. It is perhaps unfortunate that he has returned.
  It is interesting to read a letter from a Mrs. E. Gunston written just after the pop festival last year:
  "As a resident of the Isle of Wight, and, incidentally, an education welfare officer for the Inner London Education Authority, I would like to correct the impression that many readers of the national press must have got from reports on the pop festival.
  I was sitting on Desolation Hill from about 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. on both Saturday and Sunday, and at no time did I observe any violence, fornication or unseemly behaviour of any sort, anywhere. On the contrary, the gigantic crowd was remarkably well behaved, friendly and generous. Moreover a friend of my daughter who lost his wallet in the arena containing £19 and his tickets recovered it next day from the police. It had been handed in intact by one of these so-called undesirable members of society.
  It seems a pity that so much of the reporting should have been so inaccurate, as well as so slanted, about the behaviour of the vast majority of the audience.
  In fact some of the comments made by both local figures and press reporters suggest to me 'Honi soit qui mal y pence'."
  That is a letter from a lady observer of the scene. She did not observe any fornication. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Eastbourne was present at the festival, so perhaps at some convenient time he would like to withdraw the unwarranted remarks which he has been making all evening. I believe that the police themselves described the remarks which were being made about the people attending the festival as grossly exaggerated, and a number paid tribute to the behaviour of those people. So before we criticise, we should get the facts right.
  Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Member is off beam in this regard. I am not criticising people's morals or drug taking. I have presented the Bill in a restrained way, I could easily take issue on some of these points, but I do not choose to do

  1829
  so. All we are concerned about is public health, safety, and means of access to make life more bearable not just for local residents but for the people who attend these festivals. We are not concerned with moral issues in this.
  Mr. Stoddart: I am well aware of that and would join my hon. Friends in congratulating the hon. Member on the manner in which he presented the Bill. It is unfortunate that, at the time, many of his hon. Friends gave quite a different impression. As I sought to show, one hon. Member, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, has been shouting, "Fornication"—that seems to be the only word he can utter—across the Chamber tonight. I hope that the hon. Member who has assiduously presented the Bill, will understand our difficulty.
  It is also right to say that the pop festivals themselves have been misrepresented in the Press. He must forgive us for thinking, before we heard his speech, tonight, that the reason for the Bill was to restrict pop festivals. I hope that he will forgive me for continuing on these lines, because this is an important point.
  In the original Bill, Clause 29—although it has now been withdrawn—would have provided for a landing charge, of all things. Can the hon. Member wonder why people, particularly outside the House, went in fear and trembling that the Isle of Wight was about to declare U.D.I.? Clause 29 appears to be evidence of a certian mentality on the part of those who originally drafted the Bill.
  Mr. Deakins: Could not the intention of the promoters be gauged from the inclusion of Clause 29, although it was subsequently withdrawn? We are surely entitled to assume that the spirit of Clause 29 is the spirit of virtually the whole of Part II of the Bill, and not just of Clause 5.
  Mr. Stoddart: That is absolutely true, and I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I sail in Lymington, and I saw many of the motor boats which brought some of the people back from the festival. Are we so right to attack landing charges? I wonder what sort of
  1830
  safety devices were on those boats and whether we should not think that the ferries operated by British Railways are the proper way for people to go to and from the Isle of Wight.
  Mr. Stoddart: That may be reasonable, but I am not sure that it would be dealt with by landing charges. The safety of boats is covered by other legislation and, if that is insufficient, it should be strengthened. But it should not be dealt with by imposing a new charge the intention of which is to restrict the movement of people within a particular area.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: A petition was received by the promoters from the Cowes, Sandown and Shanklin local authorities protesting, in terms similar to those being adduced by my hon. Friend, against this toll. This is another indication of the slipshod way in which this Measure has been thrown together.
  Mr. Woodnutt: This is all unnecessary because we have withdrawn the Clause. However, this provision was inserted not to deter people but to raise revenue. That was the idea of the 2s. per head charge. I have explained that, unlike every other county in Britain, we have no trunk road. This has nothing to do with pop or deterring people from coming in.
  Mr. Ogden: It would have applied to every holiday maker, and that would have been against the interest of the county council.
  Mr. Stoddart: I am obliged for my hon. Friend's intervention.
  We return to the main point, which is that the Government should say, "It is nonsense to try to do this by way of a local Measure". If we need new legislation to control assemblies, the Government should introduce it. It has been my impression—I hope I am wrong—that the thinking and motives behind the Bill stem not from the ordinary people of the Isle of Wight but from a section of them, perhaps mainly the golfing and yachting fraternity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I am entitled to my view and if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with me, they should say so and not shout "Rubbish" like animals in a zoo.
  I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are making so much fuss about these pop festivals and are giving the

  1831
  impression that we must deter these youngsters from enjoying what they like doing, which is making music, congregating together and doing their thing. There is precious little for young people in this country to do. The traditional forms of entertainment have one by one been ending. The cinemas are closing because they are no longer profitable. The dance halls and the ten-pin bowling alleys have been closing because they are no longer profitable.
  Because youngsters want to congregate together, want to enjoy themselves together, and want to enjoy music, there are many people—a good number of them are to be found in the Tory ranks —who want to stop them doing just that. I am glad to say that I live in a town which would welcome a pop festival. Indeed, it intends to have a festival in 1971, and part of it will include a two-day pop festival. We shall be delighted to have the young people come to the town to enjoy themselves. We shall welcome them, and they will be given every facility for enjoying themselves.
  There is far too much criticism of young people today. Every opportunity is taken to "bash" them. Hon. Members opposite have become adept at it, as was shown earlier in the debate. All their predatory instincts were aroused— "Bash the young. Keep 'em down". For my part, I believe that the young people of today are good people. Many of their elders, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne, could take a good example from them. In the Isle of Wight and at these pop festivals, the young people, "doing their own thing", as I say, usually drink Coca-Cola or water. They do not imbibe stronger spirits which, perhaps, might make them say and do things which they would regret later.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: In the cold print of HANSARD.
  Mr. Stoddart: In the cold print of HANSARD, as my hon. Friend says. Let me turn to the question of coffee bars and Clause 7. It may well be a good idea to license coffee bars, to put them under regulation, and to make them register with the local authority. But, again, this is a matter for national legislation. If coffee bars need to be further regulated, they ought to be regulated not only in the
  1832
  Isle of Wight but in other parts of the country as well. If it be necessary to have new regulations for the good management of coffee bars, for their cleanliness and sanitation, it should be done on a national basis so that the same regulations apply throughout the country.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: I have been interested in a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am wondering whether he has served on the Committee on a Private Bill or what experience he has of these matters. Almost every point he has raised is Committee work, that is, material which the House entrusts to a Committee. Passing references are interesting, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be making a long speech about Committee points. I hope that he will not think me discourteous, but I just do not understand.
  Mr. Stoddart: At the beginning of my speech, I warned the House that I would take a little time. I am well aware of the Committee stage. Although I have not long been a Member of the House, I have bothered to find out the procedure of the House and I know that there is a Committee stage. Tonight, however, I have to vote on Second Reading, and I am not prepared to vote on Second Reading, which concerns the principles of the Bill, until certain matters are clarified. One of those matters concerns the regulation of coffee bars, and there are other matters, too, which I want clarified. I hope, therefore, that we can get clarification of these points.
  I notice in Clause 15 a matter of principle. It enables the council to take an equity holding in a private company. What does this mean? Does it mean that the council will be able to take an equity holding in an hotel company, for example, or an entertainment centre? If that is what it means, we want to know, because other local authorities may well want the same sort of powers. Other local authorities might want to have an equity holding in Barclays Bank if they can do so or, indeed, to set up their own bank. I know of many local authorities which would like to set up their own banks. We are entitled to an explanation of exactly what the Clause means and whether the Government intend that it should extend to other

  1833
  local authorities if they agree to it in the Isle of Wight Bill.
  Clause 18 provides power to give guarantees and financial assistance to industry. Hon. Members will agree that this is an important point of principle on to which other local authorities might wish to batten. We are, therefore, entitled to an explanation of what it means and whether the powers will extend to all local authorities in due course.
  I come to Clause 21 concerning the regulation of access to grass verges and trees in highways. What does this mean? Does it mean that the Isle of Wight local authority will now have power to prevent children, however undesirable it might seem, from playing in the street? Under the Bill, that would appear to be the case. It would also seem that the Isle of Wight could prohibit people from walking on grass verges. These are points on which we need clarification, and before I vote for the Bill I want clarification of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred to the levelling of graves and the removal of memorials. Under the Bill, the county council seeks the power of three weeks' notice to level a grave or remove a memorial. I am convinced that even hon. Members opposite would not vote for a Clause of that sort. I think that every hon. Member would agree that relatives are entitled to be sought and given reasonable notice. Some people go on holiday for three weeks. Some hon. Members opposite go out of the country for holidays of six weeks. How would they feel if during that period a memorial had been removed and the grave of one of their dear departed relatives had been levelled off?
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: As a matter of personal convenience, may I be assured that the hon. Gentleman will still be speaking at one o'clock, because I should like to have a cup of coffee? I find his speech so utterly boring that I need to leave the Chamber.
  An. Hon. Member: Good riddance.
  Mr. Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman is Perfectly entitled to do exactly what he pleases.
  Mr.Speaker: Order. No—within the rules of order only.
  Mr. Stoddart: I think that it would be in order for the hon. Gentleman to go out now and have a cup of coffee. I must confess that I do not care whether he comes back.
  Clause 27 deals with
  "costs, charges and expenses of this Act".
  I do not know whether the people of the Isle of Wight appreciate what they could mean to them in money terms. I had the experience of helping with a private Bill, the Reading and Berkshire Water Bill. The ratepayers of Reading and Berkshire had to fork out £70,000 as the cost of that Bill. I have no idea what the cost of this Bill will be, but I imagine that it will run into many tens of thousands of pounds. The people of the Isle of Wight are entitled to an estimate of exactly what it will cost them.
  Clause 31 interests me as well, particularly on behalf of the people employed by local authorities. Subsection (1)(d) says that an officer doing certain things outside his normal duties should not have the remuneration for them taken into account for superannuation purposes. This is a very important matter. Specific things are mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c), such as a civil defence instructor, but what of the town clerk, for example, who acts as the returning officer at a General Election? Perhaps he is covered under other legislation. What happens if he acts as a clerk for a joint authority? These are all matters needing clarification. It is a great pity that the Government have not said that they are prepared to see the provisions of the Bill made provisions in a reasonable Measure brought forward my them.
  Clause 32 is entitled
  "Suprannuation benefits in certain cases of premature retirement."
  Here the county council is not taking sufficient powers. It might seem peculiar for me to say that, bearing in mind that I have been saying so far that perhaps it has taken too many, but it might be in the interests of the Isle of Wight to encourage a person to retire at 55, for the sake of greater efficiency, by offering him the pension that he would have earned by the age of 65. Such a provision is not in the Bill, and perhaps it should be.
  Clause 45 enables committees which have delegated powers further to delegate those powers to sub-committees upon

  1835
  which will serve people who are not members of council—in other words, co-opted members. Because a subcommittee has delegated powers from the council, the will of the council could very well be frustrated by people who are not answerable to either the council or the public at large, who have had no part in electing them.
  I am well aware that many hon. Members were not interested in the points which I had to make. But when hon. Members are asked to vote for a Bill of this sort, it is necessary that they should do their duty as Members of Parliament and, before voting, ascertain exactly the meaning of what they are voting upon. That is what I have endeavoured to do.
  I hope that the Government will consider seriously the issues raised in the Bill. I reiterate the hope that they will take heed of what has been said tonight. There are serious issues involved. I hope that they will not make the mistake of letting this local Bill go to a Committee, and of trying to get an enactment for a particular area. A general Act is needed. Therefore, I hope that the Government will heed the advice which they have received from the House and indicate that they are prepared to do something along these lines.
  12.47 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I am sorry to be speaking at this late hour of the night. Every time I speak in the House it appears to be in the small hours. Perhaps that is one of the disadvantages of being a back bencher. The major debates are always taken up by more important people, such as Privy Councillors.
  Tonight we are debating not merely a minor piece of Government legislation but a very important piece of local authority legislation—
  Mr. Woodnutt: It is not Government legislation.
  Mr. Deakins: A very important piece of local authority legislation—which presumes to take far more powers than are either good for it to exercise by itself or which ought to be exercised by any authority in the country other than the Government of the day.
  1836
  This is an important debate and it has been recognised as such by the Government in the terms of the Motion which you, Mr. Speaker, read at 10 o'clock, which was moved by a Government Whip. On opposed Private Business it is rather unusual to move a Motion at 10 o'clock allowing unrestricted discussion. Although as a new Member I know little of parliamentary procedure, I understand that this is the effect of the Motion accepted at 10 o'clock.
  Had the Government, and perhaps the promoters of the Bill, not been seized of the importance of the Bill, they might well have moved a different Motion, one perhaps restricting discussion to one or two hours after 10 o'clock. Therefore, in view of the importance of the debate, recognised by the Government in the Motion, which could have been a different Motion, I hope that there will be no attempt to move the Closure of the debate while there are still Members present wishing to discuss this very important matter.
  We must first deal with the principles behind the Bill. I endorse the opinions of all hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) on the very moderate way in which he moved the Second Reading. Nevertheless, moderation in moving it is only one thing and it must not detract from the fact that the Bill is an immoderate measure in terms of one or two Clauses to which I and some of my hon. Friends take exception in principle.
  The hon Member for the Isle of Wight said that local authorities must have powers to deal with large assemblies of people, meaning in this context pop festivals. Everyone fully accepts that there is a need for statutory national powers if there is a problem, and judging from the remarks of hon. Members, those who attended the festival in one capacity or another, those who read about it and those who quoted letters, there has obviously been a problem to some extent. I can sympathise with the promoters in seeking to bring forward some sort of restrictions on health grounds over pop festivals, but we are entitled to look not only at the intentions of the promoters but at the wording of the legislation and the implications of principle for the rest of the country and this House.
  Mr. Driberg: Despite what the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who is not now in his place, said about overriding health considerations, the medical officer of health for the island, who presumably knows at least as much as he does, says that those considerations were greatly exaggerated and that there is no real health risk at all.
  Mr. Deakins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had not appreciated that point which, if it is true, and I accept that it is, rather undermines the case put forward by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. These matters should be dealt with by national legislation, by us in this House, and fully debated as public legislation. The very title of Part II, "Public Order and Public Safety", is a misnomer because a local authority Bill ought not to be concerned with wider issues of public order and safety. They should be a matter for government legislation. I am sure that if the Minister could assure us that even at this late hour the Government would change their attitude on Clause 5, many of our fears would be allayed. In default of such an assurance I must stress some of the matters of principle which make this Bill objectionable and one against which I shall vote.
  The first principle is that we must avoid having one law for one part of the country and another law for the Isle of Wight. I exclude Scotland for historical reasons, but I am thinking of the United Kingdom generally. If Clause 5 is not substantially altered in Committee, if it gets there, we shall have one law for the Isle of Wight dealing with public order and safety and a different one for the rest of the country.
  In an intervention I referred to the intention of the promoters. We are entitled to deduce the intention of the promoters from what is in the Bill, even if subsequently, following various forms of public and private protests, they have seen fit to withdraw a particular Clause. There is no doubt that had the original Clause 29 remained there would have been a minor barrier between the Isle of Wight and the rest of the country and it would have been a major precedent in any form of legislation which could have led to other councils praying it in aid when they brought forward Bills to impose charges on people entering their area. I do not want to labour the point
  1838
  because the promoters have wisely withdrawn the Clause. Nevertheless there still remains sufficient in Clause 5 and the other Clauses to suggest that the Isle of Wight is seeking powers of control of assembly and of people in public places which do not apply anywhere in the rest of the country and which raise these issues of principle.
  My second point of principle is this: most areas, and indeed the nation, want to encourage tourism and visitors. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight acknowledged with pleasure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was going there on holiday. Tourism is increasing. There are various forms of tourism and various types of visitor. My hon. Friends and I suspect that the purpose of Clause 5 is to make it extremely difficulty for certain types of visitor to get to the island for certain purposes while not putting any obstacles in the way of other people going there for other purposes.
  One is entitled to ask what the intentions of the promoters are in seeking this distinction, which I regard as illegitimate. Hon. Members opposite and perhaps some of my hon. Friend support views which have been expressed from the Government benches. This is not a party political matter. A number of hon. Members on both sides would, I think, say that the distinction is because the people are young or because the visitors to pop festvals do not spend very much money. It might be argued—and I would not dissent from this argument—that perhaps they spend less than they cost. In other words, it is a negative drain on the Isle of Wight's balance of payments. It may be that hon. Members on both sides object to the people who go to pop festivals because a minority of them are, or appear to be, dirty and scruffy. This offends the susceptibilities of many ordinary people.
  I accept these points. But are these features of young people and people who go to pop festivals illegal? They may be considered undesirable, but surely as long as they are not illegal these features should not motivate the promoters to try to restrict pop festivals in such a way that it will be difficult for the promoters of pop festivals on the Isle of Wight to operate them in future.

  1839
  If Clause 5 goes through, I am sure that there will be a rush to include provisions similar to these in every succeeding Private Bill from a major local authority. Therefore, even if the Government are not stirred into taking action on this occasion, they may soon be forced to do so by the appearance of a Clause of the type of Clause 5 in other private legislation.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I cannot do so. First he says that he believes in tourism and then he says that these pop fans are a negative drain. It seems to me that the local authority in the Isle of Wight has a right to want to encourage a profitable enterprise in its island and not an unprofitable one. The hon. Gentleman's argument is a total contradiction which takes us absolutely nowhere.
  Mr. Deakins: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am completely in favour of tourism, particularly in view of its effect on the overall balance of payments. But pop festivals probably do not bring the money which ordinary holidaymakers bring, in terms of per capita spending. That is probably one of the basic reasons behind the promotion of Clause 5. The authority does not want people on the island who do not have much money to spend.
  That is an even more important principle, because it is not just pop fans who do not have much money to spend. An ordinary person with a large family who cannot afford a continental holiday, even the cheaper sort which it is possible to get now, may want to take his family to the Isle of Wight and he may not spend very much more than the average pop fan while he is there. Surely it cannot be said that the Isle of Wight does not want people who are unwilling to spend a certain amount of money on the island. That would be a most undesirable principle for one part of the country to adopt in relation to people travelling to it from another part of the country.
  My next point of principle has been reasonably well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), and that is the right of free assembly. I stress that it is the right of
  1840
  free assembly for peaceful purposes. If there is a right of free assembly for political discussion and for religious meetings, why should not there be a right of free assembly for enjoyment? Surely we are not so staid as to suggest that free assembly for purposes other than enjoyment is all right but that free assembly for enjoyment is not.
  I do not want to follow the mystical remarks of some hon. Members about whether a pop festival is a shared religious experience as I have no personal experience of a pop festival, but all the reports of pop festivals have stressed their peaceful nature. Since the war what more peaceful gatherings of large numbers of people have there been than pop festivals? I have considerable experience of football matches, where there are large gatherings of people, not all of whom are young, where there is a great deal of violence.
  I fully understand that a certain degree of supervision for public health purposes is desirable, but that supervision should not be motivated by fears which are groundless. If law breaking occurs, that is a matter to be dealt with by the police under the existing law.
  My next point of principle against the Bill is that it is a Private Bill which seeks powers to interfere in a commercial contract between two parties, the promoters of the pop festival and the owner or occupier of the land. In any commercial contract, damage to third parties is actionable under civil law. Any damage caused to third parties as a result of breaking the criminal law is a matter for the police. In both cases there is a remedy. The argument for the other side is that existing remedies cannot always be enforced, and I accept that, but since when have remedies provided by Parliament, both civil and criminal, always been capable of being enforced? People cannot always get the damages they want. While farmers may not be able to sue the promoters of the festival for damage to their land because the promoters have gone bankrupt, they nevertheless have a legal remedy. The fact that it cannot be enforced is no reason for introducing new legal remedies, backed by a local authority, which are not available elsewhere. A Private Bill is the wrong place for this sort of interference. I do not want to draw my analogy here too wide. The

  1841
  principle which we are discussing is this; if I were to hold a party in my house and garden and the local council had the power to say, "You are inviting too many people for the sanitary arrangements, the size of garden and the number of rooms you have", would not that be considered by the House an intolerable invasion of liberty?
  Mr. Woodnutt: In this excellent parallel which the hon. Member is suggesting, is he intending to invite 200,000 people to his house?
  Mr. Deakins: Of course I am not. I was going to make the point that I should not be so foolish as to invite on to my own property more people that I could successfully cope with. This is an important principle. But surely in the first instance the duty here lies with the farmer—I think that it is a farmer in this case in the Isle of Wight—or the owner of the land who has entered into a commercial contract to lease his land for a period for the purpose of a pop festival, leaving the arrangements to the promoters.
  It may be said that he may be greedy and is not worrying about the number of people who come on to the land, and therefore, there are legitimate grounds for complaint. But those grounds for complaint can be dealt with by existing law, and if it is felt that existing civil and criminal remedies are either inadequate or cannot be adequately enforced even if they are available, we should be thinking in terms of national legislation and not local legislation.
  I want to say something about the right to deposit and particularly the provision concerning the extraordinary expenses of the Isle of Wight County Council in, so to speak, clearing up after a pop festival. To use my earlier analogy again, it would be as if my local council were to charge me extra on my personal rates for the task of emptying dustbins full of bottles and so on and sweeping up afterwards.
  Compensation is a very important principle, but although it is enshrined in much of English law and in the law of the United Kingdom, compensation can always be obtained by the parties whose interests are damaged. I return to my other analogy, that of crowds at football
  1842
  matches. It has been apparent for years that some young supporters on their way to and from matches damage local property. They not only damage trains but smash shop windows, annoy passers-by and create as much if not more nuisance in a short time on a Saturday afternoon than the whole of the pop festival. Yet there has been no suggestion in this House that such activity by young hooligans at football matches needs any permissive remedies for local authorities whose ratepayers have been adversely affected. It has been said that we need to enforce the existing law in this situation more strictly, and I agree. The police do their best. It is also true that local shop keepers have a remedy at law if the offenders are caught. The offenders can be sued for civil damages as well as be punished under the criminal law. The same is true of the Isle of Wight.
  Mr. Gorst: The line of the hon. Gentleman's argument leads us to suppose that what he is saying is that two wrongs make a right and that just because we do nothing about the ravages of football crowds we should do nothing about the wrongs and ravages of these trampling elephants who come to the Isle of Wight. Surely that cannot be a tenable argument.
  Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. I am not arguing that we should do nothing. I say that, if there is a problem of the behaviour of large crowds injuring people other than the promoters of the event, sporting or otherwise, if there is damage and if there are complaints, and if the existing law is inadequate, the existing law of the country should be altered and it should not be done in private legislation.
  There are a number of undesirable features about Clause 5, connected first with subsection (7) and the deposit of money. I shall not make Committee points, because I am arguing objections in principle as a reason why, unless we are given an undertaking that Clause 5 will be substantially amended, I personally will vote against the Bill. Subsection (7) talks about the deposit of an amount of money with the local authority and also talks about a bond with sufficient surety. How can a bond be fixed in advance to cover extraordinary expenses incurred or likely to be incurred as a result of over-attendance at pop festivals

  1843
  —over and above the number the promoters had indicated would attend the festival? How can that amount be fixed in advance? Is it not in the nature of a penalty rather than a genuine attempt to quantify damages?
  Is it not a fundamental principle of at least English law that we do not like penalty Clauses, particularly wide-ranging penalty Clauses which give one party, in this case the local authority, tremendous latitude to fix whatever amount it likes? The local authority, if it does not like pop festivals, as I fully accept that it does not like pop festivals, for reasons which have been gone into by hon. Members on both sides, may legitimately say under subsection (7), "We are likely to incur enormous extraordinary expenses. Therefore, we will ask for a bond of £50,000". I pluck a figure out of the air. People have talked of very large sums of money this evening and I have no doubt that that is the sort of figure the county council might reasonably think itself entitled to. Yet is not this the sort of thing which would deter almost any promoter of any festival anywhere? If we want to prevent pop festivals, why not let us be open about it and pass a law prohibiting large assemblies of young people from assembling for purposes of entertainment and enjoyment only?
  This is an extraordinary power in subsection (7). I personally think that this is one of the most objectionable features of the whole Bill.
  Subsection (8) provides a right of appeal. That right of appeal, however, is to a local court—a court of quarter sessions of the county. With great respect to the gentlemen who will be the judges at this court of quarter sessions, is it not a safe assumption to make that, when an aggrieved complainant—a pop festival organiser—says to them that the county council has asked for far too much money and that it is unreasonable, they will side with the county council?
  Mr. Sharples: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a court of quarter sessions would not act in a judicial capacity in a matter of this kind? This is a very serious allegation indeed which the hon. Gentleman is making. I hope that he will withdraw it.
  Mr. Deakins: I will certainly withdraw, I am not making any allegation about a court of law acting in its judicial capacity. I am talking about matters of fact. The court will have to consider matters of fact brought to it by the pop promoter and by the Isle of Wight County Council.
  Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order. Quite apart from the Bill, I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation about a court of quarter sessions. He should withdraw.
  Mr. Deakins: I am trying to make a point—I hope that I can do that and keep in order without making allegations which I certainly would not want to make—that I do not regard this as a safeguard for the promoters concerned. I do not think that it is an adequate safeguard. I leave it at that. I hope that I am in order in making that point.
  My next point concerns Clause 5(9), which refers to the management of an assembly. Here, the Bill is very loosely drafted—
  Mr. Harold Gurden: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about trying to deal with the principles of the Bill and not with Committee points. However, I assure him that the points that he is making are Committee points. The Committee can strike out a whole Clause, and Committees have done so in previous Private Bills. The hon. Gentleman is, in fact, dealing with Committee points.
  Mr. Deakins: I take that point. Certainly I do not wish to go into great detail. I am merely trying to illustrate my reasons for thinking that the Bill is neither moderate nor well drafted.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not allow himself to be put off by the strictures of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). The points that my hon. Friend is adducing are quite in order, otherwise Mr. Deputy Speaker would call him to order. My hon. Friend is attempting to influence hon. Members with his argument, and I hope that he will not be deterred by the unwarranted remarks of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deakins: I am a newcomer to this House, and I am always grateful for the

  1845
  advice of more senior hon. Members. Certainly I have no wish to put myself outside the rules of order. I am sure that I shall be pulled up by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker if I trespass.
  Mr. Gulden: I made no reference to the rules of order, and I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman has stepped outside them. But he said earlier that he did not intend to deal with Committee points, and I wished merely to tell him that his points were Committee points.
  Mr. Deakins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are certain points which are Committee points but which are also points of genuine principle.
  Subsection (9) concerns the management of an assembly. Paragraph (c) says:
  "Any person concerned in the management of an assembly"
  who does certain things or permits them to be done
  "†shall be guilty of an offence".
  At a pop festival, who are the managers? Are they merely the promoters, in which case no one will weep crocodile tears for them? Are they the stewards at such a function, performing a useful and valuable public service in trying to ensure that people behave properly and preserve the rules of law and order, public decency, public safety, and so on? If the stewards in control of such a large assembly can be guilty of an offence, where are we going? The paragraph says that if they have reasonable cause to suspect that the terms, conditions or requirements laid down by the county council are not being met, they shall be guilty of an offence. Is not that a very widely drawn power for any local authority? Is not it a power that we should look at askance in a Government Bill dealing with public order? Do not we have the right to draw attention to the dangers to civil liberties?
  The wording is so loose that anyone associated with a pop festival might find himself being responsible to the county council, and being pursued in the courts and even found guilty of an offence. That is one good reason for opposing this Clause as a whole, unless we have some assurance about the future of it in Committee.
  1846
  I want also to draw attention to the fact that the burden of proof in paragraph (c) falls on the person against whom proceedings are brought. He has to prove that he has used all due diligence. Does not that run counter to the English legal tradition that the burden of proof should fall on the prosecution and not on the person accused of an offence?
  How is a person accused of an offence at a pop festival, a steward, a normal person trying to do his best for purposes which I am sure would appeal to the promoters of the Bill, to be proceeded against in a court of law when his defence has to be that he must prove that he has used all due diligence? I should think that this was an intolerable interference with liberty.
  I turn to subsection (9,d) on fines, There has been a certain amount of debate about the reason, the rationale, for a fine of £1,000 per day on pop festival promoters. There are two points of view. Either this fine is too large or it is too small.
  I should like to explain. If pop promoters are making tens of thousands of pounds profits out of pop festivals, then I think that a fine of £1,000 a day for four days is a small price to pay for the very much larger profit that they will get. On the other hand, if pop promoters go bankrupt, because they are not very good managers and know very little about the management of large enterprises or large crowds of people, such fines will be too large. They will be pointless because, by the time the fine is imposed, the promoter will be bankrupt. I do not know how a bankrupt promoter can be expected to pay a fine of £4,000 or £5,000.
  I should now like to draw attention to subsection (12), which refers to an assembly of more than 5,000 people. This is an important point of principle, and it is also concerned with the drafting. Here is a lophole which I do not think the promoters have spotted. We are referring here to public meetings of more than 5,000 people at night in an open space.
  Suppose the promoters expect less than 5,000 people and they inform the local authority accordingly. In that event, many of the precautions in Clause 5 which the local authority would normally

  1847
  take cannot be taken, because it would be an assembly of people not caught by the provisions of the Clause as it would consist of less than 5,000.
  The promoters might make that statement because they were ignorant, because they were incompetent, or perhaps because they wanted to pull the wool over the eyes of the local authority. But, for whatever reason they made that statement that less than 5,000 people would be attending, it appears that the Isle of Wight County Council would not be able to operate the powers contained in Clause 5. I hope that in Committee this point, at least, will be looked at very closely. No offence will be committed by the promoters of a pop festival if they state that there will be less than 5,000 people attending, because they would not constitute an assembly defined in the Clause.
  I shall say no more about Clause 5. However, I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate my profound dissatisfaction with both the wording and the principle implicit in it.
  My second major point of principle and objection to the Bill arises on Clause 7, which deals with coffee bars. For the benefit of hon. Members who do not have the Bill before them, coffee bars are defined as
  "any premises, including any mobile structure, which are kept open for public refreshment"
  between certain hours
  "or (b) any premises which are used by a club, organisation or body",
  subject to certain exceptions which are later defined.
  It is a fact that coffee bars can be places which the older generation of people do not like. In my local authority area there have been complaints from time to time about the types of people who frequent coffee bars, which are sometimes used as the headquarters of motor cycle gangs, and so on. I am sure that similar things have been happening on the Isle of Wight.
  At the same time, if there is a serious problem with unlicensed clubs and coffee bars, which are mainly used by young people, and if there is to be any tightening up of the powers of local authorities or central Government on coffee bars,
  1848
  it should be done by a Public Act of Parliament, not by a Private Bill for only a small part of the country.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: This is a very valid point. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is legislation, the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act, 1969, a consolidation Measure, which deals with almost all the points which the Isle of Wight Council is trying to embody in Clause 7? The Clause is quite unnecessary.
  Mr. Deakins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whether he is entirely right is a matter for discussion in Committee, but if he is, I hope that the promoters will take his words to heart.
  I do not like the wording of Clause 7 in principle. Subsection (6) seems to give the council tremendous power to register or renew registration, provided that it is satisfied that certain conditions are being met. One or two of these are unexceptionable, but paragraph (b) says:
  "the persons intended to be concerned with the conduct of the premises as a coffee bar are such that young persons resorting thereto are likely to be depraved or corrupted;"
  What does the Council have in mind? What depravity or corruption has taken place in coffee bars on the Isle of Wight to justify a Draconian provision like this which does not apply to the rest of the country?
  Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman should have done a little more homework. These words are in Section 83 of the Kidderminster Corporation Act, 1969, introduced under the Labour Government, and the Isle of Wight Council is asking no more than that.
  Mr. Deakins: I am grateful for that information, but I regret to say that I was not here in 1969—
  Mr. Cooper: Everyone has a cross to bear.
  Mr. Deakins: Yes, I bore mine in 1967, and I hope that I never have to bear a similar one. But the hon. Member was referring to a public piece of legislation and not a private one.
  Mr. Cooper: There is no such thing as private legislation. This Parliament decides what is law and what is not. It does not matter whether it is a private

  1849
  corporation or a private individual concerned: it has to be approved by this House and to that extent it is public and it is the law of the land. This Act was passed and approved by the Labour Government in 1969.
  Mr. Deakins: I defer to the hon. Gentleman's great experience in these matters. Nevertheless, what was done then was equally undesirable. If it were not spotted at the time, I am sorry. I was not here and if other hon. Members with my views were not perspicacious enough to spot this point, that should surely not prevent me from raising it on the first opportunity which I personally have had of considering a Private Bill like this. But I accept that Acts of Parliament, public or private, are the law of the land. What I object to is having a law of the land for one section of the community and not for others.
  What sort of person is included among,
  "… persons intended to be concerned with the conduct of the premises …"?
  This loose phrasing refers not to occupier or owner or lessee or manager. It refers to the conduct, not to the management. Could that refer to a waitress in a coffee bar? She is concerned with the conduct of the business. Normally this responsibility in legislation is placed firmly on owners or occupiers, rather than on those who happen to be working in those premises. This seems an intolerable invasion of private liberty.
  The provision then refers to hours of opening and closing to ensure that a nuisance is not caused to local residents. Most hon. Members would support that, but why does the council want to exclude a ten-pin bowling establisment? If a coffee bar can cause a nuisance to neighbours, why not a bowling establishment or any other place of entertainment? A nuisance could be caused by people entering or leaving such a place in the early hours. Is it not a fact that this exclusion is being sought simply because the Bill is intended to cover only, as we are told, "young persons", which means persons under 18?
  Mr. Gorst: As the hon. Gentleman has spoken for exactly 45 minutes, would he say when he intends to move from the trivia of the Bill to its grand, global provisions? That would enable us to leave the Chamber and return when he is about to deal with important points.
  Mr. Deakins: To a similar intervention earlier one of my older and wiser hon. Friends replied that the hon. Gentleman opposite who was anxious to leave for a cup of tea should do so. I take the same view, but would add a little advice from Alice in Wonderland. The king recommended beginning at the beginning and going on until one came to the end, when one should stop. Had the hon. Gentleman been here earlier he would have heard me refer to my six points of principle for opposing the Bill.
  Mr. Gorst: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is living in a world of Alice in Wonderland. My point was not so much about time as about trivia.
  Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to consider my remarks as trivia. Only by considering the minutiae of a Measure does one often discover important factors.
  Mr. Stoddart: One need only examine the new Clauses and Government Amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill to find confirmation of that. Many defects have come to light as a result of our examination of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope that hon. Members do not intend to try to discuss the Industrial Relations Bill tonight.
  Mr. Deakins: Certainly not, particularly as that business has nearly come to an end, at any rate from the point of view of this House.
  I come back to my objections of principle to the Bill. No hon. Member is in favour of law breaking or of activities which cause harm or damage to others. But we must always ensure, when drafting legislation to deal with either law breaking or what is, in effect, civil damage, that we do not trespass on people's rights and liberties, and the fact that they are young people should make no difference to that. I hold no brief for pop promoters. I have my own views about pop, but this is not the occasion to express them. They would not necessarily be shared by many hon. Member, but I do not regard that aspect of the matter as relevant to the discussion of the Bill or, in particular, of Clauses 5 and 7.
  Here is one last analogy. There have always been open-air assemblies of

  1851
  people. The Sermon on the Mount was delivered at one of the most famous of all, and on that occasion there were completely inadequate facilities and inadquate provisions, and there was the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That was an assembly of more than 5,000.
  Mr. Deakins: An assembly of over 5,000, yes. I shall not pursue the analogy further.
  If we are to have control on assemblies of people, we must think not just in terms of the pop festival. There are many other large assemblies which take place in inadequate accommodation, with inadequate sanitation, with inadequate protection for local residents against hooligans and against not malicious but accidental damage, with people trampling over fields and so on. One accepts that these are serious problems, but they are not problems which should be dealt with in a Private Bill.
  Unless we can have an assurance from the Government that action will be taken in Committee to remove the worst provisions in Clauses 5 and 7, I shall be forced —I speak for myself, and I do not know what my hon. Friend will do—to vote against the Bill, although I love the Isle of Wight and have spent many happy holidays there.
  1.38 a.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is unfortunate that the House has to debate a matter of such wide importance for civil liberties at this hour. This is the responsibility of those who decided to suspend the 10 o'clock rule for Private Business. But I make no great complaint because I regard it as the responsibility of each Member to make his own assessment as to the issues on which he feels he should address the House.
  Before coming to the Clauses, I shall take up some of the matters which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) raised in his sincere, compassionate and understanding speech. He spoke of the feelings of very large sections of our community. From all that I have read and heard and witnessed by means of the television screen, I am satisfied that when there are large assemblies, as there have been at the Isle of Wight,
  1852
  there is without doubt an urgent need for Parliament to pass legislation which reinforces, where reinforcement is necessary, the existing law to deal with those large assemblies. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), however, who made the point that the agency for such reinforcement of legislation, if reinforcement is required, is not by means of a Private Bill promoted by a county council but by a Public Bill presented by the Government of the day.
  The trouble with private legislation promoted by county councils is that normally it goes through "on the nod". It goes to a Committee upstairs. I make no strictures on the manner in which members of those Committees examine Bills, but I do not believe that we can be entirely satisfied, if one looks at the privately-promoted legislation which has gone through the House during the last 10 or 15 years, that the right amount of scrutiny has always been given to it.
  It is highly desirable that Parliament should start to look closely at these matters and to have Second Reading debates on these private Measures that come before the House.
  Mr. Cooper: I honestly do not know what the hon. Member is talking about. Private Bills, promoted by individuals in this House, have to go through the full scrutiny of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Many important Bills which are now part of the life of the country have got into law and are part of the Statute Book by virtue of the activities of private Members—for example, the Abortion Act, the Divorce Reform Act and all sorts of things. All these things have been done by private Members, but, nevertheless, they have to go through the full scrutiny of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and to receive Royal Assent in the same way as any Public Bill.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) has not grasped the point. It may be due to my inadequacy in presenting the case, so perhaps I had better run over it again for him. I am referring to Private Bills promoted by corporations, not Private Bills presented to this House by individual Members of Parliament such as those to which the hon. Member has

  1853
  referred—for example, the Abortion Act and the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act—all of which are quite admirable pieces of legislation presented by individual Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Ilford, South is quite right that in those cases there is always a proper Second Reading, the Bill is then committed to a Standing Committee of the House and it goes through exactly the same procedure as a Public Bill.
  But the hon. Gentleman, who was a Member of the House in a previous Parliament, must surely know, even at this late hour, that Private Bills promoted by public corporations, by the agency of Parliamentary Agents, do not go through exactly the same procedure. Almost inevitably, they go through "on the nod" on Second Reading, as tonight's Bill would have gone through "on the nod" had it not been for the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and other hon. Members who diligently perform their duties here at 2.30 in the afternoon by objecting to the Bill. When it receives its Second Reading, this Bill will go not to a Standing Committee but to a certain type of Committee established under the Standing Orders for Private Bills.
  If the hon. Members wishes to intervene again, I hope that he will do so with relevance to the points I am making and with relevance to the debate. I hope that he will also bear in mind the strictures of one Mr. Speaker after another to hon. Members that interventions, particularly stupid interventions, prolong speeches.
  Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse abuse with considered argument. When I first entered the House in 1950, I was appointed to a Select Committee on the Worcestershire Corporation Bill with his right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter). He and I dealt with that Private Bill upstairs. But after we had done that, called for evidence, and reached conclusions, that Bill nevertheless had to come back to the Floor of the House to be approved.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Now that we are talking about the same thing I can agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  1854
  The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made a very interesting contribution. He referred to the helpful aspect of making certain that adequate compensation was available for people who suffered injury as a result of the large gatherings we are discussing, and that it should be found out of a bond put down by the promoters. I intervened because it seemed to me outrageous that on top of the excessive powers sought in the Clause it should be suggested that a promoter of a legitimate enterprise should be required to pay a bond to be held as a token of his responsibility for compensation which may be claimed by a third party through an act committed by someone who has attended that assembly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) seemed to indicate that if the Bill had its Second Reading tonight it would be on the Statute Book in time for any large gathering that may be planned for the Isle of Wight during this year. That is hardly likely. The Bill has to go through certain procedures. Unless the hon. Member in charge of it, or the Minister of State, can satisfy the House on certain points tonight, I and my hon. Friends who are concerned about the excessive powers in Clauses 5 and 7 would not be prepared to assist in any way the speedy passage of the Bill, but would do all we could to ensure that it did not reach the Statute Book at all. So I implore the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) to consider whether even at this late stage he can give some undertakings about Clause 5. That would assist considerably the possibilities of some form of legislation being on the Statute Book for his island for this year. Clause 5 is so wide and loosely drawn, with 13 subsections, that it should be a Bill in its own right.
  Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Gentleman appears to have contradicted himself. He said a moment ago that there is no hope of getting the Bill on the Statute Book, and then said that if I could give way on this or that, or whatever he wants, there would be a hope. Could he be a little constructive and say what he has in mind to deal with the situation?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Let me clear up any misunderstanding. If the Bill has

  1855
  its Second Reading without any undertakings about Clause 5 I and my hon. Friends will do all we can to frustrate its passage through the remaining stages. If the hon. Gentleman, in response to my points, can give an indication of Amendments he might be prepared to promote in Committee, perhaps that would not be a necessity. [Interruption.] I can address myself only to the Member in charge of the Bill, not to strangers who may or may not be present in their capacities of parliamentary agents.
  It is unfortunate that the Minister of State failed in his duty to the House tonight to make clear precisely and in detail the Government's view on this vital Clause. He must now be aware of the deep anxiety existing in respect of Clause 5. To come to the House and to fail to spell out in detail the Government's view of the various subsections of Clause 5 is quite outrageous. These powers are unprecedented. They do not exist in any private or public legislation which has been approved by the House.
  I wish to question the Minister of State on Part II:
  "Public Order and Public Safety".
  Are the Government satisfied with subsection (1) of Clause 5, which proposes that any person who promotes an assembly and the owner or occupier of any land which is intended to be permitted to be used for that assembly is to be required to give four months' notice? Are the Government satisfied that four months is too little? Is the Minister of State not prepared to act on that? Many of us believe that four months is far too short a time and that promoters ought to give a longer notice if this sort of legislation is required.
  Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the normal method of putting forward Government comments on a Bill of this kind is for a report to be presented formally to the Committee. That would be the way in which the Government would intend to handle the matter.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The report to the Committee is an acceptable procedure when a Bill goes through on the nod on Second Reading, without debate, but with this unusual procedure of a full-
  1856
  scale debate on Second Reading it is still necessary that the Minister should not rely on the procedure which is acceptable on an unopposed Second Reading. If the hon. Gentleman cannot help on those points, we shall divide the House tonight and do all that we can to delay the Bill.
  Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has not the remotest idea how Bills of this kind are dealt with in the House. If the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, there will be no such thing as a Committee being set up in relation to how the Members of both sides of the House are divided. Two or three people will be appointed by Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, to deal with this matter. They will take evidence in a quite different way from the way in which ordinary Bills are dealt with in Committee.
  It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to talk about himself and his party doing everything that they can to frustrate the Bill. If it receives a Second Reading tonight, it will be dealt with by what one might call a judicial committee of one or two people, perhaps one from either side, which will take evidence and give the House its considered view on the subject. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Once again the hon. Gentleman is using very loose language. He talks of my party and me. I am not speaking for my party. I am speaking for myself and my hon. Friends who have participated in the debate. The hon. Gentleman should tighten up his language and his understanding of the debate.
  On the remaining subsections of Clause 5, is the Minister satisfied with subsection (3), for instance, which requires that the number of people it is anticipated will attend the assembly should also be specified in the notice to the local authority?
  Is it a reasonable requirement to impose on a promoter that he should estimate the number of people expected to attend? Certainly they can be asked to give some indication of the maximum numbers of people for whom they are making provision. But when dealing with the sort of assemblies at which this Clause is obviously directed there would

  1857
  be great difficulty in giving precise numbers.
  Mr. Deakins: Is there not a further difficulty in that the promoters will not be able to give an accurate estimate of maximum numbers because many of the tickets will be sold at the entrances to the festival and there will be no way of knowing in advance how many people will attend?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That is why it is an unreasonable condition. It is another illustration of how wide the powers are and of the real purpose behind the Bill which is to make it impossible for pop festivals to be held on the Isle of Wight. It is not a genuine attempt to control the situation. I could go through the subsections asking for information but the Minister obviously will not be drawn.
  Mr. Driberg: My hon. Friend is not quite accurate, because the Minister intervened just now to say that his Department will be making a report to the Committee. If my hon. Friend has any points on which he wishes to have the Government's view, I am sure that the Minister will take note of them and include them in his report. It is worth mentioning them.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Take subsection (4). This gives the council power, if it thinks fit, to say that any assembly to be held in the country:
  "… will be an assembly to which this section applies"
  and can make the promoters provide certain information. If the promoters have no information of the assembly being an assembly of over 5,000 people on an overnight stay the council can still say that the information must be provided. It is surely an intolerable imposition upon the freedom of people to be able to carry out their legitimate business activities. The council can require details of a Boy Scouts' jamboree—
  Mr. Woodnutt indicated dissent.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman disagrees but the law will say that the council can require any promoter of any assembly to supply particulars which it requires. "Any assembly" means a Boy Scouts' jamboree, the Boys' Brigade—any group of people who want to use the facilities of the Isle of Wight and which
  1858
  will entail a large assembly being there overnight. It is no good hon. Gentlemen saying that it would not be applied. Unless there is an exclusion Clause it will be. Subsection (4) says that the council, if it wishes, can ask for this information whether or not it is the intention of the promoters to have an assembly of over 5,000 people. It is this sort of point in this loosely-drawn Clause which makes it impossible for hon. Members with the protection of civil liberties at heart to allow this to pass unopposed.
  Mr. Deakins: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the marginal note to Clause 5 which refers to "large overnight assemblies in the open". I wonder whether he has studied the Bill with sufficient intensity to discover the meaning of the words "in the open"? Does it mean people who do not sleep in a tent and who bring their sleeping bags and sleep rough, or will it cover marquees?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That is a legitimate point to which I would draw the Minister's attention. If he asks for leave to speak again, I hope that he will direct his attention to it.
  Subsection (5) talks about the council' applying conditions and regulations as to the suitability of a site
  "for the purpose of the proposed assembly …".
  We need to know what the standard is to be. What criteria will the county council apply in operating this provision? The subsection gives the council absolute power to determine these things.
  Subsection (6) provides:
  "If the number of persons who attend the assembly exceeds the maximum number"—
  and I assume that to be the maximum number set out under subsection (3) in the information which has to be given to the council—the promoters of the assembly shall be held responsible for any "extraordinary expenses incurred" by the authority. Surely that is putting an unreasonable responsibility on the promoters. If people turn up uninvited without tickets and gate-crash and gain access so that the permitted number is exceeded against the wishes of the promoters, they will be responsible and will have to meet the expenditure incurred in dealing with the extra people, whether it be police control or any other means.

  1859
  Subsection (7) provides that the promoters must pay a deposit There is no indication of the criteria for the deposit. Will it be based on so much per head? Will it be based on so much per marquee? We cannot be asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which gives the county council power to ask for a deposit which is not based on any criteria approved by this House. It is quite outrageous.
  Subsection (9) raises the question of what is management. Can a steward be held responsible for any breach? We cannot agree to this sort of legislation in such wide, devastating terms. It is not "on".
  Subsection (11) provides:
  "The Council may pay to any authority the whole or such part or parts of any sums received by them under subsections (3) and (6) of this section as they may think fit".
  The council, having obtained the deposit to meet the extraordinary expenses of any authority, whether it be a water, police, gas or electricity authority from the promoters of the assembly it wants the power to decide which authority it will pay and how much. There is no guarantee that even the monies paid in by the promoters of the assembly will be applied by the council for the purposes for which it required them to be deposited. Subsection (11) gives the council absolute power to pay those moneys to whichever authorities and in whatever amounts it wishes without any recognition of the requirements of the authorities or any regard being paid to the justice of any claim made by the authority entitled to make a claim for extraordinary expenses incurred. This is a very wide provision which we are being asked to approve.
  I shall no doubt be told that Clause 6, which I do not intend to deal with, is a model Clause. I do not take the view that because a Clause has been included in Private Bills it need for all time be accepted as a model. Clauses later in the Bill have been lifted from legislation which has since been overtaken. It is no defence for the promoters to say that a Clause should not be opposed or debated because it has been used in other legislation.
  One might think that a coffee bar was a place where a man could go up to
  1860
  the counter and buy a cup of coffee and nothing else, but Clause 7(1) says:
  "coffee bar' means—

  (a) any premises, including any mobile structure, which are kept open for public refreshment at any time between the hours of 11 o'clock in the evening and 5 o'clock in the morning;"

  The Clause exempts public houses, clubs and so on. The definition includes any premises which are kept open for public refreshment during those times and those premises could be a perfectly legitimate restaurant, a marquee in a field, a mobile caravan serving refreshments on the side of the highway.
  Mr. Deakins: The definition of "coffee bar" is extremely widely drawn, although there are so many exceptions that one is tempted to ask what is the purpose of the wide definition. Would it not have been better to have a simple definition of what the promoters wish to act against?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That would have been better. I said in an intervention that it was strange that the Bill should contain provisions almost identical in wording and intention with certain provisions in the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act, 1969, and we are entitled to ask why it is necessary in a private Measure to apply provisions already contained in a public statute.
  Clause 7(5) deals with the registration of coffee bars—a matter covered in the 1969 Act, in which there is a requirement for the registration of refreshment places. Indeed, throughout this Clause one finds provisions which already apply in public legislation. Subsection (6) says:
  "The Council may refuse to register or renew the registration of any premises for use as a coffee bar if they are satisfied that—

  (a) the premises are not suitable for use as a coffee bar …"

  But this is already provided for in Section 7(1) of the 1969 Act. Why does it have to be specified again in a private Bill?
  Subsection (6)(b) says:
  "the persons intended to be concerned with the conduct of the premises as a coffee bar are such that young persons resorting thereto are likely to be depraved or corrupted;"
  What does that mean? What are the sponsors of the Bill getting at? What

  1861
  are the criteria? We are entitled to know before we give the council permission to exercise this power over coffee houses conducting legitimate business.
  Subsection (6)(c) says:
  "the premises are not safe for use as a coffee bar;"
  Surely that is an unnecessary provision. Surely safety of such premises comes under a Statute—no doubt the Town and Country Planning Act. Certainly sanitation, ventilation and lighting must be covered. This brings us back to the point I made earlier about model Clauses being superseded by public legislation.
  Subsection (6)(e) and (f) refer to precautions against fire and the means of escape. The Under-Secretary of State has just piloted the Fire Precautions Bill through the House and surely that Bill has superseded these provisions. Why has there been this sloppy drafting?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are limits and I think that the Chair so far has been extremely tolerant. It is laid down in Erskine May that a Second Reading is primarily concerned with the principle of a Measure and that matters of detail —Committee points, as they are called —ought not be discussed on Second Reading. We have heard a great many Committee points this evening and there has been very wide latitude. The Chair has certain powers which it would be reluctant to use. I hope the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to matters of principle.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I am asking whether it is right, Mr. Speaker, that, as a matter of principle, we should be asked on Second Reading to agree to Clauses which are already covered in public legislation, but I will accept your suggestion and move on to a matter of substance and principle which we must consider at this stage. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said the trouble with existing legislation in respect of assemblies of the type which have taken place in the Isle of Wight over recent years is that the penalties imposed are insufficient to be a deterrent. The penalties specified in Clause 7 for breaches are lower than those specified in the Late Night Refreshment Houses
  1862
  Act, 1969, so that statement by the promoter was illogical.
  Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that in making that statement I was referring to Clause 5, not to Clause 7.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The promoters ask for excessive penalties in Clause 5, but in Clause 7 the House is asked to agree to lesser penalties than those which can be applied under an existing Public Act. That ground alone is sufficient as a matter of principle to persuade my hon. Friends and Ito oppose the Bill.
  It is clear that we shall have no satisfactory statement from either the Minister or from the hon. Member from the Isle of Wight. Therefore, in deference to the indication that you, Mr. Speaker, have given to me that you are anxious that the House should come to a decision on the Bill, I will close my speech by reaffirming the absolute abhorrence of my hon. Friends and myself of legislation of this type being brought to the House and being discussed at this late hour. The Bill seeks to confer upon the Isle of Wight County Council Draconian powers, powers which it is unreasonable to request from the House in this type of legislation.
  When the Minister makes his report to the Committee, I appeal to him to make it clear that it is unacceptable to him and to the Home Office that legislation so wide and so loosely drafted as this should be passed by the House.
  2.17 a.m.
  Mr. Woodnutt: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I want to express my gratitude to those hon. Members on both sides who have taken part in the debate and who have shown such understanding and sympathy and have made constructive criticism. Most of the points which have been made are entirely Committee points which I do not intend to deal with now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pinpointed the problem and said that Government legislation is required to deal with it. He pointed out that the Isle of Wight has an immediate problem. I am sure that the House will recognise

  1863
  this and will give the Bill its Second Reading.

  Division No. 260.]

  AYES

  [2.18 a.m.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Green, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gurden, Harold

  Percival, Ian

  Benyon, W.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Boscawen, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bray, Ronald

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  James, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Knox, David

  Soref, Harold

  Cordle, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Crouch, David

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Curran, Charles

  Loveridge, John

  Tebbit, Norman

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

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Emery, Peter

  McNair Wilson, Michael

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Farr, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Mather, Carol

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fidler, Michael

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

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Moate, Roger

  Fortescue, Tim

  Monro, Hector

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  More, Jasper

  Mr. Mark Woodnutt and

  Gorst, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Mr. Roger White.

  NOES

  Driberg, Tom

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. James Wellbeloved and

  Mr. Eric Deakins.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  SCHOOLS (EDUCATIONAL COUNSELLING AND CAREERS GUIDANCE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hector Munro.]
  2.26 a.m.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss educational counselling and careers guidance in schools. These are two closely related subjects which have gained a little more prominence in school life during the last two or three years, but they have still to be clearly seen by teachers, parents and administrators for the vitally important educational subjects which indeed they are.
  There have been careers masters in schools since before the war, but one can fairly say that in large part lip service has been paid to the idea, and that the job of careers master was a Friday afternoon job to be undertaken by the teacher who could most readily
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 2.
  be spared from teaching duties for a few hours.
  The youth employment officer has been in the background—sometimes on stage, sometimes off stage; neither wholly in the education service, nor wholly outside it. He has been tolerated by some headmasters, while others have spent their time protecting their charges from the academically corrupting influence of this outsider from the industrial world. Ironically, the youth employment officer has at the same time concentrated on schools to the exclusion of industrial apprentices.
  I shall not be overstating the case when I say that the quality of vocational and even subject guidance over the great run of schools since the war has been something short of first-class, although there have been pockets of excellence here and there, very often outside the State school service. For example, the National Advisory Centre on Careers for Women has performed an excellent service in its work for women, and I have been privileged myself to play a small part in an imaginative series of career books published by an educational firm in Reading.
  Educational counselling is an even less developed animal. At the moment, in Wales, for example, there are only 23 teachers in secondary schools who have received training in it. Indeed, of those 23, several are not employed in counselling at all.
  Counselling as a service is probably most developed in a few universities—notably Keele, where the Appointments Counselling Service is possible unique in this country. Their experience over the last six years has clearly shown the great need for the service, which today is staffed by four carefully-chosen and highly trained and experienced counsellors, catering for the needs of 2,000 students. It is a joint careers and counselling service and the staff are persuaded that the two aspects of the service should be run together. Courses in this work for teachers have been run at the university for some years and more recently at a few other universities but it is doubtful whether so far more than 250 teachers have attended them.
  Only a few local authorities take a positive attitude a good example being Stoke-on-Trent where my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Mr. Cant) has played a leading part. A larger number of local authorities are prepared to be benevolently disposed when pushed and the remainder the majority simply do not want to be bothered.
  I received a letter only yesterday from a trained counsellor who is leaving her school after 20 years to take up counselling in another local education authority over 200 miles away. To have stayed in her native town would have meant her taking a drop in status from head of department to a special responsibility post grade 2 and a drop in salary of about £300.
  The great need is for a lead by central Government and I hope that the Department will act as a spur and will not be left trailing behind as in so many educational developments to be dragged along half-heartedly by pioneers in the field.
  Two national associations have recently been formed the National Association of Careers Teachers and the National Association of Educational Counsellors. Along with the Youth Employment Officers Association they form a triumvirate
  1866
  which might be fixing trends not necessarily in the best direction.
  One question which for example needs answering quickly is whether it will be a mistake to split counselling from the careers guidance service. There are several reasons for believing it to be a mistake. There is a danger that pupils will come to believe that the counselling service was for the "sick". It is important that an integrated service should have a normal "or" "prosaic" function such as careers guidance as well as counselling. This will help counsellors to keep a sense of proportion. Otherwise counsellors might themselves over time lose touch with reality.
  I suspect that as our educational system develops the more imaginative teachers employer in this work would gravitate if the two services were split from careers guidance into counselling which can be more creative and offer more scope. So from the point of view of job enlargement the two should run together.
  But the real question is how do we get the right men and women in the right quantities into careers counselling? If it is a truism that teaching is a vocation the educational counsellor or careers teacher needs qualities of sensitivity and imagination approached only by poets. The role of the counsellor is insufficiently understood by parents, teachers, students and pupils and it requires careful definition if it is to be used properly and within a long-term perspective.
  I wish to use what little time I have to try to sketch in some of the rough outlines of the picture. Most important the counselling service is educational rather than remedial. It is preventive rather than crisis centered. It must start in the schools and be continued in the universities and colleges not only on humanitarian but on sheer economic grounds.
  For example, in 1968–69, 1,400 students in Britain failed to complete the degree courses on which they had embarked. It has been responsibly estimated that by 1980, 20,000 students each year may be dropping out of universities before completing their courses. As we already know that this is not because of a lack of academic ability, we must look to a greatly extended use of skilled counselling for a solution to the problem.
  Counselling differs from advice under the old advisory service in fundamental ways. To counsel effectively is to be nonjudgmental in approach and to respect the integrity of the individual child. Teachers at school are committed in part to enforcing the discipline of the school, and this clearly limits the range of situations about which they are likely to be consulted by children.
  Counselling must, therefore, operate outside the disciplinary structure of the school and in a non-authoritarian role. The counsellor must try to see the school society from the child's, as well as the teacher's, point of view, and his central role is the exploration of and help with the personal problems of the child. His approach is non-didactic, informal and non-directive. It is, therefore, an approach only possible through a close personal relationship with the child, for the building of which adequate time must be available.
  As excellent example of the sort of case that will increasingly face counsellors came to my notice recently in a London borough. An Indian girl in her teens was arriving home from school late, usually not before 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. Her father went to the school to complain about it. The school counsellor interviewed the girl and found that she stayed on at school to do her homework because when she got home her father, presumably in accordance with Indian custom, expected her immediately to attend to housework rather than school work. Here was a case of a girl who was living at home in one culture and living in school in another. This is the sort of problem with which school counsellors will be increasingly called on to deal.
  One can readily appreciate the human warmth, sincerity and skill required of the counsellor and the careful training that he must undergo before being able to undertake this type of work. I suggest that the time has arrived when every secondary school should have a counsellor responsible for creating, running and promoting a department of social relationships which would co-ordinate all counselling and guidance activities in the school—educational, vocational, personal tutorial and remedial. Ideally, this service should cater for all children throughout their school careers, and this would be
  1868
  possible only by having a team of teachers trained in counselling and led by the school counsellor to carry out the work.
  The aim, which, I emphasise, is overwhelmingly educational, is, with the aid of the team, to encourage all children to make choices and decisions meaningful to them alone, not to others.
  I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for being here at this ridiculous hour, and I hope that she will be able to reassure me and the teaching profession that the Department is not only aware of the real need for a greatly expanded and improved counselling and careers service and for the professionalising of the patchwork efforts which up to now we have put up with, but is also in a position actively to take a lead in promoting the development of such a service.
  2.41 a.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) for raising the question of educational counselling and careers guidance in schools in this debate, even at this ridiculous hour. I agree with a great deal of what he said. I anticipated some of his remarks and prepared some in reply, and, as time is short, I shall make my remarks as quickly as I can.
  The educational opportunities available —in the schools and in further and higher education—are greater now than they have been at any time in the past. The selection of a career is more complicated than it used to be. New types of jobs with demands for specialist qualifications seem to be coming into being all the time, while the demands for all skills in some trades are diminishing.
  The need for up-to-date informed guidance is growing all the time. But the schools themselves are going through a process of change which must impose strain on the effectiveness of the services for guidance. The tendency is for secondary schools to become bigger. Unless some conscious effort is made to avoid losing touch with the child as an individual, it is all too easy for the larger units to become impersonal and to fail to meet the individual needs of their pupils. The hon. Gentleman is very much aware of that. The schools have

  1869
  also a special responsibility, as he said, towards their older pupils.
  I welcome the trend which has been growing in recent years for pupils to stay on beyond 15, the age at which they may leave school, in order to extend their education and to acquire qualifications in G.C.E. or C.S.E. But the presence of such pupils, who often form a minority in a school whose main purpose is not directed towards the attainment of academic qualifications, has presented the staffs with new and unfamiliar problems to which they have had to find solutions as they went along.
  Looking to the future, the schools are now preparing themselves for the raising of the school-leaving age in 1972. This development will retain in the schools about 250,000 15-year-olds whose aims and ambitions are likely to be very different from those of pupils who have hitherto stayed on voluntarily.
  There are three aspects to the guidance which we can offer to pupils at school. The hon. Gentleman mentioned them himself. First, educational counselling, to which the hon. Gentleman devoted the main part of his speech; I often prefer the older term, pastoral care. Second, the education about careers and the careers guidance given by the school itself. Third, the careers guidance and help in placing in jobs given by the Youth Employment Service, which also the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Although it is useful to distinguish these three aspects for the purposes of discussion, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one cannot emphasise too strongly that they are interdependent.
  I take counselling first. Schools have, in practice, always accepted a responsibility for providing guidance for their pupils beyond the bare necessity of the curriculum. The particular emphasis given has, of course, varied according to the nature of the school, but generally such personal care has been implicit in the life and conduct of the school and has called for little in the way of special organisation or of specialised training for the teachers. The traditional concern of the schools has been with curricular guidance, and they have tried with varying degrees of success to guide or direct pupils into the right choices of subjects or examination courses at the
  1870
  right time. Such choices, however, cannot be made in isolation. They must be linked to vocational aims, on the one hand, and personal strength or difficulties, on the other hand.
  In small schools, personal guidance can be a combined team effort of the whole staff. In large schools, this is no longer so and various forms of social organisation are adopted, such as houses, year groups, or tutor systems. All of these try to maintain a personal service to the pupils. There will, of course, always be the special cases where, because of particular problems, some of which the hon. Member mentioned, the school needs to enlist the help of outside services, sometimes such as the school psychological service or child guidance services, but for the majority of cases the work is done by experienced teachers.
  Curricular guidance must also look at the career prospects of the pupils. This is where the distinction between curricular and personal guidance, on the one hand, and vocational guidance on the other hand, tends to become blurred. An early choice between subjects in the curriculum can determine the career opportunities which may be open in later life. Because of this, special responsibility for curricular guidance and some element of personal guidance has often fallen to the careers teacher. The hon. Member mentioned this. Where careers guidance is well organised—I agree with the hon. Member that in many schools we have a long way to go—the careers staff take an interest in pupils from an early stage in their secondary school life.
  All too often the chance is lost of combining with guidance on careers the relevant information about appropriate courses in further education. The technical colleges have in recent years developed a flexible pattern of vocational work at all levels, and the Department provides a steady flow of material—some of it written for the young school leavers themselves—outlining the opportunities available. The local education authorities welcome this help and they have in the last month or two taken 400,000 copies of a regional guide to further education for the early school leaver. But close links are necessary at local level between schools and colleges if pupils are to be made fully aware of the facilities available.

  1871
  I should also mention the work of the careers officers in the Youth Employment Service. Their work is complementary to that of the careers teachers and the schools. The task of the schools is to see that pupils—and their parents —are well-informed about the various choices open to them, about the minimum qualifications necessary to enable them to follow a particular career and about their personal chances of being able to do so, bearing in mind their abilities and performances at school.
  The principal task of the careers officers is to assess the capabilities of the pupil and to give him vocational guidance in the light of the information which he gets from the school, pupil and parents and his knowledge of different occupations and the openings available in the area and outside it. But his contribution is not limited to knowledge of the employment market. Where he is also advising students in colleges of further education, he will be able to supplement the advice from the school about the need for qualifications for certain occupations.
  The hon. Member mentioned one or two instances of training. Although the great majority of secondary schools have appointed a teacher responsible for careers guidance, by no means all of these have received any specialist training in the subject. One-year advanced courses in guidance and counselling already exist at the universities of Exeter, Manchester, Reading and Keele, which the hon. Member mentioned, and at the University College of Swansea, providing about 80 places in all. A one-term course which has been provided for a number of years at the Edge Hill College of Education is to be reconstituted as a one-year course in the academic year 1971–72 and a new course, also of one year, is to be opened at Sheffield City College of Education. In addition, a number of short courses is organised by the Department, by the Inspectorate, in collaboration with the area training organisations, and by the local education authorities themselves.
  Not all of those who take the courses are teachers; there are some who come from other backgrounds concerned with counselling in schools and go back to non-teaching work. And nto all the
  1872
  teachers return to posts identified as counselling or guidance posts. Although the Department does not collect statistics of the number of teachers employed under these titles we know that of those who have passed through the various university courses some are now employed full-time in counselling or guidance, others are employed part-time on counselling and part-time on other teaching duties, while others are holding posts such as deputy heads or second masters which may very well contain a large element of counselling or guidance work. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was able to give the hon. Member some details of the employment position in Wales in reply to a Question, and some of that information the hon. Gentleman used in his speech; this was the result of a special inquiry and similar information for England is not available. I hope, however, that the survey to which I shall refer in a moment which H.M. Inspectors are beginning in September of this year will provide some more information on this subject as well as on the organisation of careers guidance.
  I should also mention the survey of counselling in schools prepared by the Schools Council in 1967 and the Department's publication "Careers Guidance in Schools" published in 1965. Both of these are aimed at the teachers and staff concerned rather than at the pupils. I am very conscious that in a field which is developing as quickly as this one, certainly the Department's publication is somewhat out of date after six years. But I stress that the Department is not being dragged along. It is tending to lead the way. A great deal of advice and a lot of publications are available.
  It has been proposed that Her Majesty's Inspectors should carry out a survey of careers education over the next two years. This survey is designed to give information on the organisation of careers education on a broader basis than the information already available from surveys of individual areas which they carry out as a matter of routine. It will also produce statistical information about the qualifications of the staff employed and the way in which they are employed and will produce examples of effective work. We very much look forward to the results of the survey.

  1873
  I stress that I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the provision we make for careers guidance and counselling in schools. There are new problems ahead for the service. Improvement can only be gradual. There is a good spirit of enthusiasm and determination among the teachers concerned, some of whose representatives from the National Association of Careers Teachers I met
  1874
  earlier this year. I hope that all those concerned with this service will be encouraged by the interest shown this evening by the hon. Member, and that the service will steadily improve to the benefit of all our pupils in our schools.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Three o'clock a.m.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (Damage to Property)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (Damage to Property)
  Himsworth Committee (Report)
  Himsworth Committee (Report)
  Women Prisoners (Children)
  Women Prisoners (Children)
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Complaints Against Police (Investigation)
  Complaints Against Police (Investigation)
  Jury Service
  Jury Service
  Police (Foot Patrols)
  Police (Foot Patrols)
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Victims of Crime (Restitution)
  Victims of Crime (Restitution)
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Metropolitan Police Rate
  Metropolitan Police Rate
  Patrials
  Patrials
  Illegal Entry
  Illegal Entry
  Borstal Institution, Rochester
  Borstal Institution, Rochester
  Newham (Parking of Heavy Vehicles)
  Newham (Parking of Heavy Vehicles)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Magistrates' Courts (Children)
  Magistrates' Courts (Children)
  Aliens (Registration)
  Aliens (Registration)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Registration)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Registration)
  Ince (Urban Aid)
  Ince (Urban Aid)
  Abortion Offences
  Abortion Offences
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Prices and Costs
  Prices and Costs
  Computers
  Computers
  Urban Aid Programme (Bradford)
  Urban Aid Programme (Bradford)
  Women Prisoners (Children)
  Women Prisoners (Children)
  Royal Commission on the Constitution
  Royal Commission on the Constitution
  Judges' Rules (Metropolitan Police)
  Judges' Rules (Metropolitan Police)
  Bomb Incident (Detained Persons)
  Bomb Incident (Detained Persons)
  Arrested Persons (Solicitors)
  Arrested Persons (Solicitors)
EMPLOYMENT
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Industrial Stoppages (Lost Working Days)
  Industrial Stoppages (Lost Working Days)
  Circular 28/922
  Circular 28/922
  Wages (Payment by Cheque)
  Wages (Payment by Cheque)
  Gateshead, Tyneside and North-East England
  Gateshead, Tyneside and North-East England
  Royal Palaces (Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act)
  Royal Palaces (Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act)
  24th March
  24th March
  Foam Plastic Furniture and Upholstery Materials
  Foam Plastic Furniture and Upholstery Materials
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
EDUCATION
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Polytechnic Colleges (Yorkshire)
  Polytechnic Colleges (Yorkshire)
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Galleries and Museums (Charges)
  Galleries and Museums (Charges)
  St. Anselm's School, North Shields
  St. Anselm's School, North Shields
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Parliamentary and Scientific Conference (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Parliamentary and Scientific Conference (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Pictures (Sale by Trustees)
  Pictures (Sale by Trustees)
DEFENCE
  Army Advertisements (Union Flag)
  Army Advertisements (Union Flag)
  Russian Trawler (Incident)
  Russian Trawler (Incident)
  R.A.F. (Officer Training)
  R.A.F. (Officer Training)
  Education Authorities (Services' Careers Advisory Services)
  Education Authorities (Services' Careers Advisory Services)
  Recruits (Wastage Rate)
  Recruits (Wastage Rate)
  Central Selection Centres
  Central Selection Centres
  Housing Commandant Organisation
  Housing Commandant Organisation
  Recruiting Offices
  Recruiting Offices
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Decimalisation
  Decimalisation
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Prices
  Prices
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Homelessness (Working Party)
  Homelessness (Working Party)
  Census (Unemployed Persons)
  Census (Unemployed Persons)
  Gynaecological Operations, Walsall
  Gynaecological Operations, Walsall
  Retirement Pensioners (Clothes)
  Retirement Pensioners (Clothes)
ENVIRONMENT
  Northern Region (Plan)
  Northern Region (Plan)
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Smoke Control Programme)
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Smoke Control Programme)
  Tyneside (Sewerage Scheme)
  Tyneside (Sewerage Scheme)
  Road Research Laboratory and Building Research Station
  Road Research Laboratory and Building Research Station
  Rents and Rates, London
  Rents and Rates, London
  Harassment (London)
  Harassment (London)
  Aycliffe and Peterlee (Status)
  Aycliffe and Peterlee (Status)
  Housing (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Housing (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Construction Industry Research and Information Association
  Construction Industry Research and Information Association
  Agrément Board
  Agrément Board
  Buildings (Maintenance and Cleaning)
  Buildings (Maintenance and Cleaning)
  Fire Research Station, Boreham Wood
  Fire Research Station, Boreham Wood
  Bridge Research
  Bridge Research
  Motor Vehicle Insurance (Display Discs)
  Motor Vehicle Insurance (Display Discs)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (DISCUSSIONS)
  ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (DISCUSSIONS)
  WOMEN (DISCRIMINATION)
  WOMEN (DISCRIMINATION)
  NIGERIA
  NIGERIA
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  EAST AFRICA (BRITISH PASSPORT HOLDERS)
  EAST AFRICA (BRITISH PASSPORT HOLDERS)
  Mr. HENRY FORD (DISCUSSION)
  Mr. HENRY FORD (DISCUSSION)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (DISCUSSION)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (DISCUSSION)
  THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
  THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
  AGRICULTURE (SUPPORT SYSTEM)
  AGRICULTURE (SUPPORT SYSTEM)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Prices
  Prices
  MEMBERS (LEGAL WORK)
  MEMBERS (LEGAL WORK)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Treaties (Secession)
  International Treaties (Secession)
  Anglo-German Offset Agreement
  Anglo-German Offset Agreement
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Catering Department (Price Increases)
  Catering Department (Price Increases)
SCOTLAND
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Broadcasts (Transcripts)
  Broadcasts (Transcripts)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Exports (Commonwealth Non-Tariff Barriers)
  Exports (Commonwealth Non-Tariff Barriers)
  Investment Projects
  Investment Projects
  Clifton Gorge, Bristol (Proposed Hotel)
  Clifton Gorge, Bristol (Proposed Hotel)
  Livingston (Jobs)
  Livingston (Jobs)
WALES
  Housing
  Housing
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Employment
  Employment

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
The Viscount Maugham—Took the Oath.

CIVIL SERVICE MANPOWER
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they equate the rise of about 5,000 in Civil Service manpower during their first six months in office with their declared policy of reducing public expenditure.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Government have announced substantial reductions in public expenditure in the White Paper, New Poliices for Public Spending. The non-industrial manpower increase of about 4,400 in the period July 1, 1970, to February 1, 1971, has to be set in context. It represented the minimum extra manpower for the work to be done, much of it a legacy from the previous Administration. In the same period there was a reduction of about 3,100 industrial staff.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble Leader for that reply. May I ask him to bear in mind that the majority of the electorate, while appreciating the difficulties, expect the Government to bear in mind the growth of the bureaucracy and to keep it to a minimum—consistent with the efficient running of the country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what my noble friend has said; in fact, I already have it very much in mind.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will not the noble Earl put the Whips on his noble friend for putting such an embarrassing Question to him? Is this not a further exposure of the false prospectus issued for the last Election when the Party opposite said they would reduce prices at a stroke?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we live in a free democracy, and my noble friend is as free as anybody else to ask what questions he wishes of me. I want to underline that it remains our objective to reduce the size of the Civil Service, which is what was said in the Election Manifesto. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Blvton—perhaps it is not for me to say this—that when you are slimming, there are two ways of doing it: you can go on a crash diet, which is probably not the most sensible way of doing it; or you can adopt more rational policies of self-discipline. These take a little more time to work through.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl was clearly embarrassed when giving that Answer—his voice was very quiet and his words were very rapid—but could he indicate where this increase in civil servants has occurred? Which are the Departments? Perhaps he could give an indication how important they are to the national economic development?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord must have got a false impression if he thought that I was embarrassed. I sometimes read fast and sometimes slowly. I think it would be easier if the noble Lord put down a Question. I could easily let him have the information about the Departments where the increase has arisen, but it might be better to do so by Written Answer, rather than that I should read out a long list now, which I could do. That might be better from the point of view of your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Earl indicate which is the Department where the big increases have taken place?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Department in which the biggest increase has taken place is the Inland Revenue.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, in view of the inference that there will be

557
a long period before there can be a reduction, will the noble Earl indicate at what date he expects there will be a reduction in the Civil Service? Or does he agree with what was said by his former leader, Sir Winston Churchill, during the passage of the Iron and Steel measure? Sir Winston said, quite distinctly, in the other place that an Election Manifesto did not necessarily pledge a Party which is elected to govern.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to repeat the words of the Leader of my Party, which he has used on more than one occasion: the commitments in our Election Manifesto, which we intend to discharge, are commitments for the life of a Parliament.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that despite these increases in the Civil Service we have today an increase in the figure of unemployed to over 750,000, which is a much more vital matter? Will the noble Earl say when the Government's plans for reducing unemployment in the country are likely to mature?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, although it is a very serious matter about which he has questioned me, I am afraid I must remind the noble Lord that it is, in fact, rather a different matter.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that there is considerable scope for making economies in Civil Service manpower by looking at legislation as a whole, and in particular taxation, rather than by making increases to meet each new requirement produced by further legislation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would entirely agree that in the long term there are certainly economies to be won by the simplification of our taxation system. In reply to that supplementary question I would also underline that Her Majesty's Government are engaged at present on a systematic review of all the functions of Government; and it is through that process, which is bound to take time, that the longer-term economies will be won.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to legacies from the previous Administration which in his opinion are of an adverse
558
character, did he include the £600 million surplus in the balance of payments?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that every evening in the London evening newspapers the Department of the Environment are advertising for typists, and that two or three times a week the Civil Service Commission are advertising for what are called "Whitehall psychologists"? And has this any relation to the mixed-up condition of Her Majesty's Ministers?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I did not quite catch the last part of the noble Lord's witticism. However, I am aware that there is an acute shortage of typists in Whitehall, as elsewhere: it is a national shortage.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of us would like to pay tribute to the often beaten Civil Service? May I inform him that personally I am delighted—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I ask him whether he is aware that some of us, as a result of the extension of the Civil Service in the income tax department, have received delightful little cheques covering rebates for errors previously made by that overworked department? Having at this moment just received a cheque for £43, I support the slight increase in the Civil Service.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of these pleasanter elements of the situation. Since I have a direct responsibility in this field, I should also like to echo the tribute that he has paid to civil servants and to the Civil Service.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sorry if my question to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, appeared to prove embarrassing. It was not my intention to embarrass the noble Earl; I merely sought to evoke information. Is there any reason why he cannot reply to my question about a legacy which was not adverse in character from the previous Administration; namely, the £600 million surplus on the balance of payments? Is that not worth a reply?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it was not the possible embarrassment of the

559
noble Lord's supplementary question that induced me to refrain from replying; it was the total irrelevance of his particular question.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, the noble Earl, in replying to previous supplementary questions, said that the Government were keeping to their Election Manifesto. Can he say what has happened to the employees of the Land Commission, in view of the policy which appeared in the Government's Manifesto that they were going to close down the Land Commission?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again I should like notice of that question. The position is a little complicated, and I do not think it is susceptible to the short question and answer, let alone on a supplementary question.

LONDON AIRPORT HOTEL SCHEME
3.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: 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 will now reconsider, on safety grounds, the decision to permit the erection of an hotel beneath the approach path to runway 28R at London Heathrow Airport.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My, Lords, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no present intention of revising the advice on this he has given to the planning authority who are responsible for the planning decision. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade made clear in Written Answers to Questions in another place on February 25, the proposed hotel would conform to the internationally agreed standards for safeguarded take-off and approach slopes and would not interfere with the performance of the instrument landing system or the radar. The building would also be outside the public safety zone for this runway.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the Minister certain that it is a wise thing to
560
allow this hotel to be built on this spot? Is he aware that some airlines will now operate in bad weather with a clearance of only 250 feet over the roof of this hotel? Is he satisfied with a situation in which a pilot is expected to bring probably 300 people in bad weather and under instrument conditions over an unnecessary obstruction in this manner?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so far as bad weather conditions are concerned, I am advised that the all weather instrumentation (automatic landing) for operating in Category II conditions is superior to that for operating in more favourable conditions and ensures that there is less chance of deviation from the approach path. All flights in any conditions use the same glide slope of three degrees.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is a difference of technical opinion as to whether this building will actually distort the beam in this case. I would advise the noble Lord to go further into that question. But, apart from that fact, we are here dealing with a minimum. Certainly the ICAO regulation has been met. But the ICAO regulation applies to countries all over the world—to a hundred countries, some of which probably have only two or three movements a day, and we are here dealing with the busiest international airport in the world. May I ask the noble Lord, therefore, if he will be good enough to say that he will look into this matter again?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before I answer the last part of the noble Lord's question. I think I should say on a point of fact—and this is not a quibble, as the noble Lord knows—that the IACO standard is not a minimum: it is a standard, something which applies and which can be applied in giving planning decisions of this kind. So far as the last part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has given his advice on this, and the planning decision has been made.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that my noble friend Lord Beswick is really an expert on these matters, and will he therefore give consideration to what he has said? Furthermore, in view of the suggestion that there might be a danger to navigation

561
at Heathrow, will Her Majesty's Government speed up the establishment of the new airport at Foulness?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the last part of the noble Lord's question refers to a different problem. So far as the first part of his question is concerned, I fully agree that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is an expert in these matters, and I know that he is well advised upon them, as well. The difficulty is that this decision has been taken, and, as I have said, the Department of Trade and Industry are satisfied that the advice which they gave on this matter was the correct advice.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in Spain an hotel was allowed to be erected in a similar position to the approach path of a runway and is now having to be abolished?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, one can never compare exactly two cases of this kind. I am well aware of what the noble Lord has said, but the point is that no statement has been made, I am advised, by the Spanish Government of the exact reasons for the action that it took.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord can tell me, without binding Her Majesty's Government to his answer, whether he would personally enjoy staying at this hotel, which is in line with the main runway, and has aircraft passing 250 ft. overhead all the time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am told that an hotel of this kind would be soundproofed throughout, and that to that extent it would be very much better off than the houses will be round about it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is soundproofing much good if a jumbo-jet flies in at your bedroom window?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am told that statistically the chances of that happening are over one in ten million.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that any impediment to the use of Heathrow would be welcomed by many people who suffer
562
from noise in that area, and who hope that more impediments will lead to a quicker decision to the use of Foulness instead of Heathrow?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I might accept that, but I would simply observe that in the opinion of the Department of Trade and Industry such an hotel would not constitute an impediment to the use of Heathrow.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, in view of the general concern of planning around the major airports, would my noble friend, and the Government, consider issuing a more precise planning directive than at present exists around the airport, both on safety grounds and on the ground of acceptable noise levels?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the planning directives are perfectly clear on this matter. The ICAO standard is incorporated in regulations of this country. There is also the question of the public safety zone, and, as I have said, this site would be well outside the public safety zone.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is quibbling about my use of the word "minimum"? This is a minimum; it was intended to apply to a hundred different countries in the world, and I am saying that in this country we should allow something above the minimum that is being applied elsewhere. Now may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to say what is the nature of the advice which his right honourable friend tendered to the planning authority?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord may think that this was a quibble, and it occurred to me when I was probing this matter also that it might appear to be so. But this is not so; this is a standard, and it is different from a recommendation. In addition this is above the minimum; it is not just barely the minimum. I have forgotten the second question the noble Lord asked.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it was with regard to the advice—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I remember. It was: what was the advice that was given? The advice that

563
was given was that the height of the proposed building should not exceed 160 feet above Ordnance datum, which is equivalent to approximately 83 feet above the local ground level; and, in addition, there was a condition attached.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this company proposes to erect a hotel so close to the minima that the hotel is to be 87 feet at one end, and 80 feet at the other end, so that the undercarriage of an aircraft can just conform to the figures on the way down?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is not for me to say; it is a matter for the planning authority. But if at any point the height exceeded this 83 feet then it would not accord with the planning permission which has been given.

RAIL FARE INCREASES
3.34 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 to what extent the recently announced increase of rail fares is in accordance with Government policy of restricting price increases in the public sector.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Government's policy is that price increases in the public sector will be allowed only where they are justified by increased costs. The recently announced fares increases are needed partly to offset increased costs and, in London and the South-East, to replace the Government's grants towards unremunerative services.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not what was said at the General Election? Is the noble Lord aware there are some members of the British electorate who actually voted for this Government because they were promised that the Government would break into the wage/price spiral by keeping a firm grip on the public sector prices? Therefore, how can the Government possible justify an
564
increase in this important area of the public sector?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we said in A Better Tomorrow that we would subject all proposed price rises in the public sector to most searching scrutiny. We said that if they were not justified they would not be allowed; but the present increases have been scrutinised, and we think they are justified. Perhaps I might point out, with great respect, that we are in effect doing what the noble Lord's former Minister of Transport, Mr. Marsh, said; namely:
"The Railways Board must fulfil its new financial remit. Market pricing must be the backbone of its pricing policy, and there is no reason why the services should be not priced on the basis of what the market will bear."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said, but is he aware that what his noble Leader actually said was that there was an alternative to what Mr. Marsh was doing. That alternative, and I will quote from the speech of Mr. Heath, was:
"… to break into the price/wage spiral by acting directly to reduce prices. This can be done by … taking a firm grip on public sector prices and charges, such as coal, steel, gas, electricity, transport and postal charges."
In practically every case they have actually gone up.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I just "tiptoe" in for a second to inform the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that Mr. Heath is not my noble friend's noble Leader?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I may put in a word, we are, as the noble Lord opposite knows, trying to do this. But, as my noble Leader, Lord Jellicoe, pointed out in an earlier answer to-day, we cannot do this at a stroke. It takes a little time.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not a fact that "at a stroke" was the claim? Could the noble Lord indicate where the Government have had success in holding down prices?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the claim to hold down prices is going to be a continuing effort, and in the long run the country will benefit.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, to my little

565
knowledge Rome was not built in a day. The reason for the rise in prices is largely due to the policies of the Labour Government.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord be a little more explicit? He said that the reason for these increases in prices was to finance the unremunerative services. But these services are still being cut out and curtailed in so far as subsidies are being given to the bus companies. The bus companies are proving that the services are unremunerative, and therefore they are being cut out. In consequence, the nation as a whole is having a very raw deal in public transport. In these circumstances, how can he justify his statement that the increase in prices is to pay for these unremunerative services that are still continuing to be closed?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think it is fairly obvious that we have to look at everything individually. We pay grants on services which we judge are worthwhile projects. We should like, of course, to do road and rail together, but at the moment we do not have the ability to do this on the same basis. We have to look at everything on its own merits.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has a choice in this problem of putting increased costs on to the taxpayer, or increased costs on to the commuter—speaking particularly of the South-East? Is my noble friend aware that this is a far more complex question than the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested? Is he aware that there are problems with regard to the planning of London and the South-East, and with London trying hard to hold its population down, nothing would be more foolish than to ask the taxpayers of this country to make it more attractive for people to live outside London and to commute back in? Is my noble friend aware that he is taking the right decision?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I once again spring with alacrity to the defence of the Government? May
566
I ask them whether they are aware that they can find £65 million with a stroke of the pen to-day if they have the courage to stand up and denounce this betterment levy trick that is being forced upon us by the Government? The Exchequer is going to lose £65 million as a result of a little Bill to which we are to be asked to give a Second Reading to-day. I suggest that, with a stroke, this £65 million could be put into the railways.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think it is a question of £65 million here or there. We are dealing with a public service, and the public service in this case is able to meet its demands; it is a perfectly ordinary commercial matter. Either we must give subsidies or the taxpayer must pay. Where there is an ability for the ordinary user to pay, we ask the passengers to do this. The wages element of the railways is something like two-thirds, and it is a very important element. We are quite prepared, for social reasons, occasionally to consider grants.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is the policy of the Government, as indicated in his answer to the question of my noble friend on the Front Bench, that people who at present live outside London and work in it should now be forced owing to the increase in the fares in the environs of London, to come and live in London and add to the London population?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. British Railways are giving very good value. If you consider the cost of motoring into London, you will find that British Railways' fares are well under half that cost.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, may I ask a simple question of the Minister? What is the difference between a commuter and a taxpayer?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the two are usually the same.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether it is possible for the Government to induce the Railways Board to disclose how they compute whether a given line is paying or not paying? Is he aware that in many cases the Railways Board refuses to give this information to the public, so the

567
public cannot judge whether the Board's case for an increase in fares is justified or not?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Railways Board is an independent commercial body. It has to work within guidelines provided by the Government. Like any other company, it has to be commercial; it has to compete with bus services and motor cars. And if it fails it will not be in business. We asked them merely to be commercially sensible.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cost of season tickets has gone up less than the cost of most other commodities in this country over the last twenty years?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that is a very good point which my noble friend has made.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask a more simple question about what I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is a very complicated issue? Can the noble Lord say whether these increases of prices in the public sector, together with the massive increases in food prices which were announced yesterday, will break the wage/price spiral, or will encourage it?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is a much wider question than the Question on the Order Paper.

ZAMBIA: COST OF AID
3.33 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total cost of aid and subvention of all kinds to Zambia since November, 1965, including the R.A.F. air lift and supplementary subventions of that kind.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, about £58 million; of which £8 million for development and £814,000 of a £2 million defence aid grant promised in 1965 have not been utilised by the Zambians.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the impressive munificence of the taxpayer in those amounts, will the Minister agree that there is scope for channelling a greater proportion of aid through civilian agencies, rather than from Government to Government? As an illustration of recent experience, Zambia, plagued by a drought, had to import mealies, and did so from overseas—from the Argentine or China. Owing to shortage of transport, these mealies were left rotting at Beira, when they could have been brought quite easily across the border from Rhodesia.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am perfectly aware that some things have been brought into Zambia which might have been purchased more easily elsewhere, but that is a matter for the Zambian Government.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that Zambia has contributed more in aid and subventions to this country, by loyally supporting our policy of sanctions against Rhodesia, from which it has suffered more than any other people?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Zambia is continuing—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD BARNBY: —and continues to trade on a large scale—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should remind my noble friend—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thought it would ease the position for the Minister—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is that Zambia has abided by the resolution of the United Nations' Security Council, as indeed have most other member nations of the Security Council.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that, since the imposition of sanctions, trade between Zambia and Rhodesia has actually increased?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, in view of the good government and sound administration of Zambia, we should be proud of the aid we have given them and of the use to which it has been put?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I would only add that a very large part of this substantial sum of aid has been given because of I.D.I.; it was described as "contingency support" and in fact amounts to £24 million.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in defence of the taxpayers' munificence, will the Minister look into the question of whether some assistance can be given to the transport of fertilisers which are rotting in Beira and are needed for the assistance of the next crop in Zambia? Also, will he examine whether, as was stated, trade between Zambia and Rhodesia has actually increased?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while I appreciate my noble friend's concern, I think it is a matter for the Zambian Government.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, with reference to the original Question, can the Minister give any figures as to the relative amounts spent on African education by Zambia and Rhodesia? Incidentally, the latter country has never received any subvention for that purpose.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with the greatest of respect to my noble friend, that forms the basis of another Question and I could not very well answer it under this Question.

COMMON MARKET NEGOTIATIONS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Common Market negotiations.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATION BILL [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, that this Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I take this opportunity to express my regret that I was not here on the Committee stage. I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I was glad that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was sympathetic to what I said. I did not have an Amendment down on the Committee stage. Nevertheless, a very important debate took place and I did not anticipate the nature of it. The debate concerned in part the position under the Islamic Law of a rather pathetic minority in this country. I am referring to the women who are subject to the Islamic divorce law. On reading the debate carefully, I realised that four of the most brilliant lawyers in the country had differed, and it was decided that the present Bill was not the proper vehicle for the Amendment.
I want once more to remind the House of the conditions of that minority which has fairly suddenly come into our midst. These women, mostly wives of the Pakistanis, come here observing certain conventions. In consequence, they are more or less confined to their houses. This, of course, results in their not acquiring our own language. They become inarticulate, fearful and very backward. Perhaps the few strangers who see them include a doctor—preferably a woman doctor—who can penetrate the household. If the woman comes to the consulting room she is generally accompanied by a small child who can speak English because the child has been to school, and who is there to interpret for the woman. Because of these conditions she does not progress.

571
This woman is subject to the Islamic Law, which means that if a man says, "I divorce you", three times she is thereby divorced. I know perfectly well that a tribunal follows; nevertheless this unfortunate woman is conscious of the fact that her lot will be precarious if she does not behave herself. In a way, I suppose her position is almost akin to that of a slave, because she can be divorced although she is not guilty of any matrimonial offence. Of course, we cannot be very self-righteous about this, because we have recently passed a law which enables the Englishman next door to divorce his wife who has not been guilty of any matrimonial offence; therefore, in that respect the Englishman and the Pakistani are equal. Nevertheless I want your Lordships to imagine the fate of this woman.
I understand that in the Koran it is said that a man who takes two, three or four wives must treat them all alike. In Pakistan that is some help to a woman, because there it would be known that a husband could not afford two or three wives; but in this country if a woman is divorced we do not allow her to starve. We do not let anybody starve. Therefore, quite rightly, she can go and get supplementary benefit from the Ministry of Health and Social Security. We find this unfortunate woman, who comes to this country without her mother, without her father, more or less friendless in this vulnerable position. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has a great deal of sympathy for these women, and I hope that because on the Committee stage we could not find a solution, in the near future he will use his very agile brain somehow to discover a means whereby these women can be helped.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to indulge in a debate at this stage, but I am discussing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whether a way can be found of amending this Bill in Committee in another place. I do not make any undertaking, but we are considering it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
3.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements the undertakings to abolish betterment levy and to dissolve the Land Commission given by present Ministers when in Opposition at the time the 1967 Act was going through Parliament, in the Election manifesto and subsequently in my Statement to your Lordships' House on July 22 last.
The Land Commission were established by the Land Commission Act 1967 with wide powers, under Part II, to acquire and dispose of land for development, operating through a Land Acquisition and Management Fund; and under Part III, to assess and collect a levy (known as betterment levy) on the development value realised in land transactions or at the start of development. The Commission began to exercise these functions on April 6, 1967, the first appointed day under that Act.
On the land side, this Bill abolishes the Land Acquisition and Management

573
Fund (at the same time writing off its outstanding debts of rather less than £13 million) and charges the Secretary of State with disposing of the land held by the Commission. To facilitate this disposal, the Secretary of State is given a new power to acquire neighbouring land if necessary, though only by agreement and not by compulsory purchase as the Land Commission were able to do. On the levy side, levy is no longer to be chargeable on development and transactions as from July 23, 1970, the day after my Statement. Instead, powers will be taken in the 1971 Finance Act to collect a percentage of development value since July 22 through other taxation legislation.
Allowing for the lengthy processes of notification, assessment and possible altercation, including reference to the Lands Tribunal, we expect it will lake two or three years to collect all the outstanding levy due in respect of development and transactions prior to July 23 last year. To allow for its collection by the Land Commission up to the time of the abolition of the Commission (we hope to make May 1 the appointed day) and by the Secretary of State after that, most of Parts III and IV of the Land Commission Act have had to be retained, including 12 of the original 17 lengthy Schedules. The Bill contains powers for these to be repeated by order in due course so as to tidy up the Statute Book once the provisions have been spent.
Turning now from that general summary to the detailed contents of the Bill, Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. Subsection (1) of that clause makes betterment levy no longer chargeable in respect of acts or events after July 22, 1970. It empowers the Secretary of State to make an appointed day order abolishing the Land Commission—that is subsection (2)—and transfers on the appointed day the functions of the Commission and their property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State—that is subsection (3).
Here perhaps I should say that it is intended that the Secretary of State for the Environment will discharge the functions in England and Wales; and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. Subsection (4) and its associated Schedule 1 specifies some technical
574
amendments to the 1967 Act associated with the abolition of the betterment levy notifications, and repeals those parts of the Land Commission Act either already superfluous or which will become so when the Commission cease to exist. Subsection (5) facilitates the proof of instruments made by the Commission in legal proceedings.
So far as the first of these subsections is concerned—the abolition of the levy as from July 22—transactions occurring after that date will be subject to capital gains and corporation tax. Details of how that taxation will operate were set out in the Written Answer given in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on December 2, 1970. Those are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons, column 421. On subsections (2) and (3), I have already referred to our intention to make the Appointed Day Order on May 1, and from then on the Department of the Environment will be responsible for cases in England and Wales and the Scottish Development Department for cases in Scotland. As a practical matter, in order to minimise administration costs the technical work of assessment, et cetera, is being concentrated at Croydon, which is the only one of the Land Commission's offices that is being retained to wind up the Commission's affairs. On May 1 that unit will become part of the Department of the Environment. A small section at St. Andrew's House will do the corresponding work on Scottish cases.
Subsection (4) provides for the amendment or repeal of those parts of the 1967 Act that are specified in Schedule 1. The amendments and repeals are divided between those coming into operation on the passing of the Act (Parts I and II of Schedule 1) and those coming into effect from the appointed day (Part III); that is to say, when the Land Commission are dissolved. The subsection also provides that as from the appointed day the 1967 Act shall have effect as amended by this Bill. This enables the Secretary of State to use such of the powers of that Act as he requires to discharge his winding up functions, notably assessment of some £9 million worth of levy and the collection of £27 million worth. Where the powers under the 1967 Act will no longer be needed, those sections and complete

575
Parts are being repealed now, and the Secretary of State is empowered to repeal the remainder by Order, laid in draft, when they are finally spent. So much for Clause 1.
Clause 2 is the financial clause of the Bill, winding up the Land Acquisition and Management Fund, requiring all future sums received by the Secretary of State to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and providing for the use of voted monies to carry out the functions and meet the liabilities he is taking over from the Land Commission. It is expected that the debts of the Fund will amount to rather less than £13 million, together with a small amount of interest accumulated since the last interest payment was made. Subsection (1)(b) of Clause 2 provides for this debt to be extinguished, the effect of which is to add to the amount of the Consolidated Fund's residual liability for the National Debt. As the Commission's land assets, vested in the Secretary of State under Clause 1(3), are sold off, some £8½ million should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Subsection (2) of Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to pay into the Consolidated Fund all receipts from betterment levy, after deducting, as the Land Commission now do, any necessary monies for repayments where, for example, levy was overcharged or wrongly charged; and, of course, receipts from the sale of land. In addition to the usual accounts and reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is the Secretary of State's intention to set out in due course in a departmental publication an account of the winding up of the Commission's affairs.
Turning to Clause 3, your Lordships will see that this is about land disposal. It requires the Secretary of State to dispose of the Commission's land holdings in such a way as appears to him expedient in the public interest, and it prohibits the acquisition of any more land, apart from land needed to facilitate disposal of those holdings. Any such acquisition would have to be by agreement, as the clause specifically rules out compulsory purchases for this purpose. Provision is made for monies to be voted by Parliament, like all the other expenses of winding up the Commission and the levy, and, as I have said, Clause 2 has
576
already provided that the sums received for the land in due course will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The general policy will be to dispose of the land as quickly as possible, consistent with the need to do so to the best advantage and in an orderly manner, and the Land Commission (having where practicable given the original owners first offer) already have this in hand through a series of public auctions. Some parcels of land may have to be held for a period of years because of lease complications or to enable the best disposal of them to be made—for example, as serviced building land—but the general aim is to dispose of as much as possible right away.
Subsection (1) of Clause 3 makes it clear that this does not prejudice the power of the Commission, or the Secretary of State, to complete purchases initiated before the passing of the Act. This is necessary because some of these acquisitions will not have been completed by the appointed day, and the Secretary of State must have power to carry on with these transactions to which he has been committed. It may be necessary for the Secretary of State (or, between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, the Commission) to acquire additional land near land already owned by the Commission, in order to be able to dispose of the Commission's land to the best advantage—for example, land to round off a site or to form an additional access to a site. Powers to do this are contained in subsection (2). We do not in fact expect to make extensive use of this provision. Clause 4 makes the normal provision made by successive Governments in respect of members of public boards.
It is the Government's intention that the legislation concerning the Land Commission shall be repealed when this can be appropriately done. Clause 5 provides for the repeal without the need for a further Bill when it appears to the Secretary of State that the legislation is no longer needed. As it may be some years before all disputed levy cases have been determined and the levy collected, and because it may also be some years before the last claim for compensation has been settled in respect of land acquired by the Commission, no Order can be made under this clause in the near future. When an Order is made, it

577
will be in effect little more than an Appointed Day Order for tidying up the Statute Book, because the remaining provisions of the Land Commission Act 1967 and the other enactments will be spent. It will be laid in draft before Parliament.
Clause 6 deals with the consequential amendments and repeals to other Acts by bringing in Schedules 2 and 3. Subsection (1) of Clause 6 introduces Schedule 2, which amends parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1969. This retains the definition of the date when a development is taken to be begun, so that the provisions of these Acts (and also the Transport (London) Act 1969) about a time limit on planning permissions may continue to operate; and also in its appendices sets out in full provisions in the Planning Acts about general vesting declarations which refer, as a sort of shorthand, to certain sections of the Land Commission Act. Subsection (2) introduces Schedule 3, which makes the necessary associated repeals in the two Town and Country Planning Acts, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 and the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
Clause 7 covers the short title, interpretation and extent. Subsection (2) of that clause defines "appointed day" as the day on which the Land Commission are abolished and the Secretary of State takes over. Subsection (3) provides that, except in so far as it repeals Section 1(5) of the 1967 Act, the Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. This is because the 1967 Act itself did not cover Northern Ireland.
My Lords, I doubt whether there is any need for me to go through the Schedules in any detail or at all as I have, I hope, already made sufficient reference to them, and to their purpose and their contents, in the course of going through the clauses. I hope that that will be a sufficient explanation of the purposes and the contents of the Bill which I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but may I ask one question which I think is important because some of us have seen this kind of thing happen before. When
578
these parcels of land are being dispersed and put up for auction, will the Minister ensure that the maximum amount of publicity is given, in the ordinary Press and elsewhere, so that everybody will have an opportunity and not only those concerned with land and particular professional people, who may gain this information much more easily than the layman in this avenue of public affairs? Has the Minister got the point I am trying to make?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I have got the point, but I have not anything to add to the process which I described; namely, that the land is first offered to the owner, then to the local authorities, and then at public auction. All public auction involves publicity.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)

E.E.C.: BRUSSELS MEETING DISCUSSIONS
4.2 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like, with permission, to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is making in another place. This is Mr. Rippon's Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the meeting with the European Economic Community which I attended in Brussels on March 16.
"We noted the progress that continues to be made in meetings at the level of the Deputies, and in discussions with the Commission, on a number of questions such as capital movements, fiscal harmonisation, the modalities of British participation in the European Investment Bank, the method of agricultural transition, and the question of tariff quotas on certain commodities of importance to British industry. We noted also that exploratory contacts on the Community's common fisheries policy, which are without prejudice to our position generally on this issue, would continue between the Commission and the British Delegation.
"I reiterated to the meeting the importance of the problems of New Zealand and of sugar from the developing Commonwealth. On the

579
latter I recalled the extent of the dependence of these countries on sugar; the impossibility of their being able to diversify their production in the foreseeable future; the fact that this is not only an economic but a human problem with alternative employment to that in the sugar industry difficult to find; the need for certainty about future markets in order to assure the necessary financial credits; and the need to ensure the economic and political stability of the countries concerned.
"On New Zealand I stressed that, as with sugar, we were not seeking special economic benefits for the United Kingdom but provisions for reasonable access by New Zealand for dairy products to the enlarged Community as a whole. Nor were we seeking permanent arrangements for New Zealand's dairy produce, but continuing arrangements subject to review. I emphasised the efficiency of the New Zealand industry, the extent of her dependence on those exports, and the difficulty in the way of diversification either of products or of markets.
"I felt certain that on both these questions an acceptable and equitable solution was essential, not least in the interest of the enlarged Community's relationships with the outside world.
"M. Schumann, speaking on behalf of the Community, said that it was accepted in principle that special arrangements needed to be made to deal with each of these problems.
"I noted that the Community had proposed for agricultural transition a period of somewhat over four years proceeding in five steps. I recalled that we had said we needed a full five years for this process. We shall have to revert to this question.
"I reminded the Community that we were still waiting for their proposals on the question of our contribution to the Community's budget.
"I suggested that it was entirely reasonable and possible that we should reach agreement on the main issues at or shortly after the next Ministerial meeting. It was agreed that the Ministerial meeting already scheduled for May 11 should be extended to include
580
also the afternoon of May 12; and that a further Ministerial meeting might be arranged for later in May. Meetings of Deputies will in the meantime take place regularly to prepare the ground for these Ministerial meetings.
It was certainly disappointing that, in the absence of any proposals from the Community it was not possible to make progress at Tuesday's meeting. But I think the agreement that Ministers should meet for a longer period in May reflects the feeling of the Conference that real progress should be possible in that month, not only on the sort of issues I mentioned at the outset of this statement but on the major decisions which are crucial to the success of the negotiations.
"The House will know that earlier this month I visited Ottawa and Washington for discussions with the Canadian and United States Governments both of which have a close interest in our negotiations for entry into the Community.
"On March 5 I met Canadian Ministers, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce, and discussed with them the specific aspects of the negotiations which relate to Canada. In particular, we discussed the problem of the Caribbean. I emphasised our belief that an enlarged Community would be in the interest of all members of the Commonwealth, and our desire to work for liberal trading policies towards their countries.
"We also discussed agricultural questions, linked with the introduction of the interim levy scheme about which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture made a Statement to the House yesterday.
"On March 8 I met members of the United States Administration, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce; and, at the White House, Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Peterson. In Washington my talks covered much the same ground as in Ottawa.
"I emphasised the need for satisfactory arrangements for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries in the event

581
of our entry into the Community. I said that it seemed to me that association of these countries with an enlarged Community would be the best means of securing their interests, but that they should not, as I told the House on February 22, be obliged to choose in any way between Europe and the United States. The Americans are of course concerned about their trade with these countries, and I hope I succeeded in allaying some of their anxieties.
"As in Ottawa I discussed with the United States' Administration the Government's interim levy scheme. For the longer term we also discussed the possible commercial effects on the United States, especially in the agricultural field, of the enlargement of the Community.
"In Canada and the United States I found that both Governments reaffirmed their traditional support for our efforts to join the Community."
My Lords, that concludes Mr. Rippon's Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving us this Statement. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been to the United States and to Canada, to discuss particularly the Caribbean problems which will arise on our entry into the Common Market. I am pleased, too, about the stress on the point that we should continue to ask for liberal trading policies between all the countries concerned. I am particularly pleased with the words of the Chancellor in relation to sugar and the dairy products of New Zealand. I hope that the debate we had in your Lordships' House will be of particular benefit to the Government in their negotiations. However, I cannot help feeling that the more salient words of this Statement are contained in the passage in which the Chancellor says it is
"disappointing that, in the absence of any proposals from the Community it was not possible to make progress at Tuesday's meeting."
The Caribbean countries in particular were anxious about, and were looking forward to news of, Tuesday's meeting. Those countries will now have to wait without any knowledge at all about how
582
negotiations will go until, at the very earliest, May next.
I hope that the Government will stress to our friends in the E.E.C. that in these negotiations time is neither on their side nor on ours, and that the British public are becoming slightly restive, in the sense that they feel that the E.E.C. countries do not wish us to enter, as perhaps some of us on this side of the House and noble Lords opposite feel that this country should enter, the Common Market. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will stress that time is of very considerable importance. It appears to me that the day and a half that seems to have been allowed for the Ministerial meeting in the middle of May, with a possible further meeting at the end of May is utterly inadequate when one considers all the important matters that have to be considered and solutions arrived at. I think that Her Majesty's Government should make it clear to the Governments of the E.E.C. that time is not on our side, and that the month of May should be a period in which all the parties interested should concert and put all their efforts into finding a solution.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, intervenes, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his reception of the Statement which I have just repeated. May I add that in very large part I share the views he has expressed about the need for seeing our way through these negotiations without any undue delay? I think there is uncertainty, not only in this country and the Commonwealth countries affected but also in the Six themselves. And the sooner we can bring this state of uncertainty to, I hope, a successful conclusion, the better it will be, I think, for everybody concerned.
Having said that, I would merely remind the noble Lord of something of which he is very well aware, and that is that the Brussels rhythm is traditionally a rather slow one. This is something of a fact of life, and it is not exceptionally surprising that as we move towards the heart of the negotiations on the three great issues of Community finance, New Zealand and sugar, progress at times should seem, if not be, rather slow. But I think the noble Lord slightly underestimated the importance of the time

583
which has now been allotted in May. It may not be enough, but it is a great deal more than has been the pattern in the negotiations up until now. There will be the extra day at the end of May, and I would remind the noble Lord that, meanwhile, there will be meetings at the Deputy level and through all the bilateral channels which are open and which, I am confident, will be fully used during that period.
4.13 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, these periodic situation reports, as it were, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are very welcome, though we must confess that usually, if not always, they add hardly anything to our information beyond that which we have already read in the Press. So far as we can see (though I should be grateful if the noble Earl could confirm this), the Six, apparently on French insistence, have not so far come an inch to meeting us in regard to sugar or New Zealand exports. All that M. Schumann has stated, apparently, is that both these questions will have to be covered by special arrangements. But it may well be that the arrangements eventually proposed will be totally unacceptable. It also appears, from what we hear, that it is the French who are preventing the Six as a whole from putting forward any figure in relation to our contribution to the Central Agricultural Fund. This has naturally resulted in an impasse. Therefore, would the Government agree that this impasse can be ended only by some willingness on the part of the Six—and that is to say on the part of the French—to put forward some counter-proposal to ours for discussion?
Finally, would not the Government perhaps agree that it is high time for them to come out with some major statement of policy drawing attention to the need, in the general interest, of rising above the present rather sordid bargaining atmosphere and of concentrating on the real issue, which is, at any rate as we on these Benches think, the creation in Western Europe of some body, representative of the general will, that will, apart from favouring economic progress, also provide for a common foreign and defence policy? In other words, would it not soon be possible for the Prime
584
Minister and the French President to try to get the whole debate on to a rather higher plane?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I think I should confine myself to saying (I do not think I would wish to go into the merits of the position of individual countries within the Six) that it is our hope, and our expectation, that between now and May we shall be learning what is the position of the Six on these three important issues. I very much hope that this will be the case. I personally share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn: that it is important that all the countries of the Six, and also the countries who are wishing to negotiate their way into the enlarged Community, should constantly bear in mind the wider considerations which are at stake here. In saying that, I do not for one second underestimate the importance of the issues under negotiation, but there are—and here I am in full agreement with the noble Lord—underlying considerations of the very greatest importance. I hope very much that all of us will bear these in mind.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whether he agrees that it is becoming increasingly obvious that on the outstanding issues of finance, Commonwealth sugar and New Zealand, the French, despite the smooth language of M. Pompidou and M. Schumann, are concerned primarily about the protection of French interests, which are contrary to United Kingdom and Commonwealth interests? In those circumstances, would not the noble Earl agree with me that if it is impossible to overcome the impasse which may well arise during the negotiations in May, it might be worth while deciding not to proceed any further? Would it not also be advisable, in view of the confusion, the misunderstandings, the equivocations, and so on, surrounding this very intricate problem of the negotiations, to tell the people of this country exactly what, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, would be regarded as acceptable terms which would justify British entry?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has spoken in such soft, mellifluous and honeyed terms that I might almost be tempted to

585
agree with him. But knowing the noble Lord's opinions on this matter, I think I should go very carefully. What I should like to say in reply to him is that I think it is far too early yet to prejudge what the final French position in these negotiations is going to be; and I would dissent from his view that there is an essential clash of interests between the French and ourselves in this matter. Bearing in mind the wider considerations to which I have referred, I think that our interests here are parallel.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, in view of the paucity of Ministerial time devoted to these discussions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has drawn attention, and which I think must be patent to all of us and a matter of great anxiety, may I ask whether it has been made clear to the representatives of the Six that British Ministers would be prepared to spend more time?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I would point out that it was at the request of my right honourable friend that the Ministers of the Six agreed—and I am very glad that they did agree—to allot a great deal more time to the May meetings than they have done in the case of earlier meetings. I am certain I can speak for my right honourable friend when I say that he is prepared to spend as much time as need be in order to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion—which means a conclusion that is acceptable to us; and only one which is on fair and equitable terms is acceptable to us.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement to the House, but it contains nothing that we hitherto did not know. Therefore, may I ask him whether he and his colleagues in the Government think that this state of flux is doing the country any good during this difficult transition period? I hope he will believe me when I say that those of us who may be critical of entry into Europe are not adopting this position merely with a view of making carping criticisms, but that we are seeking the truth. It would help us if the Government told us the price which they think should be paid.
586
Finally, is the noble Earl aware that those of us who are interested in the tropical agricultural industry—such as that in Fiji which some of us, including my noble friend on the Front Bench, recently helped to get into the Commonwealth—feel that something must be done to create a positive sense of credibility for this Government and this country at the present moment? From the letters I am receiving, it appears that people are shattered at the progress of these talks. Could we not declare a moratorium on the whole damned thing for a couple of years, until the country gets strong and get down to the job of getting this country on its feet?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is our belief, as it was the belief of the previous Government, that it would be to the fundamental economic advantage of this country if these negotiations were successful. Because of that, I am not able to accept the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I speak as one who is desperately anxious that these negotiations should succeed, but it seems to me that we are working under a very considerable handicap—as my noble friend Lord Shepherd and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, pointed out—if there is a specific time of a day and a half set aside for these discussions, in which we are expected to come to decisions. Ought not the matter to be left rather more open, so that enough time will be available to discuss these matters properly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I personally have a great deal of sympathy with the views which the noble Lord has expressed, but of course this does not depend upon Her Majesty's Government alone or Her Majesty's Ministers.

LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
4.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has given us a very full account of the Government's views on this measure, and I hope that we shall not

587
take up too much time over what is a miserable little Bill. The gravest problems in the field of housing are undoubtedly twofold; first, the lack of building land; and, secondly, the escalating cost of land. But this is a Bill which is not designed or even intended to deal effectively with either of these two problems. It is simply an act of wanton destruction made necessary by the Conservatives' Election Manifesto, though it is clear, from oral Answers in the House to-day, that they are going to be extremely selective in the choice of what obligations they are going to honour and what they are going to ignore.
They have acted in this matter in pursuance of a vendetta that they have carried on for the past three years against the Land Commission and its staff. So I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not join with the Government in thanking the staff of the Land Commission or the Commission itself, because I believe that the Government's thanks will seem to the men and women concerned to have a very hollow ring. Certainly, such heat as Mr. Page injected into the Second Reading debate in another place was more the heat of hatred than the warmth of appreciation. Therefore, my Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I tender quite separate thanks for all that the Commission and its staff have done in the face of what virtually amounted to sabotage by the then Opposition in the last Parliament. Having known and worked with the Land Commission since its creation, I hope that my own thanks at least will be recognised by them as being genuine thanks.
I think that this is a seedy, vindictive little Bill. It will not have escaped the notice of many noble Lords, and it will certainly not have escaped the notice of the more politically educated members of the public, that in this century radical Governments have tried on four occasions to deal with the land problem. Lloyd-George's great Liberal Government set out to ensure that the public would benefit, in part at least, from increases in land values which were due to the energy and enterprise of the community. Those are the words that he used; and the House will know what
588
subsequently happened. In 1931 the Labour Government, in its Finance Act, set up machinery to tax land values. A Conservative Government repealed those provisions. In 1947 my noble friend Lord Silkin, who I am glad to know is going to speak later in this debate, created a development charge, and this, too, was repealed by the Conservative Party a few years later. In 1967 the Land Commission Act established the Land Commission and provided for a betterment levy. The purpose had been defined in a White Paper as being,
"to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community."
In order to stop that from being done, we now have this vindictive measure, which is probably the most complicated Bill of its size that I have seen in a fairly long Parliamentary life. There are only seven clauses, but there are three Schedules, one with three Parts, another with two appendices, and a third with two Parts. The Bill itself takes less than three pages; the Schedules take 15 pages and are almost incomprehensible.
Moreover, in some respects the Bill is retrospective. In other respects we shall have to wait for the Finance Bill, when we shall have more retrospective legislation. The Secretary of State is taking to himself great powers which are to be exercised by Statutory Instrument, including, indeed, the abolition of the Commission itself. He will be, in a manner of speaking, the Land Commission and he, as planning Minister, will have to decide appeals against decisions which he, as the Land Commission, has taken.
But I think there is little point in considering in detail the effect that this mass of muddled verbiage is going to have, and I prefer to devote the time to putting on record the achievements of the Land Commission as I see them. The Commission has had only three short years of life. Staff had to be recruited and trained. It had to survey land throughout the country and, in consultation with local authorities, decide where land was needed. It had to undergo all the delays which are, I think rightly, inevitable in any compulsory purchase order machinery. In the early days, moreover, a number of anomalies had to be put right and, thanks largely to the perseverance and the kindliness of

589
Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Kenneth Robinson, that was done in the Finance Act 1969.
On many occasions the Conservative Party has argued that the betterment levy put up land prices. There is no evidence to support that point of view. The price of land is determined by its availability and by how much the market will stand. If this results in a high price, it seems to me to be proportionately more reasonable to provide that 40 per cent. of the development profit should go to the State, thus symbolising by a reasonable compromise that both the community and the individual have contributed towards that profit. The new proposal of a capital gains tax of 30 per cent. will be a wholly inadequate substitute and, if my arithmetic is correct, the Secretary of Slate will be depriving the Exchequer in the next two years of over £40 million. Moreover, if betterment levy did put up the price of land it would be reasonable to assume that the abolition of the levy would cause a reduction in the price of land. But I am prepared to place a small wager that we are not going to see that during the period of a Conservative Government.
There is one further point. The success of the Land Commission must not be judged merely by the acreage it bought. The very fact of its existence, as I know from my own experience, tended to make land more readily available than would otherwise have been the case. It is not without significance that the judgment of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers was that the Commission was perhaps in existence for too short a time to help in securing that the right land was available at the right time, and they conceded that the Commission had done good work.
I should like to give just three quick examples of some of the achievements of the Land Commission. The first is in respect of a tract of badly-developed land between the Medway towns and the M.2 which the Kent County Council wanted to use for the urban expansion which will be necessary in that county. Much of the land had been sold fifty years ago in small plots, and many of the owners had disappeared. The County Council invited the Land Commission to help by buying the whole site and putting in the spine roads which were needed before development could take place. The
590
second example is a 1,000 acre site near Teesside where the planning authority asked the Land Commission to buy and prepare the land for development. Lastly, there was a case in which the Surrey County Council asked the Land Commission's help in developing land near Woking which had been used as a horticultural nursery and where the water table was only 18 inches below the surface.
Mr. Derek Senior, who writes with some authority on these matters, has described what happened in this way—and I think it is a good example of how the Land Commission worked:
"Asked to help, the Land Commission agreed to buy it up (from willing sellers)"—
that is, the land—
"drain it by creating a 15-acre lake (by arrangement with the Thames Conservancy), put in spine roads to an agreed comprehensive plan, and sell to private developers willing to conform with that plan."
I believe that those three examples show that the Land Commission has been a great deal more successful than most of the organs of public opinion or the Party opposite have been prepared to concede.
My Lords, members of the present Government have given proof that in some respects they have seen wisdom, but I am afraid that this is not one of those instances. I wish they could be persuaded to think again, but I do not think there is very much hope of that. If the Government want to throw away what could be one of the most valuable instruments at their disposal, nothing that we can say is likely to stop them from doing so. So, my Lords, the Bill will go on its way, but it will certainly not go with the blessing of noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House.
4.34 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, at the funeral of the Land Commission there are very few mourners either in your Lordships' House or in the country at large. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has said that the Bill now before us is not designed or even intended to further the objectives of housing policy. Let us examine the objectives of the Land Commission Act, which it is designed eventually to repeal. In the White Paper published

591
in 1965 in advance of the Land Commission Bill, the Labour Government said:
"The two main objectives of the Government's land policy are … (1) to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans; (2) to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."
My Lords, I would defy anybody to claim that in these three or four years either of those objectives has been secured.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, sought to escape from the charge by saying that the Land Commission must not be judged by the acreage it bought. But certainly his Government's stated objective was to secure that the right land should become available at the right time; and it is at least significant that in three years, according to the information given recently in another place, the Land Commission acquired only 2,800 acres, and made only 320 acres of that land available to builders. That seems a derisorily small direct contribution to solving the problems of the house builders; and the indirect influence which the noble Lord said that the existence of the Land Commission exercised must have been very great indeed if it was to offset the failure of the hopes of those who founded the Commission that it would directly make land available.
The noble Lord said there was no evidence that the price of land was raised by the betterment levy. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the three years of the Land Commission's existence the price of land did rise faster than, so far as I am aware, in any previous period of three years in the country's history, and that since the present Government announced that the Land Commission was to be abolished the rise in the price of land has steadied. I am not seeking to establish any of these as absolute proofs, but nevertheless there is significance in all of them. The previous Government claimed, indeed, that the existence of a Land Commission was going to reduce the cost of land. It was extraordinarily hard for any of us, at the time when the 1967 Bill was before us, to conceive how that was to be done. The only possible clue seemed to reside in the idea of con-
592
cessionary crownhold, which that Bill included. My information is that concessionary crownhold proved so extraordinarily complex in practice that it never operated, and therefore the one positive instrument in the 1967 Act to reduce the cost of land never came into action.
The betterment levy in practice proved unfair and a cause of hardship to people who were in no sense speculators. In my life I have thought a great deal about betterment levy. Before there was any capital gains tax I could always see a strong theoretical case for a tax on betterment or development value. But I had come to the conclusion—indeed I said this in another place, I remember, in 1959—that for various reasons, which I then adduced, it was literally impossible to translate this theory into practice in a way that would be reasonably fair; and I believe the experience of the last three or four years has proved that again.
The betterment levy is founded on the theory that development value is created by the community, and those who uphold that theory would impose a tax at a flat rate on development value or betterment value. There was a 100 per cent. tax under the Act of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in 1947; there was a 40 per cent. tax, threatening to rise further, under the 1967 Act. But, my Lords, what those who uphold this idea of taxing betterment value or development value seem to slur over is that the amount of the increase in the value of land which is actually created by the community may range from something like 95 per cent. down to virtually a nil part of the increase, and therefore any flat rate tax will always be unfair.
Also, the taxation of development value in the 1967 Act was in truth retrospective taxation, because it taxed development value which in very many cases had been accruing over many years past, unlike capital gains tax, which does not go further back than 1965. A capital gains tax will not bring in so much revenue, but it will be much fairer in operation. It will bring in less money because, as I have said, it will not tax that part of increased value which accrued before 1965, and it will not fall on owner-occupiers. Some of the greatest hardship under the 1967 Act and the betterment

593
levy therein has fallen on owner-occupiers. When your Lordships' House, four and a half years ago, voted to exempt owner-occupiers from liability, we were overruled by another place. Experience has proved how right we were.
The application of the single capital gains tax, instead of the combination of capital gams tax and betterment levy, will also vastly simplify the law, which was unnecessarily complicated by the interaction of the two. I was struck by Lord Greenwood's remark that this short Bill was a complicated one, and that it was "a mass of muddled verbiage". He tempts me to recall to your Lordships one sentence out of the 1967 Act which I ventured to read during the Second Reading debate on the Bill which became that Act. It is only one sentence, but I must draw a long breath before starting on it. It is to be found in paragraph 23(2) of Schedule 8 to the Land Commission Act 1967:
"If the operative provision in question is paragraph 8, then for the purpose of calculating the appropriate deduction paragraph 19 or, as the case may be, paragraph 21 of this Schedule shall apply as if the taxable disposal which occurred had been the first separate disposal and not the relevant taxable disposal, and accordingly as if—

(a) in paragraph 19 of this Schedule (where that paragraph is applicable) any reference to the chargeable gain which accrued on the taxable disposal in question were a reference to so much of the chargeable gain which accrued on the relevant taxable disposal as is properly attributable to the first separate disposal, and

(b) in paragraph 21 of this Schedule (where that paragraph is applicable) any reference to the chargeable gain which would have been taken to accrue on the taxable disposal in question if the assumed tax condition had been fulfilled in relation to it were a reference to so much of the chargeable gain which in those circumstances would have been taken to accrue on the relevant taxable disposal as is properly attributable to the first separate disposal."

And the noble Lord said that this short Bill, introduced by my noble friend, is a mass of muddled verbiage! One of the virtues of my noble friend's Bill is that the provisions in Clause 5 will eventually lead to the removal from the Statute Book of that single sentence which I have just read out.
My Lords, one of the saddest effects of the 1967 Act was the ill-will that it created between the Land Commission
594
and local authorities. The Government which put the Act on the Statute Book said that it was designed to help local authorities; but in fact the local authorities soon thought otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has just quoted three cases where, he said, the Land Commission was able to help the local authorities. They were, I think, almost precisely the same three cases as were quoted on behalf of the Opposition on Second Reading in another case. I do not know whether that is an indication that there were not many to choose from.
When the Land Commission Bill was first introduced in 1966, I hoped that the Commission might be of some use in helping inexperienced local authorities to acquire blocks of urban land for redevelopment. I had realised that inexperienced authorities were liable to come up against difficulties in that field and that the Land Commission would be expert. Instead of that, however, the Land Commission seems to me to have gone in too largely for a policy of trying to force councils to approve undeveloped land for building which the councils, as the planning authorities, thought ought not to be approved for development. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, quoted two cases arising in Kent and Surrey; but, certainly on such information as I have, the Kent and Surrey County Councils were by no means enthusiastic supporters of the Land Commission. On the contrary, they felt that the Land Commission took views on planning and development which were contrary to their own. So, instead of smoothing the path of the local authorities, it created extra friction for them.
My Lords, I believe that democratically elected local authorities are responsible bodies that know their own localities best. The Minister should seek to guide them by advice, as the present Secretary of State for the Environment has done by his recent circular, but he should not set up a Government agency to force them against their better judgment. When we had the Second Reading debate on the Bill that became the 1967 Act the Government spokesman said:
"Is it too colourful a claim to say that the Land Commission … is to protect the weak against the strong? I think not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/11/66; col. 1168.]

595
I am unaware of any case during the four and a half years since then in which weak people have actually felt that they were effectively protected by the Land Commission against the strong. It simply has not worked out in that way.
I know that in politics it is always unwise to make forecasts; but just occasionally one has the satisfaction of having a forecast fulfilled. In that debate I said:
"… I forecast that much of this measure, well-intended as part of it is, will suffer the same fate as the 1947 100 per cent. development charge did. It will get hated for itself, and public opinion will turn so strongly against it that hardly anyone, even in the Party opposite, will regret its demise when it is repealed by a Government with greater common sense and understanding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/11/66, col. 1101.]
My Lords, that is exactly what has happened.
4.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is rather remarkable that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who introduced this Bill said not one word about its merits. He laboriously explained each clause and each subsection and talked about the various appendices to the Bill; but not a single word did he say in justification, except a reference to a mandate. May I say just a word about mandates in general? I wonder whether any single person voted for the Conservative Party because of an alleged mandate to abolish the Land Commission. I doubt it very much. Indeed, the Act itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has been at pains to explain, was so difficult and so complicated that he himself did not understand it. I cannot imagine, therefore, that anybody would have given his vote on the strength of what is called a mandate. I wonder, also, how many Members of Parliament who have been elected said specifically in their election address that they were going to repeal this 1967 Act. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply can tell me, but I doubt very much whether there were half a dozen Members of Parliament who actually referred to this subject in their election addresses.
Moreover, the noble Lord and his friends have challenged fate by stating a very large number of things that they
596
intend to do, for which presumably they will say they have a mandate. I doubt whether they will do half of them. From time to time we shall have occasion to remind them of some of the mandates which they say they have been given. Apart from that, my Lords, not a word was said by the noble Lord in justification of this measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made a gallant attempt to show that the 1967 Act had failed and that he had forecast that it would fail. Did he forecast that he would give it only a three-year trial? Does he really justify repealing an Act which has only just got into its stride, only just set up the necessary machinery and is just getting on collecting development charges and acquiring land? He referred to 2,800 acres of land that the Commission had acquired. He did not tell us of the 9,000 acres which they had agreed to acquire and which would have been acquired in the fairly near future. Nor did he tell us of the 16,000 acres of land in the pipeline. If you count all that, then that is not bad going for three years.
The justification for the Land Commission's acquiring land in this way was that it was primarily to help the small builder; it was not to help the local authorities unless they definitely sought help—and in a number of cases they did. But when we realise that 40 per cent. of the houses of this country are erected by small builders employing fewer than twenty people and that these small builders are finding it extremely difficult to get the necessary land, we realised that the Land Commission had a real public function to perform in acquiring land in order to help them. The building industry recognised that; my noble friend Lord Greenwood quoted from one of their statements. It is a fact within my own knowledge that the building industry very much regretted that the Land Commission were no longer in existence in order to help them to acquire the necessary land and to secure continuity in their operations. The larger builders are well supplied: many of them have seven years' supply of land available—and that is not a liability because that land has been constantly appreciating in value. But the small builder is not in that position;

597
and 40 per cent. of the houses are built by the small builder. So that there was not only ample justification but a real need for some authority to have the necessary power to acquire land in this way.
It is now said that the local authorities can do it. Of course, they always could do it; but they never did and they never will, because it means the outlay of money from their ratepayers. At times it may mean acquiring land outside their own area. There is no reason why they should put themselves out to help the small builder. And if I may make a prophecy, as did the noble Lord, to be read in three years' time, then I will say that not one acre of land will be provided by the local authorities to help the small builder to carry out his excellent work in providing 40 per cent. of the houses that are built in this country.
Now, my Lords, I want to say a word about the development charge. It is said that here you have two instruments, the Land Commission and the capital gains tax, for the carrying out of this function and that they are doing much the same job. They are not doing much the same job; they are doing quite different jobs. The purpose of the capital gains tax is to acquire a proportion of the net profits made not only by the land developers but by everybody. In the case of capital gains one is enabled to set off losses against profits; it has nothing to do with the services of the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made very light of the part played by the community in creating value; but if you take a piece of land and leave it as it is, it will not appreciate in value unless you provide the necessary services like roads, sewers and drains and all the facilities such as schools and so on required for a population. Unless those facilities are provided, that land will not appreciate in value. The land appreciates in value only because of the efforts of the community and because of the expense to which the community is put. It seems to me reasonable that the person who gains from the efforts of the community should make a contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that the contribution of the community varies from very little to a great deal. He might have had a case for recognising that in relation to the development
598
charge. But what case has he got where, as he admits, 90 per cent. of the increased value is due to the efforts of the community? He is taking a case where perhaps 3 per cent, or less was due to the efforts of the community; but in the case where 90 per cent. of the value is contributed by the community—and I would say that in a vast majority of cases a very substantial amount of the value, though not all of it, is due to the community—is it not just that the person who benefits should make a contribution?
The noble Lord also talked about hardship. Hardship to whom? Surely this levy is imposed only on people who gained as a result of development which has been permitted. It is a proportion of the gain that they have made. I cannot see the hardship in that—even in the case of widows, who are always trotted out as great examples of hardship. Not all widows are hard up, anyway. But in those cases the widow has made a gain as a result of being given permission to develop and there is no reason why she should not make her contribution. In fact, the Commission have been very reasonable—I could almost say "compassionate"—in casing matters for people who found it difficult to make a payment at once. In many cases they have reduced the demand, with authority or not: they have been very gentle with people who have made the profit but found it difficult to meet the development charge. And I would point out that the development charge is not imposed except where there is planning permission to develop. In cases where development can take place without planning permission, no development charge is levied; but they are subject to capital gains tax.
My Lords, I must confess—and I hope that I am looking at the thing fairly; although I might be thought to be prejudiced in favour of some kind of levy—that I cannot see that there is any hardship to anybody in making this contribution towards the expenditure of the community in making their land viable and capable of being put to the best use. Like my noble friend, I am afraid that what I am saying is largely wasted, because I imagine that this Bill will go through, and that we are not even going to vote against the Second Reading, for reasons perfectly well understood in this House. But we very much deplore

599
this. If I may make another prophecy, in the not too distant future there will be a fifth attempt to impose some kind of levy on those who obtain planning permission and benefit from it at the expense of the community.
5.0 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, I cannot helping feeling that this is really not so much a Bill as a chopper. That is the instrument that the Party opposite usually bring into play when any question of land reform is under discussion. Nevertheless, I must say that I felt sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in having to bring such a (as my noble friend Lord Greenwood called it) miserable little Bill before this House, framed in the way that it is. There is one assurance—that is not quite the right word, but it is the only one I can think of—that I should like from the Minister, and it is this. I gather from his remarks that no legislation is contemplated to replace what is now being chopped into small pieces, and that the Government have no legislation on the stocks to bring in any kind of land reform, even if it could be made acceptable to their Party.
This particular Bill is retrospective, which itself is enough to condemn it. One must say that in the three short years of their life, the Land Commission obviously never had an opportunity to show their mettle. Anybody who has had to deal with land will understand that three years is an extremely short period indeed. I feel—and since nobody has referred to this, I propose to do so—that the Land Commission, under the distinguished leadership of Sir Henry Wells, were capable of doing a great job for the British people. That the Commission and Sir Henry have been deprived of that opportunity is something which I can only think is to be deplored.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, read an extremely difficult sentence from the Land Commission Act; and I confess that I found the Land Commission Act very difficult to follow and understand. But was there a reason? I think there was. The Land Commission Act was only necessary because Mr. Harold Macmillan, when he was the Minister of Housing and Local Government, chopped all the financial provisions of the 1947
600
Act, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Silkin and has been the cornerstone of all post-war planning, without any real regard for the effect that that would have on the other sections. But that was the difficult position in which planning had been until we came to the Land Commission. Now they also are going.
I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of my noble friends, Lord Greenwood and Lord Silkin, when they say that there will have to be another round. Another Government at another time will have to come back to this problem, when it will be even more complicated, unless some simple—but probably too drastic—solution can be found. This problem gets more and more difficult the longer it lives. But that another Government must come back to it, there can now be no question. We have tried in 1909, 1931, 1954 and now 1971. Efforts to bring land into use for the benefit of the people of this country have been thwarted by the Party opposite. That is something that I am sure will on a suitable occasion be brought to an end. That is why I particularly want to hear if the Minister can tell us whether the Government are proposing to do anything in this field of activity, or whether we may consider that, this Act having been duly buried, any question of land reform during the rest of the life of this Government is something that just will not happen.
It is interesting at this time to look at the unfolding of the policy of the Government in this way. I have always considered that two of the main supporting pillars of the modern State are, on the one hand, a contented, well-rewarded labour force with money in their pockets to spend, and, on the other hand, the provision of land for public needs rather than for private greed, to provide the necessities of the modern State for housing, education, recreation, industry, travel or whatever it may be. These things are essential. We see the Government opposite bringing a quite different approach to these important twin parts of modern life.
The question of purchasing power, of the economic strength of the workers, especially the lower paid workers, was something that had to be tackled with all the force, and vigour of the Tory Party. We know what is

601
going on in the fields of wage rates and labour relations, and we can see a Party fully extended in its efforts to bring about its own policy. But on the other great field of public activity that I have mentioned, that of bringing land forward for public use, there is, as I assume, no question of Government interference or activity. That is something which this afternoon, although we may be powerless to do much about it, we must deplore. I could tell the Minister what I think he should do with this Bill; but instead I will content myself by asking him to take away this miserable little Bill and bring back something that is worthy of one of the great Parties in the State, worthy of Government and worthy of the people they govern.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I remember that when the Land Commission was set up I said that I thought there was room for a Commission of a different kind, with ample funds, and with the sole job of redeveloping city centres. I said that because, with such knowledge as I had (I do not pretend that it was extensive), it did not seem to me that the smaller local authorities had sufficient expertise to do this by themselves. I was told—and it was quite true—that the Bill provided that one of the numerous jobs the Commission would be asked to take on was the redevelopment of city centres. But I have never heard of any such scheme being undertaken. I was interested to hear of three schemes cited by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, which are an instance of the Land Commission acting as an agency for a local authority—not entirely without some remarks, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has mentioned. The real truth is that the Land Commission does not have sufficient money to do this, or sufficient money to supply land on concessionary terms to such bodies as housing associations. The reason it does not have enough money has been to some extent touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood: he put it down to the campaign against the Land Commission and the question of time—that the Commission has not had sufficient time.
I suggest that when this Bill was introduced there was a third source of income which appealed to some branches of the Labour Party—though we have had no
602
reference to it to-day; we have a very sophisticated Back-Bench Labour representation to-day. The theory was that speculators were earning enormous profits out of buying and selling land. The argument was that if the Land Commission was to take on that job, if it could muscle in on the profits and take the profits, then there would be a lot of money available for the Commission to carry out all these various functions. It has surprised me that not one word about speculators has been heard to-day. People who know about this know that there was not much in that argument. I was for twenty years chairman of a town planning committee, and I never met such a person as was talked about in that debate.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I interrupt? Has not the noble Lord, in his experience, come across land which has an agricultural value, which was given planning permission to develop, and became worth 20, 30 or 40 times as much as it was before?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I agree that that has happened. I am challenging the existence of these sinister people who, by deliberate intention, set about making money in that way. I agree that a number of people have profited, more by luck than anything, by reason of this increase in value. We all agree that that increase should be taxed; I do not think there is any difficulty about that.
On the question of the finances of the Land Commission, I hope that somebody can explain this point. If, as in all other acquisitions of land by statutory body, the price to be paid is the district valuer's price, and if the Commission has also to sell at the district valuer's price, how can it make large profits? I know that it has the benefit of the levy. I remember the Land Commission at one time rather wistfully suggesting to local authorities that, if they did more work through the Commission's agency, the Land Commission would become richer. The scheme did not work, and I do not think it could have worked. It would have taken years, and the acquisition of enormous tracts of land, to produce through that agency enough money for the Land Commission to fulfil all these rather grandiose projects that it was asked to take on. I feel

603
that the financial structure (and I know this is not quite what the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said) of the Land Commission is unsound; and for that reason I view with equanimity its abolition and the taking over of its fiscal duties by the Board of Inland Revenue.
But, my Lords, having said that, I agree with some noble Lords opposite that the positive contributions supposed to be made by the Land Commission were good objects. I believe that city centres ought to be redeveloped on some priority basis, and that housing associations ought to be helped. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandford that these things can be done by local authorities. I also think that the task will be exceedingly difficult, particularly in areas where the market price of land is very high. People talk about the price of land as if everybody knew what it was. I once carried out some research into this subject, and I remember consulting the late Lord Cohen of Brighton (who was an authority on it), and it became quite obvious that nobody knew what the price of land was, except in particular areas which were always given great publicity.
It is impossible to say whether, by doing this, we shall put the price of land up or down. A great deal, it seems to me, depends on other measures, such as Strategy for the South-East, or these other economic plans. Clearly the high market cost of land in certain areas is going to be a very serious problem. I wish that the high cost of land were due to speculators, because speculators are comparatively easy to deal with. But when it comes to trying to reduce the market price of land, that really is a man's job, and everybody in all parts of the House will have to help to reduce it. I can only hope that in this great turmoil of local government reform, and in the financial rearrangements that are going with it, particular care will be taken to see that local authorities are at least enabled to carry out these difficult and necessary tasks.
5.18 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but having heard the contribution by the noble Viscount, I should like to point
604
out that there is land speculation in the area where I live at the present time. I live in the Solent area. A short while ago, the South-East Planning Council recommended that there should be a city region developed in the Solent area. Immediately following that, we had the Buchanan Report, and now there is a local joint planning team, sponsored by the county and the two county boroughs of Southampton and Portsmouth.
There is already speculation taking place; farms are being bought, and they are being bought in accordance with recommendations made by Buchanan. The speculators are hoping that they will make a profit out of their present-day purchases. In effect, this means that the community will pay twice, because the value of that land is created by the expenditure on roads and sewers, and the community will have to pay for both the roads and the sewers, and for the added value which those create to the land. This speculation will continue until one Government or the other find a way of dealing with it, and that is accepted by the Party in opposition at the time. Until we find a way of dealing with it, development will be very difficult. It is extremely doubtful whether the development contemplated in the Solent area can take place on economic grounds because of the speculation which is being allowed at the present time; it will prevent the future development.
5.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not a bit surprised, and I do not think any of your Lordships will be surprised, that noble Lords opposite have not found themselves able to receive this short Bill with acclaim. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and others, find the Bill difficult to understand and the Schedules incomprehensible, because the longest and most substantial part of the Schedules only consolidate provisions enacted by the previous Government. It is rather sad and surprising that the previous Minister of Housing who was the author of the words in the Act, does not understand them. I would have hoped that he, at any rate, would be the person who might be expected to.
The noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who has held such an eminent position in the

605
Greater London Council, would, I should have thought, have been among the first to take this opportunity to describe how the Land Commission have helped, if it were possible for the Land Commission to help bring forward and deal with the problems of housing where housing stress is greatest.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, may I interrupt to explain that during the currency of this Bill I have not been a member of the G.L.C.
LORD SANDFORD: But, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, knows a great deal about the affairs of Greater London and, I am sure, has as much concern as anybody for the tremendous problems of housing stress in Greater London. This, I should have thought, was a moment par excellence, if it were possible, to describe how the Land Commission have in practice helped to deal with the problems of housing stress; and I should have thought we would have heard about it from the noble Lord. But we did not. What I should like to say to him, however, is that although no legislation is contemplated to take the place of the Commission which this Bill abolishes, this does not by any means mean that the present Government are inactive or have no further plans for dealing with the problems.
May I invite the noble Lord to look particularly at Circular No. 10/70, published on December 14 of last year, where he will find set out, at a length too full for me to repeat it now, some of the measures that we are proposing and inviting local authorities to take. All I will say now is that the Press comment on this Circular has been almost overwhelmingly favourable. The builders have welcomed it and we know that a great many of the local authorities are now taking steps to discuss it in detail with all concerned.
In the course of this short debate a good deal was said, and certainly implied in the original debates on the setting up of the Land Commission, about how the Land Commission would be able to deal with the problem of those people who bought up a lot of land, hoarded it, waited for its value to increase, and stymied and hindered proper development. But, in fact, one of the first tasks which the Commission themselves carried
606
out was a land availability survey. This established that land shortages for housing were the result not of speculators hoarding it in order to make huge profits, but of the insufficiency of land with planning permission for development, particularly in the pressure areas. This was a most important finding and one of the first things the Commission themselves discovered. However, I will not say any more about land.
What I should like to turn to now is the operation of the levy—and I refer to an extract from the last Report of the Land Commission. A good deal of the debate in the earlier days was about the way in which the levy would operate so as to get at the people who were making huge profits at the expense of the rest of the community. But all questions as to whom the levy is biting upon and whom it is affecting are made quite clear if one studies the Report. One finds in the last Report that, of the 18,000 transactions on which the levy was charged, 12,500—that is just over two-thirds—concerned transactions on £5,000 or less, and the vast majority of people on whom the burden of the levy fell were therefore those of modest means, including many people who suffered real hardship as a result of it. It was for that reason that the previous Government had to ease the impact of the betterment levy in their 1969 legislation, which has already been mentioned.
At the same time as that kind of burden was falling on people of that kind, only 2½ per cent. of transactions on which levy was charged involved sums of £50,000 and above—a tiny percentage. The changes from the betterment levy to the other forms of taxation—capital gains tax and corporation tax—has the effect, in some cases, of putting up the rate at which profits are taxed in the case of large corporations, and at the same time of reducing the impact of the levy on smaller people of more modest means to whom the great bulk of these cases refer. I cannot believe that that is not a tremendous gain in fairness all round.
I should like to end this debate by paying a tribute to the staff of the Land Commission for the work they have done in administering the 1967 Act. The differences that divide us Party politically on this issue need not divide us at all

607
in paying this tribute to the staff; because, by any account, they have had an extremely difficult task to perform. It has involved most complex legislation—not incomprehensible but complex—and their dealings with the public in administering it have shown humanity and understanding in circumstances which, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has o well illustrated, have been highly controversial and complex.
My Lords, in closing my remarks I would reiterate what in fact it is we believe we are doing with this Bill. We are restoring the situation where decisions about bringing land forward for development rest where they ought always to be: with the democratically elected local authorities and central Government working in co-operation with one another. We cut out the need for some 1,000 unnecessary Civil Service posts, and bring the collection of tax back into a unified system which is simpler and fairer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS BILL
5.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill designed to strengthen and rationalise the existing law dealing with means of escape and other relevant fire precautions in places of public entertainment and resort, and in certain kinds of residential premises. The need for a measure of this kind has long been recognised. Indeed, it was my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he was Home Secretary, who set up a committee of officials to inquire into this problem and, on the basis of their findings, arranged for the first draft of the present Bill to be prepared. The previous Administration also accepted the need for this legislation, but, unfortunately, the pressures on the Parliamentary timetable have been such as to prevent it from being brought forward before now. In another place, the Bill has been welcomed and no differences between the Parties have emerged.
608
Uncontrolled fires, my Lords, have long been one of the greatest natural forces that have threatened mankind. In these surroundings we need look no further back than 1834, when on the evening of October 16, a fire was first noticed in the Palace of Westminster. It spread so rapidly that the firemen had no option but to let the old Houses of Parliament burn out in the interests of saving Westminster Hall.
Public opinion (which is a feature of this subject) tends only to be aroused when there is some particularly serious fire—such as at the Rose and Crown Hotel in Saffron Walden at Christmas, 1969, when 11 people lost their lives, or more recently at a dance hall near Grenoble in France when 140 people, mainly young people, died. But the evidence points to a continuing and steady loss of life resulting from fires, while injuries caused by fire are also considerable. In 1968 (the latest year for which accurate, detailed figures are available), fire brigades in the United Kingdom attended about 215,000 fires. There were 865 deaths in these fires, and there were 4,612 non-fatal casualties excluding those requiring first-aid treatment only. As for fire losses—that is to say, the loss of buildings and their contents in fire—the British Insurance Association statistics show that these are already in excess of £100 million a year. And this figure, large as it is, takes no account of the loss of markets, unemployment and the other consequences which fires inevitably bring in their wake. It is against this background that this Bill has to be considered.
Before going on to describe the existing law concerning fire precautions it would, I think, be right to pay tribute to the admirable and efficient work done by the fire brigades. The British Fire Service has earned a high reputation and without the vigilance and courage of its members there is no doubt that the loss of life, injury and material damage caused by fire would be far greater than it is. The committee of officials to which I have already referred carefully studied the nature and extent of fire prevention legislation as it existed in 1962. They concluded that, so far as employees were concerned, the fire protection provisions of the Factories Act 1961, and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, were broadly satisfactory and

609
they proposed no change. For this reason, premises already within the scope of these Acts, mainly places of work, are outside the scope of this present. Bill.
The committee also came to the conclusion that it would be neither appropriate nor practicable to try to compel owners, by legislation, to protect their property against damage by fire, but that this should continue to be left to voluntary arrangements between owners and their insurance companies. The committee nevertheless stressed the need for more education and publicity, and urged managements in industry and trade to seek the advice of the fire authorities on fire protection measures in factories, warehouses and other business premises. The Departmental Committee on the Fire Service, the Holroyd Committee, which reported in May of last year (Cmnd. 4371) took a somewhat similar line. In particular, they did not consider that direct legislation to deal with fire losses was practicable, although they recommended certain other procedures which are currently under discussion with those concerned. But I should point out that while it is not the purpose of this Bill to deal with fire losses, of course it remains true that any measure which leads to a reduction in loss of life clue to fire will also lead to a reduction in the amount of damage done to property.
The Bill, then, is concerned with the protection of life in the event of fire, but even in this field its scope is limited. Except for certain types of dwellings where the occupants are particularly at risk—for example, in high-rise blocks of flats—the ordinary dwelling-house is not covered by the Bill, even though rather more than half the deaths and injuries resulting from fires which I mentioned earlier occurred in private homes. But, as both the Holroyd Committee and the earlier official committee recognised, legislation to require adequate fire precautions to be observed in the ordinary home is impracticable. Even if the large number of extra inspectors who would be needed to deal with the 15 million or so homes in this country could be justified, their work would be ineffective without powers of entry to the private home. Thus we must continue in this field to rely mainly on publicity and education, a matter to which both central and local government are giving
610
increased attention and one to which the Holroyd Committee attached particular importance. What we are left with are premises, other than ordinary dwelling-houses, and other than factories, offices and shops, to which the public may resort for purposes of recreation or amusement, or where they may stay for holidays, residential care and so on.
The Bill will apply in practice to four main categories of premises: places of amusement, recreation and public resort, theatres, cinemas, dance-halls, bingo clubs and the like; residential establishments, such as hotels, boarding-houses, hospitals, and institutions for the residential care of the elderly, the young and the handicapped; educational establishments—mainly schools; and certain private dwellings—chiefly the high-rise blocks of flats to which I have referred—but not houses in multiple occupation, for which fire safety provisions already exist in the Housing Acts.
There are, of course, some safeguards under the present law, particularly under the Public Health Act 1936, but the present position is far from satisfactory. The laws concerning fire precautions have developed piecemeal to meet different needs which have arisen from time to time in the past. They are applied by different authorities for different purposes, and are not easily adapted to meet new hazards arising from technical developments or from changes in social habits.
The object of the Bill is to remedy these defects as far as possible by substituting a comprehensive and flexible system of fire prevention control covering the type of premises that I have described. It will enable new fire hazards to be dealt with promptly and without the need for further legislation. It will apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales.
The main instrument of control under the Bill will be by way of fire certificates. These will be issued by local fire authorities once they are satisfied that the provision made for means of escape, and other relevant fire precautions in the premises concerned, are of a satisfactory standard. In this, the Bill follows the precedent of the fire safety provisions of the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railways Premises Act 1963.

611
The next important point to note is that the Bill will operate according to the use to which premises are put rather than to their description, and Clause 1(2) sets out the various classes of use from among which the Secretary of State has power to designate, by order, a particular use. This method of bringing the Bill into operation, by designating orders, will have three advantages. First, it can be done in stages taking account of relative hazards and the capacity of the fire service to deal with the work involved. Second, it is an adaptable system, and one that can take account of leisure patterns as they develop in the future. And third, there will be no difficulty about applying the Bill to premises which are used for different purposes on different occasions—the village hall, say, or the cinema regularly used for bingo on certain evenings of the week.
If we move on to those categories of dwellings coming within the scope of Clause 3 of the Bill—as I have explained, mainly blocks of flats—the procedure is somewhat different. The question of imposing adequate fire precautions in such cases is so closely tied up with other questions of social and housing policy affecting the area concerned, that it is proposed in this instance to leave the matter to the discretion of the fire authority acting in consultation with the local authority which is responsible for housing. There will thus be no general order applying to all dwellings within the scope of Clause 3. Particular premises will be dealt with by the authorities concerned who will have to serve a notice in each case applying the provisions of the Bill to that particular property.
If premises are brought within the scope of the Bill, either by way of the designating order procedure visualised under Clause 1 or a notice under Clause 3, an application for a fire certificate will have to be made to the fire authority in the form prescribed in Clause 5. The fire authority will then be under a duty to inspect the premises, and if satisfied as to the adequacy of the means of escape and other relevant fire precautions, to issue a fire certificate. If the fire authority are not satisfied, they must indicate what they consider should be done to bring the premises up to a satisfactory
612
standard. The applicant is not compelled by the Bill to do this. He could, for example, decide not to continue to use the premises for the purpose which brought it within the Bill, but a fire certificate will not be issued until the fire authority are satisfied as to the adequacy of the fire precautions. Clause 7 makes it an offence, subject to stated penalties either on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment, to use premises without a fire certificate or to contravene any requirements imposed by the certificate.
Clause 6 sets out the various detailed requirements which may be imposed under the fire certificate in order to ensure the safety of the occupants in the event of fire. It should be noted that the main purpose is to ensure that people will be able to escape quickly and safety from the premises in the event of fire, even before the fire brigade arrives, and only those measures necessary to achieve this end may be imposed. Clause 8 provides the fire authority with the necessary powers of entry and inspection to deal with any change of circumstances affecting the fire precautions and generally to ensure that the fire precautions are maintained at a satisfactory standard. Rights of appeal for occupants and others affected by the fire authority's decisions or requirements are provided by Clause 9.
My Lords, this is the broad pattern of the way in which the Bill will operate, but before closing I ought briefly to mention one other matter dealt with in the Bill. As I said earlier, the Bill is mainly concerned with the way in which buildings are or will be used. But Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to make Building Regulations regarding means of escape in new buildings; that is, buildings under construction or buildings for which substantial alterations are being planned. Although this power exists in Scotland, it has hitherto been lacking in England and Wales. It is obviously desirable for a builder or developer to know in advance what will be required in the way of means of escape in any new building he proposes to erect. The new power will now enable this to be done. He is also entitled to some assurance, however, that having satisfied the building authority he will not subsequently be confronted with a separate set of requirements from the fire

613
authority which will involve him in much heavier expense than if he had known about these, too, from the outset. The Bill deals with this problem in two ways.
First, Clauses 13 and 14 prevent the fire authority, save in very special circumstances, from requiring more than is required by the Building Regulations. Second, Clauses 15 to 17 lay appropriate duties on the various authorities concerned to consult one another in defined circumstances. In this way, we hope that developer, building authority and fire authority will work in close co-operation from the outset, especially where a new building is being planned, so that the question of overlapping or conflicting requirements between authorities will not arise. These arrangements for statutory consultation apply, of course, only where the authorities for building and fire are different. We cannot legislate for relationships between different departments of the same authority, although the Government are sure that the authorities concerned will see that appropriate arrangements for consultation are made in the spirit of the Bill.
Finally, my Lords, I should say that it is not the intention to bring the Bill into force for any particular use (unless the matter is too urgent for delay) until we have had the fullest consultations with all those concerned—central Government, fire authorities and representatives of other interests—and have worked out a code of practice for that particular use. This will mean that everybody will know what is required, leading to as great uniformity as possible in the operation of the Bill.
My Lords, this is, I am afraid, a rather technical measure, but, as I have explained, it is one that has a very simple aim, and it is this: to apply to places of public amusement, hotels, institutions, and certain residential premises broadly similar standards of fire precautions to those that already apply in places of work. The method of control envisaged is the same—a system of fire certificates—and we must all hope that in placing this measure on the Statute Book we shall be doing something to reduce the number of lives lost as a result of fire in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Windlesham.)
5.47 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, both for the clarity and for the brevity with which he has introduced a quite important and lengthy Bill. As he said, this Bill is welcomed by all Parties in both Houses, and, so far as I am concerned, the sooner it gets on the Statute Book the better. I shall certainly not go over the ground so fully and efficiently covered in another place, and by the noble Lord in his admirable speech, but I should like, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, to add my tribute to those he paid to members of the fire services, a tribute which was indeed well deserved.
So far as the Bill is concerned, there are two points of criticism which might be made. One is against the Parliamentary system—or possibly I ought to say the Whitehall complex—which has prevented this Bill from getting an appropriate place in the Parliamentary programme before now. That is not a Party point, because I think we ought to have introduced it in the previous Government. The second point is that the Bill does not go far enough: it leaves important areas of the fire problem entirely uncovered. For example, the Bill, as the noble Lord said, is concerned with the loss of life by fire; yet I am told that of 1,000 lives lost in each recent year by fire, only about 30 or 40 were in premises covered by this Bill. That gives me certainly pause to think. It would seem, surely, that we have as yet not really tackled the fire hazard problem.
Most of the fatalities occurred in private houses, which, as the noble Lord says, are not covered at all, except in certain cases of high-rise blocks of flats. I am not quite sure about the position of what one might call houses of multiple occupation. The noble Lord made some reference to those, and to the fact that they were covered by the Housing Act. But what about those older types of house, sub-let into bed-sitting rooms, or probably divided up into what are sometimes called self-contained flats? Are they or are they not covered by the Housing Act to which he referred? Are there regulations made to ensure adequate exits, and so on, in such buildings?
I know that there are difficulties in extending the area to be covered by

615
legislation. Mostly it is a matter of inspection and enforcement. It is a real problem, which I suppose involves the most profound of economic and political issues. How are we to ensure in the sort of acquisitive society which the present Government are seeking to set up, adequate public services, when large wage claims go unchallenged in the private sector and we turn down essential services like the postal service? How are we to get the essential work done?
My Lords, I will not pursue this thought on this Bill, but it is relevant. It is a fact that we could reduce the national loss of hundreds of millions of pounds if we were to pay more, and to attract more staff, to the fire services. We can do more. An increased expenditure in public services can be a positive investment in terms of material goods saved. There is a tendency to say that the loss was covered by insurance. The fact is that goods and property destroyed by fire are real losses of national assets, whether they are insured or not.
There is another angle from which the problem might be tackled, rather than by penalty and enforcement of regulations: it is by using the carrot rather than by the stick. Is it impossible to conceive incentives to go beyond minimum safety requirements? Can we do something to encourage extra precautions by some form of tax relief; or, at the very least, can we not ensure that work done to property specifically for fire precaution will not mean an increased rateable value? It is ironic and unjust—indeed, absurd—that if a property owner spends money to try to reduce the chance of calling upon the fire brigade he has to pay an extra amount for the payment of their services because the rateable value is increased as a consequence of the precautions he has taken. I know that these matters do not come under this Bill. Nevertheless, they are part of this problem and they deserve consideration.
Finally, may I ask the Minister a little more about the consideration which he says is being given to the possibility of increased education and publicity of this fire risk. The losses in life and property are of such an order that something similar in kind, if not in degree, to the road safety campaign would appear to be justified. The noble Lord said that the
616
local authorities and the national Government were giving attention to the possibility of a publicity campaign. Is he satisfied that they are envisaging something on an adequate scale? Certainly the road safety campaign is a massive campaign, and it costs a lot of money. I would not necessarily say that we should duplicate that campaign, but we ought to do something along those lines if we are really going to bring some of these points home to all the people concerned.
As I have said, I do not propose to rehash all the many interesting points already made in another place, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some indication that the time we shall save by a speedy consideration of this Bill in this House will be used to consider the further Bill which really is necessary to supplement this one, or at any rate the other efforts such as publicity campaigns, which are needed to complement it.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in my experience—and I believe it is general and not confined to my term of office—the Home Secretary hardly ever received any complaints against the operating efficiency of the fire brigades throughout England and Wales in fighting particular fires. Bearing in mind the almost innumerable complaints which a Home Secretary receives about almost every other part of his responsibilities, I think this is a significant fact which ought to be known, and I cite it today because it underlines the tributes which we pay, and rightly should pay, to our fire service throughout the country. But of course they are helped or handicapped by the state of the law, and by the conditions which they find when they are called to a fire.
Some seven years ago it gave me deep concern as Home Secretary to discover that the law relating to fire precautions in places such as hotels, boarding houses, clubs and places of entertainment—what I think are known collectively as places of resort—was patchy, confusing and out-of-date. My Lords, death through fire is a terrible death, and it is not always swift. From that day on it has weighed on my mind that there might at any time be in this country a fire with grave loss of

617
life which could have been prevented if the law on fire precautions had been sounder and stronger. There was that terrible fire at Grenoble the other day. I am not in a position to say where the responsibility for that lay, and whether, therefore, anyone was at fault. But we as a Parliament should have it on our conscience if there were a similar fire in this country in any premises and it were to be found that we had been partly responsible because we had allowed the law to fall out of date.
What I did at that time when I was Home Secretary was to give instructions that a Bill to modernise the law in this field should be put in hand. That is the origin of this present Bill, and that is how I know that a draft of it has lain in the Home Office for years in readiness for introduction. That, indeed, is my excuse for speaking on two different Second Readings of Bills this afternoon—something that all your Lordships would wish should happen seldom, because no one person should take up too much time.
In Session after Session of the last Parliament, not for the sake of controversy but for the sake of public safety, I used to ask the Government why this Bill was not included in the gracious Speech and I urged them to bring it forward. I therefore congratulate the present Government on recognising its urgency and including it in the programme for their very first Session. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, the Bill is not in its provisions controversial and, like him, I feel sure that it will go through your Lordships' House quickly. It was the act of recognising its importance and giving it priority in the legislative programme which was crucial.
I, too, am not going into technicalities, and I have only one general point to make. It is not enough to have the most perfect fire prevention equipment in the physical sense, if the personnel who will have to act in an emergency are not fire trained and fire conscious. I do not know how many of your Lordships have had experience of this—I hope very—but even a small outbreak of fire is a frightening thing if you are not mentally prepared for it. It is easy at such a time to lose one's head, at the very moment when cool thinking may be all important. Secondly, it is often easy, surprisingly
618
easy, to put out a fire in the first half minute of its existence, whereas if it is not discovered until five or ten minutes later it may have gained an unbreakable hold.
The assurance I should like from my noble friend is that the Home Office and the local authorities, in using their powers under this Bill, will not only insist on modern and efficient material and equipment, but will do one more thing too. I should like to be sure that they will bring home to owners and occupiers of the premises covered by this Bill the importance of always having someone on the spot who not only understands the fire prevention and fire escape arrangements, but is trained as a fire guard, trained in fire vigilance; a man whose duty it is to ensure that, at any hour of the day or night, any outbreak of fire is swiftly detected and warning flashed to the fire brigade. The existence of first-class equipment, fire escapes, and so on, may otherwise lull people into a sense of false security, because although it may be impossible to save life if the equipment and the escapes are not there, the fact of their presence does not by itself ensure that they will be used properly; and still less does it ensure that the fire brigade will be called at the earliest possible moment.
It is not the business of those who are working on the premises to fight fires; that is essentially the technical business of the fire brigade. If serious fire is to be avoided, the fire brigade must be notified as swiftly as may be. An outbreak of fire may go undetected, and even when detected may not be met with the cool, quick thinking that is required, unless those who may have to deal with such a situation are trained as to what they may have to expect, and as to what they will need to do instantly. I am not sure whether the provision for regulations in Clause 12 of this Bill adequately covers this point of mine. I trust that it does, but in any case I hope that it will be looked at before the Bill becomes law.
6.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say that when anyone with the experience, knowledge and clarity of the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat

619
speaks, we are only too happy that he should speak twice on Second Readings of important Bills such as these. I would add just a few words in this debate to underline what was said by my noble friend Lord Beswick in his admirable criticism of this Bill. Of course, so far as the Bill goes it is a very good Bill. I have been interested in these problems—particularly problems of fire prevention—ever since the War years, when I spent much of my time in the National Fire Service. It was in the National Fire Service that fire prevention first began to be studied and applied in a really scientific manner. It has always seemed to me a great pity that the remarkable progress which was made at that time has not been adequately carried through in the 25 years and more since the end of the War. We had not very long ago the Holroyd Committee which produced an admirable Report, but nothing seems to have come from it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, this Bill was on the stocks before that time.
It seems to me that this Bill does not go anything like far enough, not only in the provision for safety of life, which is obviously very important indeed, but in that it makes no effort whatever to safeguard property—and property which is of really outstanding national importance and value. It is quite absurd to say that it is all right to leave this to private insurance; it is not. Some years ago there was a terribly destructive fire at the Jaguar Works which could have been prevented very easily indeed. This matter was raised in your Lordships' House at the time. Some millions of pounds' worth of damage was done, and export of that very valuable export commodity was seriously held up. That was a matter of importance not only to the Jaguar company and to the workmen who were employed there, but to the national economy and the country as a whole. The destruction by fire of valuable property in this country has been going up since the end of the War until, I think, last year, when there was a slight recession. That recession was very welcome indeed, but the destruction has now been standing for a year or two at over £100 million in value per annum. I think the country ought to be ashamed to allow this to
620
happen, because although this is no doubt private property from one aspect, it is national property from another, as my noble friend underlined.
It is high time that fire precaution inspection and fire precaution desiderata were made compulsory over the wide range of British industry, to prevent the terrible loss to the national economy which has been going on year after year and which, over the last twenty years, has amounted to a really frightening sum. It is high time that the Government tackled this problem, and I hope that, already plans are in progress in the Home Office for the implementation of the proposals of the Holroyd Committee, which attached great importance to this question of fire prevention. It must be three years since the Holroyd Committee reported, and, as we understood it at the time, the Government accepted the Report.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. I think I mentioned in my speech that the Committee reported in May of last year.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I apologise. It seems a long time ago. If the noble Lord can tell me that active preparations are in fact being made in the Home Office for a Bill which, I hope, will be brought before Parliament much more quickly than this Bill was, I shall be very grateful.
As I say, I have been very interested in these things over these years. The late Lord Morrison of Lambeth did me the honour of making me a trustee of the Fire Research and Training Trust, which has done very valuable work, within its rather limited financial resources, over these last years. They will be very happy to co-operate with the Home Office and with the Fire Service, with whom we are in close contact already in these matters. In the Trust, fire prevention has always seemed to us to be of outstanding importance, and I hope that measures which will enable it to be carried through, not only for the prevention of danger to life but also for prevention of destruction to property, will soon be brought before Parliament.
6.8 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for not having

621
put my name down on the Order Paper to speak. I should also like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having given him only the briefest notice that I was intending this afternoon to introduce a note of dissent into this debate. I am afraid I did not realise until late this afternoon that this matter was coming before the House to-day. I do not quarrel with anything that has been said up to now by noble Lords in support of the Bill; indeed, I am in no way qualified to speak on the major aspects of the Bill. But there is one part of the Bill which causes me considerable surprise and alarm, and that is the provisions which deal with the enforcement of the law. They are contained in Clauses 18, 19 and 20 of the Bill. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, speaking on behalf of the Opposition and making no criticisms of the Bill other than technical criticisms, I must say I was a little surprised, because it seems to me that one has only to read these clauses under the heading of "Enforcement" to realise that we are giving to fire inspectors powers that we give to nobody else in the land, including, in particular, the police.
Clause 19 provides that a fire inspector can do the following at any reasonable time. He may enter any of the premises which are set out thereafter—which are the premises with which we are concerned in this Bill—and he may inspect in those premises,
"the whole or any part thereof and anything therein";
and he can do that without any suggestion of a search warrant. Those are far wider powers than we give to a police officer because, as I understand it, a police officer can enter premises only if he has either a search warrant or reasonable grounds for believing that an arrestable offence is being committed in those premises.
The clause goes on to say that, having entered the premises in that way—and it is important to bear in mind that some of these premises are dwelling-houses, places where people live—the inspector has power to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary to establish certain facts, such as who is the owner of the premises and matters of that kind. The clause goes on to state that on entering any premises the inspector may
622
"take with him a constable if he has reasonable cause to apprehend any serious obstruction in the execution of the powers conferred on him by this subsection."
Then we come to the most remarkable provision of all. Paragraph (d) of subsection (1) gives the inspector power,
"for the purpose of any examination or inquiry under paragraph (b) above … to require any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be the owner or the occupier of the premises or to be a person employed to work therein or otherwise having responsibilities in relation thereto"—
such as, I suppose, a caretaker—
"to answer … such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask and to sign a declaration of the truth of his answers."
Not only that, my Lords. I have left out a parenthesis which states that, in requiring that person to answer any questions which the inspector thinks fit to ask, the inspector can insist that the questions are answered
"(in the absence of persons other than any whom the inspector may allow to be present)".
So if the man says, "I should like to see my solicitor", and the inspector replies, "I do not want your solicitor to be present", the inspector can require the man to answer his questions in the absence of his solicitor, and indeed of any other adviser. Under the Judges' Rules this is the very thing we forbid the police to do, yet this is what is being written into this Bill.
Then subsection (3) of Clause 19 states:
"A person who—
"(a) without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an inspector under subsection (1) above"—
that includes answering questions—is guilty of an offence. If he says, "No, I do not want to say anything", he is then guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50. Furthermore, any person who
"(b) prevents, or attempts to prevent, any other person from appearing before an inspector or from answering any question to which an inspector may, by virtue of that subsection, require an answer"—
that is, any person who advises the man or attempts to prevent him from giving an answer to the inspector; for example, a solicitor who advises his client to say nothing—also becomes liable under this subsection on summary conviction to a fine of £50. I always knew that my profession of a solicitor was a hazardous

623
one, but I did not realise until now that it was so hazardous as that.
Subsection (4) states that when a person, who is called upon to give an answer of this kind, is called upon to make a declaration as to the truth of his answers, that
"answer given by a person in pursuance of a requirement … shall not be admissible in evidence against that person or, in England and Wales, the husband or wife of that person in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, other than proceedings for an offence in respect of that answer under the Perjury Act 1911".
Under Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911, to give a false answer on an occasion of that kind—not under oath, but when called upon to make a declaration or a statement under the provisions of a general public Act of Parliament—is a misdemeanour carrying with it a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
So we have the position that a fire inspector can go in and ask anybody on the premises whatever questions he thinks fit, and if the person refuses to answer he immediately renders himself liable to a fine of up to £50; while anybody who assists him or advises him not to give any answer renders himself liable to a fine of up to £50. Then, if the man sees fit to comply with the inspector's requirement he is not allowed to call in his solicitor or other adviser, and if he will not answer he is liable to a fine. But if he sees fit to make any false statement at all, he can be prosecuted under the Perjury Act or under a clause of this Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is not perjury unless it is deliberately false.
LORD FOOT: Certainly, my Lords. I accept that it is only if it is wilfully and knowingly false. But if he wilfully makes a false statement he becomes liable under the Perjury Act, as well as under a subsequent provision of this Bill.
I do no more than draw attention to these provisions. I realise that it may very well be said that almost corresponding provisions appear in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. But they are no better for having been on the Statute Book since 1963, and they may have been on it for a great deal longer. Only the other day in another
624
connection, when talking about the Dangerous Drugs Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was prepared to concede to me that something which had been on the Statute Book since 1923, which touched upon civil liberties, was objectionable and he was good enough to put it right. I hope that between now and the Committee stage, the noble Lord will be ready to look at this provision, too, to see whether it is really necessary, for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Bill, to strike such a serious blow, as I think, against the cause of civil rights in this country.
6.19 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, in the Explanatory Memorandum on page iv of this Bill there is a glancing reference to the question of additional fire avoidance provisions in establishments such as hospitals and homes for old people. As I read Clause 30, which is not a particularly happily drafted clause, it brings within the general scope of the Bill responsibility for fire precautions. These have heretofore not been the responsibility of the local authorities. The question of fire in hospitals, especially hospitals for the mentally ill and subnormal as well as homes for old people, is one which has exercised the minds of successive Ministers and Secretaries of State for a long time. Several of your Lordships have made reference to the recent tragedy at Grenoble, but only three and a half years ago we had a serious fire at a mental hospital which caused many deaths. The real problem there was not so much the existing provision of equipment or the drills which were to be put into operation if fire should break out but the peculiarities of a system which had been prejudiced by gross shortages of staff.
Again, up and down this country there are hospitals for old people, for the mentally infirm and for the subnormal, which were built over a hundred years ago and which have been added to piecemeal; and although it would be grossly unfair to say that the authorities concerned—namely, the group hospital management committees or the Regional Hospital Boards—have neglected this matter, the whole thing has been subjected to lack of capital available to carry out rebuilding, to provide improved access

625
and the like. Only two years ago, in a hospital for elderly women in East Anglia, the cost of reconstruction was so severe that a decision to improve the situation, to make the place safe, had been postponed from year to year, and the local hospital management committee quite rightly, quite justifiably, were incensed when criticisms were levelled against them for not having carried out work which was obviously necessary. Everybody, right up to Ministry level, knew it was needed.
If this were a single case of an old building in the country, perhaps not too much consideration would be given to this example, but I do not think it is. These old buildings, so many of which have still to be used for these purposes, are not easily nor cheaply altered in order to make them safe. Yet, so far as I am aware, even under this Bill there is no obligation to secure an independent, an individual, provision of finance to carry out the necessary work. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about the need for this sort of work, and then goes on to say:
"However, it is not considered that the total would be significant, in view of the attention to fire precautions which is already paid by the Crown and local authorities in premises for which they are responsible".
I have no doubt at all that group hospital management committees and Area Boards have paid a lot of attention to this problem, but if you have not the finance necessary to do the work, nothing can be done. I believe it is a huge financial problem, and not a matter of insignificance, as is suggested in this Memorandum.
Clause 6 of the Bill relates to the contents of fire certificates, and subsection (1)(e) refers to the listing of the points where equipment is sited and the location in the buildings of the means for giving to persons in the premises warning in case of fire. One can have the best provision, the best equipment and the best accesses, but if the staff are not there to deal with the weaknesses of certain types of patient, what can be done? Indeed, the problem of surreptitious smoking by certain categories of old and mentally-feeble people is well known. Many tires start from smoking in bed, and although such behaviour is extremely difficult to control, it seems to me that much more attention
626
should be paid in this Bill to this particular problem. I understood the Minister to say that the provisions of the Bill would not be enforced rapidly unless some incident which was too urgent to be neglected cropped up, but I think that in the case of these hospitals this is a matter which needs urgent attention. I certainly do not blame existing authorities, but I do blame a long line of Governments who have failed to see that there is adequate financial provision for the purpose.
6.26 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. It seems to me that most, although not all, of your Lordships feel that this is a desirable Bill, and have welcomed it. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is the political godfather of the Bill, which has taken many years to arrive in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in opening, reflected on the nature of a Parliamentary system under which it has taken some six or seven years for this Bill to be introduced; and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had a very profound point when he remarked on the burden which would have lain on the consciences of those in successive Governments who had some responsibility in this respect had a really serious fire occurred in premises which are covered by this Bill. He said that the burden would have been the heavier if the Bill, having been drafted, was in existence but had not been introduced for want of sufficient Parliamentary time, other matters being thought to be more pressing. We can all be grateful that this has not in fact been the case.
My noble friend Lord Brooke also remarked, very wisely from his experience in this subject, on the need to have properly trained people in the premises covered under the Bill—places of public resort, institutions and others—and this is obviously of considerable importance, because people can place too much reliance on mechanical forms of escape. The need to have trained personnel is extremely important, and the fire certificate procedure in this Bill can require trained staff to be present, and the provision of attendants in appropriate places—in this connection, one thinks, particularly of

627
theatres and cinemas. The fire services are already closely in touch, and I gain the impression that they are increasingly in touch. They are turned to for advice in getting one or two members of the staffs of different establishments to acquire some familiarity with fire prevention. But I should make the point that fire-fighting, of course, is the responsibility of the fire services, and nobody else; and this is the real safeguard.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked what improvements had been made in fire prevention techniques since the end of the war. I think it is one of the most significant statistics that I have seen that in the Greater London area the average time taken by the London Fire Brigade to answer a "999" call is between three and four minutes. That speaks very well for the efficiency of the fire services.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, felt that the Bill should go further than it does. He remarked on the fact that he understood that only about 30 deaths had occurred in the premises covered under the Bill. I am informed that that is true of places of public resort, but it is not true if all the premises covered under the Bill, including blocks of flats, are taken. We get a figure of about 230 deaths in all premises covered under the Bill—230 out of a total of 865, which is a very significant number indeed. I could perhaps also make the comment that although, happily, there have been very few deaths in places of public resort, when they do occur—such as the fire at Grenoble which has been mentioned several times—they can be very serious. In that one fire, 140 people lost their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also asked me—pressed me, correctly—on what is being done in the way of public education on the subject of fire prevention. This is a matter of importance, and the Holroyd Committee emphasised that it is. We are aware of the need not only to maintain what has been done so far by way of printed publications, lectures, demonstrations and so forth, but also to use other media. Television has been used fairly consistently by the Central Office of Information, and the noble Lord will be interested to hear that a
628
pilot television campaign is taking place in the North-East of England, accompanied by a built-in research project into the effectiveness of this particular type of publicity. We hope that the information gathered in this campaign, which is in the nature of a test, will enable us to plan national campaigns with greater effectiveness in the future. The noble Lord can be assured that the programme is one of expansion.
The noble Lord also asked me about houses in multiple occupation, which are not covered under this Bill. The reason why they are not covered, although they may be divided into smaller lettings, into rooms or small flats, is that provision is already made for them in the Housing Acts, as I mentioned in opening. Under these Acts, the housing authorities may require such means of escape as they consider necessary to be provided in any house in multiple occupation. "Means of escape" has been taken by the local authorities—the housing authorities—to deal with such matters as external fire escapes; fire-proofing of doors and staircases; self-closing fire-resisting doors; separation of basement and upper floors; smoke stopping and so on. Given the nature and state of repair of many houses in multiple occupation and the limited means of the occupiers—matters which were given close attention during the passage of the Housing Act 1969—it scarcely seems right to impose on those concerned the full rigour of the fire certificate procedure, which will apply to the premises we have been debating this afternoon. In the circumstances, we believe that the local authorities have adequate powers to deal with the basic requirements for the safety of occupants of houses in multiple occupation in the future. So I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the local authorities are very conscious of their duties in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, made a powerful speech on Clauses 18 and 19, the clauses concerned with enforcement. As he said, these provisions are modelled on those contained in recent legislation—in the Factories Act 1961 and in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. He remarked that it did not make them any the better for that. If Parliament placed them on the Statute Book at that time and if, in his view, the powers

629
were too great, that was no justification for including them in the present legislation. But in this particular instance it is relevant to say to him that if in the last ten years these powers of entry had given rise to instances where people felt that undesirable intrusion by fire inspectors had occurred, we should have heard of it. What I can say to him is that I want to study his remarks, as I think he would like me to do, for this is something that we could come back to in Committee. It is in a sense a Committee stage point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said at this stage, for it will give me plenty of time to look into it in greater detail and to debate it with him on Committee. But as my noble friend Lord Brooke remarked—and this is also my impression—out of all the thousands of complaints that Ministers in the Home Office see every year on a very wide range of activities by people with power under legislation, the police and others, there are very few which relate to the fire services. I hesitate to speak without checking on the position, but I shall have an opportunity to do so. This is something that we ought to look at and discuss at a later stage.
This comment also applies to the detailed points made by Lord Burntwood, with his considerable knowledge of hospital administration. I should like to study what he had to say about Clause 6 and other parts of the Bill, and to follow up his remarks at a later stage in the Bill. I am grateful therefore to noble Lords who took part in this debate, and although the Bill is a long and technical measure, we have to-day discussed some of the issues of policy that arise out of it. I shall be happy to follow up these and other issues at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMITS) REGULATIONS 1971

  MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMITS ON MOTOR WAYS) REGULATIONS 1971
  6.37 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, for the convenience of the House and with your Lordships' permission, may I take together the two sets of Regulations standing on the Order Paper in my name? I beg to move that the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1971 and the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1971, both dated the 28th January, 1971, copies of which were laid before this House on February 4, be approved.
  Maximum speed limits for specified classes of vehicles were set out in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967. Under Section 78, subsections (2) and (4), of that Act, the Secretary of State for the Environment may, by regulation subject to approval of each House of Parliament, vary the speed limits. Schedule 5 to the Act sets out the limits currently applying to the specified classes of vehicles on roads generally. Under the identical power of Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which Section 78 of the 1967 Act replaced, the Minister of Transport made the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Motorways) Regulations 1966 which continue to have the effect of substituting as respects vehicles driven on motorways a different schedule of speed limits from that applicable to vehicles on roads generally.
  The first set of Regulations for which approval is sought substitutes two new sub-paragraphs for sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) of the 1967 Schedule, so making the following changes in limits apply on all-purpose roads. The speed limit of 40 m.p.h. applicable to goods vehicles is raised to 50 m.p.h. where the unladen weight of the vehicle does not exceed 30 cwt. and a trailer is not drawn. The increased speed limit for light goods vehicles on general purpose roads will enable the vehicles concerned to keep up more

  631
  readily with the general traffic flow, and the reduced need for other vehicles to overtake them will benefit road safety.
  The current speed limit of 40 m.p.h. is unrealistic for these vehicles, which are basically derivative of private cars, with comparable performance and braking capacity. The removal of the speed limit altogether, in line with the position of private cars, is not warranted on grounds of safety, having regard to the somewhat poorer accident rate. Light goods vehicles are frequently more heavily loaded, with correspondingly longer braking distances, than private cars; and the driver has more restricted visibility. The 50 m.p.h. limit is a sensible compromise.
  The effect of the second Regulation for which approval is sought is to introduce a speed limit of 60 m.p.h. applicable to goods vehicles exceeding 3 tons unladen weight when driven on motorways, while retaining the existing limit of 50 m.p.h. applicable to public service vehicles when drawing trailers, and 40 m.p.h. applicable to all other motor vehicles, including the goods vehicles I have mentioned, when drawing a trailer which has less than four wheels or is a close-coupled four-wheeled trailer. The 60 m.p.h. motorway speed limit will apply to those classes of vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden which exceed 3 tons unladen weight; that is to say heavy motor cars, motor tractors and locomotives.
  These classes of vehicles are prohibited from using the third lane on motorways and are currently subject only to the overall motorway speed limit of 70 m.p.h. Although better standards of maintenance are now being achieved for these vehicles under the goods vehicles plating and testing scheme there is still room for improvement. Other reasons for the special limit are that the vehicles require longer braking distances than light vehicles and generally their tyres are not suitable for sustained high speeds. The Secretary of State intends, however, that the limit shall be kept under review in the light of progress with improvements in design and maintenance. I hope that the House will now approve the two sets of Regulations. I beg to move:
  Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1971, be approved.
  That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1971, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
  6.42 p.m.
  LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think it entirely sensible that the speed limit should be under constant review as our road network improves and standards of maintenance are improved by enforcement. I think it right that the very valuable and very expensive capital equipment which goes trundling along the trunk roads of this country should reach the maximum speed and productivity, and travel at the maximum safe speed. For this reason I think it entirely sensible that the Government should introduce these two Orders.
  I have one question about a point which has just struck me, having travelled on the motorways and observed the very heavy transport from all over Europe which uses them, including vehicles from as far away as Bulgaria. Is a Bulgarian road transport driver, who may be driving down the M.1, informed about these speed limits? What is the machinery which ensures this, and what guarantees are there that the standards of maintenance of these foreign vehicles are as high as we expect from our own transport vehicles? I expect that in fact it is very high and is carefully supervised by the State. Nevertheless, that thought struck me. A foreign driver may be in this country for 24 hours and may get involved in a minor accident resulting from a defect in some part of his vehicle; or he may exceed the speed limit. Is there any way of ensuring that any infringement of the regulations is brought to the notice of his employer?
  6.44 p.m.
  LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, at this late hour I want to speak briefly on these Orders for two reasons; first, to put on record the views of the Freight Transport Association with which I have a commercial connection, and secondly, to say a word as Chairman of the Trustees of the British Industry Roads Campaign whose members have an active interest in any progressive move to lessen congestion on our roads. And, of course, higher speeds, with due regard to safety is one such move, as noble Lords have said.

  633
  The increase in the speed limit for light vans from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. is long overdue. Although I wholly accept what my noble friend has said as to the possible top limit of speed for these vehicles, this will contribute to road safety for the reasons he gave, in that it will make a better combination between the speeds of slow and fast moving vehicles in one traffic flow. It will, in fact, benefit some 900,000 vehicles. The 60 m.p.h. limit for most goods vehicles on motorways is also acceptable for the time being, and I am very glad that my noble friend has said that this speed limit will be kept under review.
  I do not have to remind my noble friend that in the letter of consultation circulated in April, 1970, by the then Minister of Transport, it was said that that review would be made in the light of progress in vehicle design and maintenance by the end of 1972. I do not want to tie my noble friend down, but at the same time this would seem a reasonable target date. By that time all load-carrying vehicles will have the same braking standards as private motor cars, and annual testing should by then be firmly established for all commercial vehicles over 30 cwt. unladen weight which are more than one year old. All these are safety factors.
  Equally, by that time the majority of drivers will have had to qualify for a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence; and as my noble friend has said we have the effective enforcement of operators' licences, which should ensure higher maintenance standards over all commercial vehicles. Therefore, by then it should be no longer necessary to differentiate between the speeds of commercial vehicles and other traffic on the motorways.
  It has already been said, and I have no need to remind my noble friend of it, that these things can bring about a considerable reduction in congestion and a consequent saving in industrial costs. The third point is not in fact covered by these Regulations, but I think that I am in order in referring to it briefly. It concerns the speed limit for commercial vehicles on dual carriageways as opposed to motorways. It is the opinion of people in the industry that the time has come when these limits could safely be increased from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h., again with
  634
  consequent benefits accruing and congestion reduced.
  My fourth point is that goods vehicles with draw-bar trailers, other than certain light trailers, are still restricted to 30 m.p.h. I think this limit must be considered to be out-dated in the light of modern developments in braking and in vehicle stability. The use of these vehicles which tow draw-bar trailers has greatly increased since it became unnecessary to carry an attendant on vehicle trailer combinations. Therefore an increase in the speed limit of 40 m.p.h. would bring them into line with goods vehicles generally, including articulated vehicles, and again it would have a beneficial effect on traffic flow.
  These points were put to me by the Freight Transport Association, but I put them forward not only for that reason but also on their individual merits; and because they make a positive contribution to the reduction of road congestion which at this present time is adding some 2 per cent, to the costs of industry. Tomorrow, with the possible increase in the cost of fuel, congestion may add very much more. There is no doubt at all that at a time when industrial costs are soaring the provision of roads which will speed traffic from the factories, and particularly to our ports, must be the top priority of Government. But sensible easement of commercial speed limits, consistent with safety, on good roads, is certainly a positive aid to effective distribution and to keeping down costs. I hope that my noble friend may be able to give me a reply to one or two of the points I have made.
  6.50 p.m.
  LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wish to comment on one point. I am quite happy about these two Orders as they stand, but there is one point about which I am not certain. My noble friend said that heavy goods vehicles were prohibited from using the third lane on motorways. I am wondering whether it would be practicable (I am not at all certain that it would be) to confine them entirely to the first lane, because of one fact that is overtaking. Lorries overtaking each other can sometimes take a long time to do so. I saw one frightful case on quite a narrow road only a few days ago when

  635
  there was not much more than a difference of about 5 m.p.h. between the speed of the two lorries, and it took well over a minute for the one to overtake the other. That could be a source of danger. I do not know whether, in confining lorries to the first lane, it might be necessary to make a minimum speed limit so that one would not get behind a slow moving vehicle and not be able to overtake it. Perhaps my noble friend would give consideration to this point.
  LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have supported what is contained in these Regulations. I intervene only because I am impressed by the common sense that has been shown. I thought your Lordships would like to know that I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in Australia, from the office of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It was held up by the postal strike, but I got it on Monday. He writes about the debate in your Lordships' House on January 13 and says:
  "I am having the record of the debate photocopied to send to State and Federal Ministers of Transport in this country, who would be the better for reading it."
  I thought that particularly the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would be glad to know that the proceedings in your Lordships' House on this subject do not go unnoticed.
  6.52 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken and welcomed these proposals. With regard to the questions that have been asked, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, wanted to know whether foreign lorries and heavy vehicles, when coming on to our motorways, would be aware of these regulations and whether it would be possible to enforce them. As to the latter point, regulations between the countries are getting tied up more and more. As to the question about speed limit signs I am advised that it will be open to the operators' Association to make sure that foreign operators are informed. The operators will be responsible for the knowledge of the foreign driver who may be driving a foreign vehicle.
  636
  My noble friend Lord Redmayne, whose interest in this matter is well-known, asked several questions, and some of them I am able to answer to a small degree. We shall certainly be reviewing the 60 m.p.h. speed limit, to see whether it is having a good effect or otherwise. He wanted to know also whether commercial vehicles might be allowed to have an increased speed on dual carriageways other than motorways. I am advised that this is open to objection, because the dual carriageways in our country are not of any standard nature: some are of short duration, some of long duration and some end very suddenly, and there are all sorts of hazards. Then we are somewhat unwilling to impose on heavy goods vehicle drivers too many regulations. They are already going to have to remember two limits, one of 60 m.p.h. on motorways, and the second of 40 m.p.h. on other roads. If we introduced yet another limit for dual carriageways, we should perhaps complicate matters too much, and it might result in less observation of limits.
  My noble friend Lord Redmayne also asked that the limits for goods vehicles with draw-bar trailers should be increased to 40 m.p.h. We feel that if we were to raise the present 30 m.p.h. limit for these trailer combinations on all-purpose roads to 40 m.p.h. it would not be safe. It may be possible to reconsider this point when braking standards of goods vehicles are raised. These regulations, which were made, I think I am right in saying, in 1968, had to take into consideration that there are a great many old vehicles on the road, and concessions were therefore made in the regulations of efficiency standards which we should like to see altered. When this has been done, and conditions have improved, we have to consider also the ratio to be imposed between the weights of the lorry and the trailer if we raise the speed limit.
  My noble friend Lord Redmayne asked me also about the general flow of traffic, and this is one of the most important functions of any transport advisory body advising how to keep the transport moving. We all know that time is money, and in the interests of industry and everybody we must do this. My right honourable friend is keeping this very much under review.

  637
  My noble friend Lord Somers wanted to know about heavy goods vehicles being confined to one lane. We will take note of what he has said, but with a speed limit of 60 m.p.h. (up to now there has been no speed limit on the motorway for these heavy vehicles), it would be slightly unfair to confine all vehicles of this sort, because even if there is a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. for some heavily laden vehicles, there will still be the need to overtake. On the whole, long-distance lorry drivers are considerate drivers, rather better than average, and this must be left to their common sense.
  I thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier for giving us the heartening news that the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in Australia is following our debates. It is heartening to us to know that our words go so far. With those few words, I hope that your Lordships will approve these two measures.
  LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in his letter indicates that he hopes to be in the House again in June.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW BROKEN HILL CONSOLIDATED LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Examiner's Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported with Amendments.
TORBAY CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
TRENT AND LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  OBJECTIONS TO A.66 ROAD ALTERATIONS
  OBJECTIONS TO A.66 ROAD ALTERATIONS
  CONSERVATION AREAS
  CONSERVATION AREAS
  RESERVE BANK OF RHODESIA: COST AND FUNCTIONS
  RESERVE BANK OF RHODESIA: COST AND FUNCTIONS