Sitting of 29 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Pembrokeshire (Hospital Service)
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now publish the comments sent to him by the Welsh Hospital Board about the report prepared for his Department on the hospital service in Pembrokeshire.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I do not propose to publish the detailed comments I have received on the report. I am studying these comments and I will write to the bodies concerned as soon as possible.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there will be disappointment that the comments will not be published, and that it is now more than two and a half months since the report was prepared and one and a half months since those comments were received? When can we expect action on the recommendations of the report?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The recommendations and the report as a whole have been well received, and I know that people are anxious to hear my views, which I hope to make known very soon.

    Milford Haven (Port Medical Facilities)
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the provision of port medical facilities at Milford Haven.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The port medical facilities at Milford Haven were discussed recently between the Port Health Authority and the Chief Medical Officer of the Welsh Office. I understand that further discussions are planned.
    Mr. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the port medical officer of health cannot fulfil the obligations laid on him by the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1966, or by the World Health Organisation without the co-operation of the Welsh Hospital Board and his Department, and that there is disappointment at the result of the discussions to which he has referred? Will he assure the House that he will give this matter his earnest consideration?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, indeed. That was why I was able to say to my hon. Friend that further discussions are planned in the reasonably near future.

    West Flintshire
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to visit West Flintshire.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: On llth June.
    Sir A. Meyer: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that when he comes to West Flintshire—always assuming that he is able to get there along the A55 in the summer months—he will be a familiar and popular figure as he walks around the streets. Will he draw the attention of his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment to the unusually high unemployment figures, which may not be visible to him in the summer months but would be if he came in the winter, and ask them to consider what has happened to Oswestry and whether the same should not happen to West Flintshire?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am well aware of the figures which my hon.

    1123
    Friend has mentioned. The area is subject to considerable seasonal variations, and a high percentage of those registered as unemployed in the Rhyl area are elderly retired people who have come to the area. I assure my hon. Friend that the coverage of assisted and non-assisted areas will be kept under review.

    Local Government Reform
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what comments he has received from Flintshire County Council on his proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: None, so far, Sir.
    Sir A. Meyer: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that there will be a general welcome in Flintshire for his decision to follow one of the few wise recommendations bequeathed to him by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), to resist suggestions that there should be an enormous, cumbrous county spanning the whole of North Wales, and, on the contrary, to provide two smaller counties? Wherever else he may lack friends in his proposals for the reorganisation of local government, he will find a great deal of support in Flintshire.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, Sir. Although I have received no official comments from the Flintshire County Council, I have had many comments from officials, councillors and people in Flintshire, and I am fully aware that the majority of people support the division of North Wales into two counties.
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the informal discussions which he had prior to publishing his proposals for local government reform in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. I know of no predecent or reason for doing so.
    Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the boundaries in his gerrymandering proposals appear to be based not on local government needs but upon last June's Conservative Party's canvas cards, and seem to have as their ultimate objective the aim
    1124
    of robbing the Labour Party of up to seven parliamentary seats in Wales? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he was given the twin posts of Chairman of the Conservative Party and Secretary of State for Wales?
    Further, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give two categorical assurances—first, that there was no consultation between himself and officials of the Conservative Party on the effect that these boundaries would have upon the party political balance in Wales; and, second, that there is no intention to bring forward before 1979 the Report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: That sort of exaggerated language has already been condemned by the Welsh newspapers in the matter of local Government reorganisation. Many of the objections that I have received to local government reorganisation have come from people whom the hon. Gentleman would identify with the Tory Party. I only wish that all the supporters of the Conservative Party in Wales were 100 per cent. behind the local government reorganisation proposals. Before these proposals were put forward, I obviously had a large number of discussions with a wide variety of people of all political complexions, and it would be absolutely pointless to try to list them all.
    Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate answer and the inability of the Secretary of State to give assurances of considerable constitutional importance, I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Dental Service (Manning)
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from dental organisations regarding the manning of the dental service in Wales; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: None, Sir.
    Mr. John: Did not the hon. Gentleman receive representations from the secretary of the chief dental officers of Wales in December last to the effect that the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to me that there were 120 dental officers employed in the school

    1125
    dental service of Wales was misleading to this House because there are, in fact, only 81? Will he now take the opportunity to correct this misleading statement, as he should have done months ago?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was aware that the hon. Gentleman had asked a Question of my right hon. and learned Friend and had received an Answer. I was not aware that there was any difficulty about the Answer. If the hon. Gentleman will see me afterwards about this matter, I will most certainly look into it.

    Dee Crossing Scheme
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he now proposes to initiate the Dee Crossing Scheme.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) on 1st March.—[Vol. 812, c. 1202–3.]
    Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State deny the statement that for the foreseeable future the Cabinet will not give the go-ahead to this grandiose scheme for this crossing of the Dee because it will not, or cannot, obtain the necessary financial support? Will he also deny the statement that, if there is to be any priority in regard to barrages across estuaries or bays, it will be Morecambe Bay that should have priority rather than the Dee Estuary?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This is a very important proposal, and a decision will be taken jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself after consultations with other Departments. It is a matter of considerable complexity, and, as I said previously, it would be wrong to rush into a hasty decision.

    Dee Road Bridge, Bangor-is-y-coed
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Denbighshire and Flintshire County Councils about a new road bridge over the River Dee at Bangor-is-y-coed.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My Department has been in regular touch with bath county councils and remains willing to give any further help it can in resolving the disagreements between them.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been need for a bridge at Bangor-is-y-coed for many years, that the present bridge is frequently closed causing considerable inconvenience to people in the area, and that the Denbigh County Council is now in process of considering its seventh or eighth proposal on this matter? Would the Minister consider taking direct action to move the two county councils into action to make sure that the inertia of the two county councils is not regarded as having been laid down by divine ordinance? Cannot the authorities get a move on and get the bridge built?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, this is a principal road bridge and the responsibility rests entirely on the two county councils. If I can be of any help in settling the problem, I shall be glad to do what I can at the request of both county councils.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call for reports from a sample of Welsh local authorities regarding their implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, to date; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is too early to seek to survey progress. Two Sections of the Act are not yet in force and several others have been in operation for only four months.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I am disappointed with that answer. Considering that the Act has been on the Statute Book since last August, having passed through the House without a Division and having been accepted by both sides, should it not now be implemented?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: With respect, that may be the view of the hon. Gentleman, but the matter is one of some complication. The hon. Gentleman will see that on 11th February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services gave an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on similar lines to that which I have given today.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that little encouragement is being given to local authorities to try

    1127
    to do anything about the Act, and, indeed, the Government's attitude is a positive disincentive to action. If the Government will not activate Part I of the Act, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that little or nothing can be expected from local authorities other than what has been done by local authorities in my area, which have paid regard to this matter by starting to compile registers?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I cannot accept everything he says. I would expect the recently formed social services committees of local authorities to be considering the needs of the physically disabled as a matter of priority and the provisions of the Act to be given full weight when competing priorities have been settled.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the chronic sick and disabled regard the Secretary of State as their watchdog on the provisions of the Act and that they look to him for guidance and the necessary financial assistance to enable local authorities fully to implement the legislation which so affects the people concerned.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation of Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, in Wales; and if he will give guidance to Welsh local authorities regarding the collection of information about Section 1 of this Act.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Order which is to be introduced shortly to bring Section 1 of the Act into operation on 1st October will apply to Wales. My Department will distribute to Welsh local authorities guidance on the use of survey techniques prepared by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware that a survey will not identify one disabled person? Is he further aware that we want to identify actual disabled people in constituencies in Wales and in England and that a survey will not
    1128
    carry out this task? Will he not set an example and let Wales take a lead in this matter?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The first need is to assess the size and nature of the demand for services under the Act, and, in our view, the use of sampling and survey techniques is the better way to do this.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Is not the Minister aware that this cumbersome method of taking sampling surveys is easily got over by enlisting the voluntary help of the Boy Scout movement, which can accomplish the same thing at a cheaper rate and in a shorter time? Will he not urge other local authorities to do what has been done in my area; namely, to prepare leaflets informing all disabled people of their rights under the Act and leaving room for notification on the form of any person in a household so affected? Does he not agree that it is not the compilation of a register but the actual identification of people that matters in this respect, and that the best way to achieve these ends is to harness the help of the many bodies which are willing to undertake this work if they are given a lead by the Government?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I know full well the hon. Gentleman's interest in this important matter, and I can assure him that the Government are anxious to press on with it. Although I cannot add to my original answer, I will look further into the matter.

    School Counsellors
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the 23 teachers in Wales who have received training in educational counselling are in a full-time post of school counsellor, in a part-time post, or not counselling at all, respectively.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that, of the 23 teachers referred to, one has taken a post outside Wales, five are not employed on counselling work at present and 17 spend part of their time on this work.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that the state of affairs revealed by his answer is even more unsatisfactory than that revealed by his answer on St. David's Day, when he said that 23

    1129
    teachers had received training in counselling? Would he apprise local authorities of the importance of this subject in order to ensure that those who are trained educationally are able to undertake counselling?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the provision that is made. I read the hon. Gentleman's speech on the Adjournment on the subject and I agree with much of what he said. Certainly, a great deal of advice and many publications are available to the Welsh Office, and we shall see that they are distributed even more than they are at the moment.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Secretary of State try to introduce into the programme of school counselling a system whereby counsellors could explain to school-leavers how to claim dole, since this year in a number of areas of Wales this problem will confront young people before they even get a job?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say that that matter should be part of the function of school counselling.

    Pembrey (Gunnery Range)
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now publish the report of the public inquiry into the proposal to locate the Shoeburyness Gunnery Range at Pembrey.
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will announce the findings of the court of inquiry into the proposed establishment of an artillery range at Royal Air Force, Pembrey, before a decision is made on the question of a third London airport.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already indicated that the inspector's findings will be published when the matter has been fully considered.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's reply is most disappointing. Does he not recollect that on St. David's Day, a month ago, he said that he would announce his decision very soon? Could he now say what is the reason for the delay, and, in particular, assure the House and the people of Wales that this delay is in no way caused by the deliberations
    1130
    which are now taking place on the location of a third London Airport?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: There are many factors which have to be taken into consideration, and one must give very careful and detailed consideration to this matter. One of the factors which the Government must take into account is the siting of the airport.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Would the Secretary of State agree that, unless this decision is published before a choice is made about a site for the third London airport, people not only in Wales but in the country as a whole will think that skulduggery is afoot, since these are essentially separate issues and the question of amenity concerning the coastline in South-West Wales should not be muddled up with air traffic and air transport issues for the South-East of England?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no skulduggery afoot, but we have to take into account all the many important considerations. I hope to announce a decision as soon as possible.

    Industry and Unemployment
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) to what extent, at his meeting with the Welsh Council on 29th March, 1971, he discussed unemployment as a problem of social and industrial imbalance between the various areas of Wales;
    (2) to what extent at his meeting with the Welsh Council on 19th March, 1971, he discussed the procurement of further financial investment in Welsh industry.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My dinner with the Council on 19th March afforded me the opportunity of reviewing generally its work over the past three years and of commenting on current problems in Wales. I understand that the Council will shortly be formally sending me its latest views on the economic situation, including problems of unemployment and investment.
    Mr. McBride: Putting two Questions together when they are not related is a very bad thing. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is desirable, if we are to assist in solving unemployment in Wales, to minimise the

    1131
    amount of migration of all types of skilled workers from the Principality, the loss of whom could cause serious industrial imbalance? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as a result of the high level of unemployment any further migration of skilled workers from Wales would place a serious strain upon Welsh local authorities, in that they would have to provide social services and amenities while at the same time suffering from the serious imbalance caused by a falling rate yield? Is not the Minister's duty, given the difficulty of obtaining investment in Wales, to see that a financial injection is given to Wales, where the policies of his party and the inattention of his party have resulted in things crashing around their ears? Could not he persuade the hopeless Government of which he is a member to do something about it?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am just as concerned as the hon. Member about the high incidence of unemployment in Wales, which has persisted for many years. I am anxious to do all that is possible to bring that level down. But unemployment in Wales and the economic position of Wales cannot be isolated from that of the United Kingdom generally. As soon as the United Kingdom has an expanded economy and a reasonable rate of growth which is not being overrun by inflationary wage claims or undermined by industrial unrest, the unemployment rate will come down.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the new feature that is causing alarm in Wales is the fact that new industries brought into the country are beginning to close down, even though there is no rundown in the basic industry of coal? Is the Minister further aware that his complacency, as shown in the reply that he gave me when he said that he would discuss the economic situation with the Welsh Council only if the matter was raised by others, is appalling, and that he needs to pull his socks up if he is to do his duty by Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that when I went to see the Welsh Council it was in order to have dinner at the end of its meeting. I did not attend its meeting.
    1132
    I had some informal discussions with members of the Council. I addressed them, as I have told the House. I have already said that I am very concerned about unemployment in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has heard of the policies of this Government. I am satisfied that they will pay dividends, and that unemployment in Wales will decrease.
    Mr. John Morris: The Minister says that he is concerned about the high rate of unemployment in Wales. I want to know what he is doing about it. Does he agree that since 18th June no new decisions for further dispersal of Government establishments in Wales have been made? Will he confirm or deny that since that day action to bring 1,500 Ministry of Defence jobs to the Cardiff area has been stopped?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask me a specific Question perhaps he will put one down. I should like notice of the matter before giving a firm answer.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the reasons for unemployment are varied, and that at this moment 250 people are losing their jobs in my constituency because of the cancellation of defence contracts by the previous Government?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: There are many reasons for unemployment in Wales. The inheritance which this Government had has caused the difficulties that we are in at the moment. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) knows—I shall give him a figure anyway—that from 1964 to when we took over in June, 1970, there were 68,000 fewer males in employment in Wales.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the time is running out when he can rely on those foolish excuses? He has been in power for nine months and the day has come when he must take responsibility for the mounting and dangerous unemployment in Wales. Is he further aware that it is absolutely staggering that he cannot tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) what has happened in terms of the Government's decision about defence employment in Cardiff?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The unemployment situation in Wales is of considerable

    1133
    concern to all of us, but the right hon. Gentleman must not exaggerate the situation or try to cause unnecessary despondency. The differential between the respective unemployment rates of Wales and Great Britain is less than it was a year ago. It was 1·3 points for the first quarter of this year, compared with 1·5 points for the first quarter of last year.
    Mr. McBride: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales, what representations he has received regarding the March figures relating to Welsh unemployment; and what replies he has given.
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the trend towards heavier unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Representatives of the South Wales Advisory Committee of the T.U.C. raised this matter with me on Friday. Representatives of the North Wales Advisory Committee made similar representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State earlier this month. We expressed our concern about the high rates of unemployment which have prevailed in Wales for several years and discussed the current economic and industrial policies of the Government with them.
    Mr. John: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the policies of which he seems proud—although he should not be—are the very reasons why the unemployment rate is accelerating? Will he now be candid with the House and admit that the substantial number of 68,000 lost jobs in Wales between 1964 and 1970 arose from the policies envisaged by the previous Conservative Government, for which they took no remedial steps?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Member talks about accelerating unemployment. The number of wholly unemployed in Wales was virtually unchanged between February and March, although in Great Britain as a whole it increased. In par-
    1134
    ticular, the number of males wholly unemployed in Wales declined. The hon. Member talks about the reasons for unemployment. The increase in Wales was due largely to a rise in the temporarily stopped. That was the aftermath of the postal strike, and the repercussions of other industrial disputes, particularly the Ford dispute.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the answer that he has given does not conform to the facts, and that there has been a considerable increase in the underlying figures of wholly unemployed? Should he not be alarmed instead of complacent that, despite the fact that we have had an abnormally mild winter—one of the mildest winters since the war—and that the National Coal Board's pit closure programme is virtually completed, redundancy in Wales for the first 10 weeks has been running at a rate two-and-a-half times that of the annual rate in previous years, while the number of jobs in the pipeline has fallen alarmingly? Does he not realise that the people of Wales will not forgive his complacency and inaction at a time when the underlying unemployment figures are, if anything, being underestimated in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am by no means complacent. I am very anxious to see the figures in Wales considerably improved, and I have every confidence that they will be. But the hon. Gentleman, who has a facility for bringing forward selected figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—might be interested to know that since the June election the percentage increase in unemployment in Wales has been rather less than it has been in Great Britain as a whole.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is it not a fact that, quite regardless of the lamentable inheritance from the previous Government, if the policies now being advocated from the benches opposite—if they are policies which are being advocated—were followed, they would make it quite impossible for anyone to build up profitable industry in Wales, on which future employment prospects must be based?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It was quite clear when we took over office in June, 1970, that the policies which had been pursued by the Labour Party had failed, and that

    1135
    a change of direction was needed. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has made an allegation that I have in some way selectively misled the House. What protection does a back bencher have against such an allegation, and am I able to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain that allegation?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and I am afraid that it is not in my power to give the hon. Gentleman protection.
    Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the unemployment situation is now so grave that he can no longer fall back on bromides and platitudes to explain it? Is he not losing credibility in the Principality because of his absurd and continued suggestion that the situation is the fault of the Previous Government? Is he not aware that the time has now come for his Government to produce an unemployment policy?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already told the House that I am concerned about the high level of unemployment in Wales—[Interruption.]—as I am about the high level of unemployment in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that the Government's policies will have the effect of bringing down this high rate of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "When."] As I have said, a lot of factors must be taken into account. If we can have growth which is not overrun by inflationary wage claims or industrial disputes, unemployment will go down.
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make a ministerial broadcast explaining the effects of Government policies on unemployment and prices in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Chairman of the Tory Party not agree that, whilst the people of Wales have never had any reason to be grateful to the Tory Party, he could at least have taken this opportunity to make a Ministerial broadcast, and explain how the people now unemployed in Wales—and the figure is the highest March figure for many years—
    1136
    can benefit from the income tax reduction when it comes to meeting the increased prices which this Government are deliberately forcing on the people of Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: A Ministerial broadcast would be without precedent and would not be appropriate. I shall explain to the Welsh Grand Committee on 28th April.
    Mr. George Thomas: I understand the Secretary of State's reluctance to go on Welsh television to defend the Government's record in Wales, but will he now tell the House why he is so coy about debating the matter? Will he now be prepared to debate the matter with me on Welsh television, as he was not prepared to do when invited, so that the Welsh people can hear?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The proper place for such a debate is in this House—[Interruption.]—or in the Welsh Grand Committee, and there will be an opportunity—[Interruption.]—for this debate on 28th April. I have discussed the Welsh economic scene on both Welsh radio and television.
    Mr. Gower: Is not the problem of dealing with unemployment in Wales, which is a serious problem, rendered even more difficult by the fact that the Government also inherited a runaway inflation? Is it not appalling that hon. Members opposite should now be exaggerating the position, and so rendering the task even more difficult?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government inherited not only runaway inflation but short-term and medium-term debts to the extent of £1,500 million and the worst industrial relations scene since 1926.
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he expects a rise or fall in the level of male employment in Wales up to the end of 1972.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I expect further new industry to be attracted to Wales as a result of the measures being undertaken by the Government. But, as the previous Administration's experience fully proved, detailed forecasts of changes in employment for a period nearly two years ahead are not possible.
    Mr. Morgan: Putting shallow debating points aside, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that after nine months of Tory Government there is an increase in the level of unemployment in Wales, that investment is stagnant and that the interest of industrialists outside Wales in Welsh industry is declining? Is it not perfectly clear, therefore, that the policies pursued by the Government are irrelevant to the problems of Wales?
    Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a person of integrity, tell the House candidly whether the policy of investment grants is conducive to raising the level of male employment in Wales or otherwise?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The policy of investment grants must not be considered in isolation. One must look at the whole package. I have no doubt that the changes which were announced by the Government will in the long run prove of benefit to Wales.

    Rhondda (Comprehensive School)
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when it is intended to begin the continuation of a new comprehensive secondary school in the mid-Rhondda area.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot say. I understand that because of more urgent projects, the local education authority is not likely to make a formal submission in respect of the proposal for some time.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State indicate that this project is not being held up by the existence of the old Naval Colliery tip, and that if the existence of the tip is restricting the construction of the school he will call on the derelict land unit of the Welsh Office to give the advice necessary to ensure that the tip is cleared so that the comprehensive school can come to that area?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that if the proposed school were built it would require some tip removal to provide the site, but that, I understand, is not the reason for the project being held up. The Glamorgan Education Authority itself decides priorities, and makes submissions to me which, presumably, reflect priority, but the project to which the hon. Gentleman refers
    1138
    has not commanded sufficient priority for submission to me by the authority.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that he regards it as his duty to provide capital funds for the provision of new comprehensive schools in Wales as soon as possible in order to accord with the opinion of the vast majority of the Welsh people?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: In this matter I have to pay attention to submissions which are made to me by the local education authorities.

    Welsh Council (Terms of Reference and Membership)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make in the terms of reference of the Welsh Council; and whom he has appointed as the new Chairman.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall make a statement as soon as possible on the terms of reference and membership of the Welsh Council. I announced on 23rd March that Mr. Melvyn W. Rosser had accepted my invitation to succeed Professor Brinley Thomas as Chairman of the Council.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that he keeps the House waiting an inordinate time for his decision? When will he make this statement about the terms of reference of the Welsh Council? He is getting a reputation for causing the longest delay in Whitehall.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am studying the terms of reference in detail to see whether they need any slight amendment in the interests of greater clarity, but I do not envisage that there will be any substantial changes. As to delay, I have got in touch with the T.U.C., the C.B.I., local authority associations and county and county borough councils, and am now considering their nominations.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Steel Corporation concerning its investment policies in Wales.
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for safeguarding the interests of the steel industry in Wales.
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had concerning the investment policies for the steel industry in Wales; and with whom.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My senior officials have had discussions with members of the Corporation very recently, and I have arranged to meet the Deputy Chairman later this week. I also keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on all questions regarding the steel industry in Wales.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Secretary of State indicated to the Corporation that he supports the decision to hold up the major investment scheme at the Spencer works after the matter had been thoroughly gone into by the Labour Government, and the go-ahead given? Does he appreciate that on 4th March the general manager at the works gave a categorical assurance that this scheme was to go ahead? What effect does he expect this turnabout to have on the morale of the work people? Does he support the idea of keeping a great industry dangling in mid-air? Why does he not stand up for Welsh interests, or else resign and make way for someone who will?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I certainly intend to stand up for Welsh interests and the steel industry in Wales. I am very conscious of the fact that it is the largest single industry in Wales, employing about 70,000 people, and that it should prosper.
    I take it that the hon. Gentleman followed the debate in the House on 18th March. He will have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the revelations that have been made by the Corporation, and will also have heard that a deep-seated review of the whole of the Corporation's development and financial position is being undertaken. I am keeping closely in touch with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Secretary of State aware that on 18th March we not only
    1140
    heard what he has described as the revelations of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but we also heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry say that he would hold up the Llanwern C development scheme? If he, as Secretary of State for Wales, has Welsh interests closely at heart, should he not go to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ask him to make haste with releasing the money required for developing this great industry in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry explained why it was necessary for Llanwern C to be deferred.
    Mr. Coleman: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repudiate those who suggest that Britain's steel needs should be met by importing steel from abroad? Further, will he impress upon his Cabinet colleagues the absolute need for the British Steel Corporation's investment plans to be restored to what they were under the Labour Government? Will he also impress upon the Cabinet the need for Britain to build three new integrated steel plants for the 1980s?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Labour Government created this enormous organisation of the British Steel Corporation. The Corporation is obviously in some difficulty. My anxiety is to see that there is a steel industry in Wales which is viable and can afford proper and lasting employment opportunities for those who work in it.
    Mr. Michael Foot; Does the Secretary of State really mean that he gave his approval to the hold-up in the Llanwern development scheme? Did he say "Yes" on behalf of his Department to the proposal from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that this development should be held up? What did the right hon. Gentleman say to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when it was proposed to abolish the investment grants? What effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that has had upon the steel industry of Wales? When will he make a statement in the House which can give some confidence to those who work in the biggest industry in

    1141
    Wales? Does he realise that every decision taken by the Government has done the gravest injury to the steel industry in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is just repeating what he said in the debate on 18th March. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said at that time. The decision on the deferment was a Government decision. I am a member of the Government and I share the responsibility for it.
    Mr. Foot: In that case will the Secretary of State take care never again to refer in such terms to his inheritance from the Labour Government? The inheritance he had from the Labour Government in the steel industry was a go-ahead on capital investment, and that is what he is reversing.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The full inheritance by the Government in the steel industry will be known only after the deep-seated review has been conducted.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Has the Secretary of State received any representations from the North Wales trade unions about the need to construct an integrated steel works on the bank of the River Dee?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The answer to that is "Yes", Sir.
    Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Hospital Board concerning the development programme at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Monmouthshire; what was the outcome; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to him on 1st March. My Department has regular discussions with the Welsh Hospital Board about its development programme for the Royal Gwent and other hospitals in Wales.—[Vol. 802, c. 1204.]
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister of State think that he is treating this matter in a rather dilatory fashion, particularly as consultants have indicated that they are taking calculated risks in sending patients home before they are properly fit, and that certain general practitioner emergency cases cannot be admitted at all because of shortage of beds? Does he want a major tragedy at this hospital before he takes any urgent action?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have not been dilatory, and I fully realise the problem. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is in very frequent touch with the Welsh Hospital Board on this matter.

    Spectacle Charges
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from National Health executive councils in Wales regarding increased charges for spectacles.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: None, Sir.
    Mr. Roderick: I am rather surprised at the Minister's reply, because I have been receiving representations from all quarters both on the subject of increased charges for spectacles and on the whole range of increased charge for health services. The Minister received a letter from me last week from one authority, but I have others which will arrive on his desk in due course. The Minister and his right hon. Friend—
    Hon. Members: Question!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put this in an interrogatory form. He must ask the Minister whether he is aware of these interesting facts.
    Mr. Roderick: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister think that these increased charges will lead to an improvement in the health of the Welsh people or a deterioration, because he keeps referring to inflationary wage claims? He is inviting inflationary wage claims with the proposed charges.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The letter which the hon. Gentleman sent to me did not come from the executive council, although it came on executive council paper signed by an ophthalmic optician. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, children under

    1143
    16 and those over 16 who are still attending full-time at school will still be exempt from charges for standard lenses, and children's standard frames will be provided free.

    Brecon and Radnor (Redundancies)
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of redundancies, of which he has been notified, in the counties of Brecon and Radnor since 1st January, 1971; and what is his estimate of the number likely in the next three months.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Notification of redundancies is made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I understand that since 1st January this year the Department of Employment has been notified of redundancies involving the loss of 715 jobs. It is not possible to make any estimate of the number likely to be notified to the Department in the future.
    Mr. Roderick: In that case I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can help me by saying whether this includes the figures expected for Teddington Aircraft Controls, which will close on 9th April. I want the Minister to tell the House what he is prepared to do to help in this instance, particularly as this is a factory in a special development area, and the firm intends to transfer operations to Streatham, which is outside a development area. In that case, will the Secretary of State tell the House what he is prepared to do to intervene?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The increase in the redundancies since the reply which was given to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend is due to the closure of Teddington Air Controls. Apart from that, there would be a total of 63 redundancies since 1st January of this year. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the special circumstances in which it was announced that Teddington Air Controls was to be closed. It is a matter of concern, and my Department is in touch with the company.

    Investment Incentives (Welsh Council's Report)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the date on which he received the Welsh Council Report on Investment Incentives;
    1144
    whether he discussed this report with the Welsh Council when he attended its meeting on 19th/20th March; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The report was formally submitted to me immediately before Christmas, but I had previously discussed the conclusions with the Chairman of the Council. The contents of the report were not raised with me on 19th March. I am grateful to the Council and to the Panel for their thorough study of a complex issue. I shall be replying to the Council in due course.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that this ill-considered report was very fiercely contested within the Welsh Council by our leading Welsh industrialists—I know my facts on this—and that this report—[Interruption.] I let my guard drop then. Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite this report, unless cash is provided for firms in their first two years whilst they are waiting to make their profits, we can expect far greater disaster amongst the new industries in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views that this was an ill-considered report and also to hear his expressions of what went on at the Council. I do not believe that he is a member of the Council or of the Panel. The report, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is extremely well thought out, and I found it very useful. I am considering it very carefully.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kinnock, Question No. 23. I am sorry to be cutting down on the supplementary questions, but I should like to get to the end of Welsh Questions today, if possible.

    Industrial Growth (Discussions)
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local authorities on the subject of promoting industrial growth in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Industry and employment questions have been raised at nearly all the meetings I have had with local authorities or their representatives since I took office.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this brings no puzzlement to hon. Members on this side of the House, since, in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) earlier this month, we were told that, in response to a request for help from the large projects pool, local authorities received £2,195,000 instead of the £10,468,000 which they had requested? On the basis of such figures, how can anyone be expected to give credibility to the claim that the Government have made that they would improve the infrastructure of Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will know that a large number of the applications to be included in the large projects pool have been agreed.
    Mr. William Edwards: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman publish and circulate to local authorities a paper on the exact functions that he performs in relation to industrial development in Wales? Is it not a fact that he has no responsibility for the allocation of advance factories? Is it not the case that he has very few facilities within his Department to obtain proper advice about the industrial state of Wales, and that he has now given up intervening in any Government decision which is adverse to Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that the last part of his supplementary question is untrue. I have my responsibilities in so far as many of the matters to which he has referred are responsibilities of overall functioning. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is doing something in relation to Wales he always lets me know and takes my views into account. It is true that I have no executive functions; neither did the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) when he was in office. But there is no doubt that the Welsh Office is very much concerned with all matters relating to unemployment and growth opportunity in Wales.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on nursery schools.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is as outlined in Circular 8/60.
    Mr. Jones: First, would the Secretary of State not agree that, subject to parental approval, it would be a desirable objective that children of two years of age should have part-time nursery schooling? Secondly, could the Secretary of State tell us when he intends to visit his first Welsh nursery School? Has he visited one?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I visited a nursery school in Newport a few months ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I give priority to the improvement of old and inadequate primary schools. We shall re-examine our policy on nursery education when this programme has taken effect.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what alterations he proposes in plans for the improvement of primary schools in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: None. The Government's policy announced in 1970 is designed to replace or improve within the next five years all inadequate pre-1903 schools for which there is a long-term need. I intend to press ahead with this policy as quickly as resources will permit.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my right right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will also look at some of the schools which were built between that date and the 1920s? Does he not agree that some of those need some modernisation?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Certainly. These schools are looked at, but the priority is to complete the replacement of all the old pre-1903 primary schools, for which there is a long-term need.

    Infrastructure
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what further plans he has for the improvement of the infrastructure facilities in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government's objective is to improve infrastructure in the older industrial areas. The term

    1147
    covers a wide range of services including roads, housing, land reclamation, on all of which the Government will pursue vigorous policies.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. and Learned Friend aware that there is a great deal of evidence that the greatest need for infrastructure in some parts of Wales is still the improvement of our mad communications? Will he give some heavy weight to this consideration?
    Mr. Thomas: I agree, and very heavy weight is being given to the improvement of roads.
    Mr. Kinnock: As the Secretary of State says that heavy weight is being given to the provision of infrastructure, will he not accept that we on this side of the House and the people in Wales find that difficult to believe? Is he not aware that in the first two months of this year, according to the Department of Employment, 3,695 redundancies were notified in Wales alone? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman lend extra weight, if possible, to the provision of new jobs in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman finds it hard to believe that great emphasis is put on our infrastructure in Wales, it shows that he has not read the figures published or listened to the answers that I have given.
    Mr. McBride: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, in the matter of land dereliction, that the Lower Swansea Valley project, in Swansea, will now be financed out of the special projects pool?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, I cannot say that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman would like to get in touch with me, I will certainly give him an answer.

PAKISTAN
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the situation in Pakistan.
The whole House will join me in regretting the loss of life in Pakistan, a
1148
fellow member of the Commonwealth, and in hoping for a restoration of normal conditions. As the House will appreciate this is an internal matter affecting relations between two parts of a sovereign country, and I will not be expected to speculate on political matters which are the concern of the Pakistan Government. Her Majesty's Government are, however, watching the situation very closely, and we remain in constant touch with the Pakistan authorities.
A fortnight ago, on the advice of the Deputy High Commissioner in Dacca, some 200 United Kingdom and Commonwealth women and children were evacuated from East Pakistan. In the past few days of disturbances, we have had no reports of any injury to members of the British Community in East Pakistan, who now number about 700. The British Council offices and library in Dacca were attacked in the course of operations on the night of 25th March in the area of the university; the damage cannot yet be properly assessed, but no member of the Council staff was hurt. There are no other reports of damage to British property, but, as communications from East Pakistan have been restricted and communications between Dacca and other parts of the Province disrupted, the House will appreciate that our information may not be complete. I shall keep the House informed.
Mr. Healey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that report. The whole House shares his deep sorrow at recent events in Pakistan. We recognise that at the moment information must necessarily be incomplete, and we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will make another statement when more information is available.
The House will be particularly concerned for the safety of British lives and property, and in this connection I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer two questions. First, does he know who was responsible for the attack on the British Council offices in Dacca, and are steps being taken to obtain compensation for any damage caused? Second, has he an assurance from the authorities in East Pakistan that all assistance will be given should it be necessary to evacuate further British personnel?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question is, "Yes", although the Deputy High Commissioner, as we understand it, does not advise further evacuation at this time. The Army was responsible, as we understand it, for the attack, on the British Council offices. We have brought the matter to the notice of the Pakistan authorities and we shall in due course ask for compensation.
Mr. Thorpe: We share the sadness which the Foreign Secretary has expressed about these events in a Commonwealth country with which we showed our solidarity at the time of the floods.
In view of the unhappy experience of this country's involvement in another Commonwealth civil war, namely, in Nigeria, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, apart from offering our good offices if they should be required, there will be no further involvement, and, in particular, there will be no question of supplying arms to either side?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that we have no intention of getting involved in this matter, which is a civil matter for the authorities in Pakistan. As regards arms, no new contracts have been entered into with Pakistan for a good many months now. I shall review this question, but I think that nothing imminent arises.
Sir F. Bennett: I am delighted to learn that Her Majesty's Government have no intention or thought of intervening in an internal matter, which could only make things a great deal worse, but could my right hon. Friend tell us whether the same restraint is being exercised elsewhere, since what is s already a horrible matter could become a great deal worse if any other outside Power—quite apart from Great Britain—intervened?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have not heard that any outside Power is intervening or intends to intervene.
Mr. Shore: These are deplorable events. Will the Foreign Secretary impress upon the Pakistan Government the abhorrence felt by very many people in this country at the brutal and repressive measures which they are taking against the East Bengal people, and will he impress upon them also that we are
1150
most concerned that their troops should be withdrawn, that the killing should stop, and that Sheikh Mujib and his followers should not be the victims of repression? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to impress upon the Pakistan Government that the people of Bengal have the right to decide their own future, and, if need be, to decide on a separate future for themselves?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that it would be helpful for me to comment on those matters at this time. Everyone abhors violence. The President of Pakistan, as we understand it, was faced with a situation in which his country might have been divided in half. We must allow the Pakistan authorities to deal with this matter without our intervention.
Mr. Wilkinson: I associate myself with the expressions of deep regret at the tragic events which have befallen Pakistan, a Commonwealth partner with which we have personal as well as historic links. When my right hon. Friend speaks of a British community of about 700 in Pakistan, does that include Pakistanis of British citizenship who have gone on short trips to East Pakistan, or does he mean British people only? Further, will my right hon. Friend, through the usual diplomatic channels, try to obtain information about the relatives of East Pakistani citizens who have connections in this country who might be affected by the troubles?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The figure of 700 does not include Parkistanis. At the time when we brought out the 200 United Kingdom citizens, the Deputy High Commissioner was in touch with most of the families in Pakistan. Everyone understands how difficult it is to get communication with those up-country, but at that time we took out all who wanted to come. At the moment, the Deputy High Commissioner, as we understand it—although communications are difficult—does not advise further evacuation, but plans are laid should people wish to leave.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I press the Foreign Secretary on the questions of arms? There appear to be considerable differences between this situation

1151
and the Biafran situation. It is recognised that we do not supply arms at the moment. Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that, if the Pakistan Government did ask for arms, he would make a statement to the House before coming to any decision about it?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a hypothetical situation which we had better leave at present.
Mr. Judd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must be careful not to intervene in what is essentially an internal affair, but would he not agree that one of the causes of frustration in Pakistan is the disproportionate amount of economic assistance going to West Pakistan as compared with East Pakistan, and will he assure the House that, in the aftermath of this unfortunate incident, we shall do everything possible within the aid consortium to encourage full economic essistance to the eastern half of Pakistan?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The ironic aspect of this situation was that for the first time it was possible for an East Pakistani to be Prime Minister of a united Pakistan, and this opportunity has slipped.

SOCIAL SECURITY
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Social Security Bill published today.
Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, like earlier legislation, provides that during trade disputes persons disqualified on that account for receiving unemployment benefit are not entitled to receive supplementary benefit for their own personal requirements, though it is payable for their dependants and their rent. But for many years it has been customary to ignore the tax refunds and strike pay—and any other personal income—available to the people involved up to the level of the personal requirements of the strikers and others disqualified because of a trade dispute—currently £4.35—when calculating benefit for their dependants. The result is that the total household income is often
1152
brought up to the full supplementary benefit level.
The Government believe that the principle embodied in the Act is an important one, generally accepted as fair by public opinion; and they do not think that the present practice, which is totally inconsistent with the principle should continue. The Bill accordingly provides that the personal income of persons affected will be treated in exactly the same way as miscellaneous income is treated in other supplementary benefit claims. The effect will be that, in the great majority of cases, up to £1 only will be ignored instead of up to £4.35.
When a trade dispute is over, Section 10 ceases to apply and the men, as well as their dependants, are eligible, for up to 15 days, for supplementary benefit, though during this period they are earning wages which will normallly at the end of the second week be paid. Because these wages were being earned and advances—or "subs"—were given by many employers upon them, the need for supplementary benefit was in the past fairly limited. But in recent years, and particularly since a strike in 1969 after which employees succeeded in persuading their employer to withdraw an offer of subs, there has been increasing replacement of subs—which are repayable and come out of taxed income—by supplementary benefit which is neither repayable nor taxable. This has played a large part in the rapid increase in expenditure on benefit following strikes. In 1968 it was about £80,000 for large strikes alone. In 1969 and 1970, again for larger strikes only, the figure leapt to £670,000 and nearly £900,000 respectively. If all strikes were included, these figures would be higher still. This cannot be allowed to continue. The proper way of tiding workers over till their pay is due after return to work is by way of advances of earnings. The Bill therefore provides that supplementary benefit paid to men who have returned to work after a dispute during which they were disqualified for supplementary benefit for themselves shall be recoverable—though not at such a rate as to cause hardship—through the employer.
Supplementary benefit paid to the families of strikers and others disqualified during strikes, and to strikers and their families after strikes, amounted in 1970 to £2½ million.

1153
The savings from the supplementary benefit changes I have referred to depend on the number and scale of disputes, but if the changes had been in force in 1970 they would have saved about £1¼ million.
The Bill further provides for a statutory deduction, in most cases of £2·05—compared with 75p usually at present—from the supplementary benefit payable to those disqualified for unemployment benefit because they have left a job voluntarily or been dismissed for misconduct or refused to take a suitable job offered to them. This will save rather more than £500,000 in supplementary benefit expenditure a year.
I have not consulted the Supplementary Benefits Commission about the relevant provisions of the Bill although, as a matter of courtesy, it has been told of them.
Turning to national insurance, the Bill implements the Government's intention, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th October last, to end the retrospective payment of benefit for the first three days of a spell of sickness, injury or unemployment. The net saving from this change is expected to be about £19 million in a full year.
Mr. Orme: Disgraceful.
Sir K. Joseph: The Bill further provides for the abolition of Social Security Local Advisory Committees. The committees now number 141 with 4,000 members, and in present circumstances sufficient useful work cannot be found to justify the demand they make on the time of so many busy members of the community. Abolition will save about £130,000 a year of public funds.
I commend these proposals to the House, since they would last year, had they been in force, have saved half the cost to the taxpayer of supplementary benefit in this field, while protecting wives and children.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I begin by protesting very strongly about the fact that this statement has appeared in all the morning Press before being made to the House?
The Opposition very much deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to consult either the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the
1154
Trades Union Congress. Presumably, if one has a doctrinaire attitude one does not wish it to be altered by those with expert knowledge of what may be the effects of it.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware, as we are, that disqualification goes very much wider than strikers themselves and involves all those in the class or grade of those in a firm on strike.
First, will he justify the fact that disqualification will affect married men only and those with children and not unmarried men, thereby making a very strange distinction?
Second, will the urgency provision under Section 13 of the Ministry of Social Security Act still apply?
Third, when the Secretary of State for Employment has said that it is not intended to discourage legitimate strikes, how can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify the fact that he is presumably making no distinction whatsoever between strikes which he himself would agree are legitimate and those which he would say are unfair?
Fourth, we are aware that there has been some abuse of subbing by employers as well as employees, but will the right hon. Gentleman define rather more closely what he means by the phrase, referring to recovery of supplementary benefit, "though not at such a rate as to cause hardship"? That could mean almost anything.
Fifth, has the right hon. Gentleman at any stage discussed with employers the difference between those who pay within the first week or two weeks when a man resumes work and those who do not pay for a longer period? In other words, has he made any endeavour to get this on the same basis throughout all employment?
May I ask him next—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry, but if the Government insist upon making Second Reading speeches in the form of statements they will be asked Second Reading questions about them. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the deduction of £2 from those who are disqualified for unemployment benefit because they have left the job voluntarily or been dismissed for misconduct, when his own Government have not so far taken any powerful steps with regard to

1155
unfair dismissal, and when he has set up a committee to look into abuse, but apparently is not waiting to hear its conclusions? The Secretary of State is proposing to abolish Social Security Local Advisory Committees. Will he take any steps to get full representation of trade unionists and employers on whatever machinery he has in mind to replace those committees? We on this side do not accept that his Ministry will act as it should without the expert knowledge that trade unionists and others have brought to bear on local advisory committees.
Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the Supplementary Benefits Commission would have thanked the Government for consulting it about a matter which must be for the Government to decide, and which is distinctly political—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which has distinct political overtones. The very reaction of the House shows that.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Enoch has won the day.
Sir K. Joseph: This is not the year, following a year in which strikes were more numerous than in any year since 1926, to relax the grade and class conditions to which the hon. Lady referred. I confirm that single men will not be affected, because they are not entitled to supplementary benefit when on strike.
Section 13 will remain for hardship payments—
Hon Members: Go on.
Sir K. Joseph: I am trying to remember the hon. Lady's fifth question. Certainly the Government justify their decision, because all it does is to restore the original intention of Parliament in passing the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, which was put to Parliament by the last Administration. The repayment provisions will provide for protective earnings at a level at least £2 above the supplementary benefit level so as to ensure that repayment will not involve any hardship.
The deduction for misconduct at 40 per cent. of the single person rate is not difficult to justify, since the hon. Lady's party suggested that the deduction should
1156
be increased from the present level to 33 per cent. of the individual rate.
Local advisory committees have not been conducting any sort of appeals function. There is a whole hierarchy of appeals tribunals and we have literally not been able to find any work to justify their continued existence.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the most valuable steps which he proposes to take to deal with an abuse of supplementary benefits in trade disputes. Nevertheless, may I ask him to confirm that if the Bill had been in operation now the subsidy paid through the supplementary benefits system would nevertheless have been payable in the Ford strike and would have amounted to several hundred thousands of pounds to date?
Sir K. Joseph: No. Had this measure been in force the supplementary benefit payable to workers at Ford now engaged in a trade dispute would have been cut to something like two-thirds.
Mr. Concannon: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to operate the abolition of the three waiting days every time a worker is off sick or on a 13-week basis? Does he appreciate what the disappearance of the three waiting days will mean in the mining industry, in which miners average 28 days a year off through ill health?
Sir K. Joseph: It will be worked as it is at present; for every spell that lasts for more than 12 benefit days the three waiting days now paid retrospectively will not be paid once the Bill is passed. [Interruption.]
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general public will be pleased with the way in which he is proposing to deal with the scrimshankers—[Interruption.]—those who get this benefit when on strike? However, may he not be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut by introducing this measure? In other words, could not the present difficulties have been dealt with more effectively by clamping down administratively by interpreting the rules in a tougher way?
Sir K. Joseph: No. We are dealing at the moment with a discretion that has been exercised over the years, perfectly

1157
within its rights by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If the Government are to impose their own decision, then they must change the law. We could not ask the Commission to use its discretion as we would wish because its discretion is for it to decide. It is only fair, therefore, that we should change the law, which is what we propose to do.
Mr. Heffer: This is one of the most vicious and mean acts—[Interruption.]—that any Government have ever perpetrated in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only Tory businessmen will gain any pleasure from this proposal and that the ordinary working people—not just the trade unionists and the wives and children of strikers—will be affected by the three waiting days decision? This is one of the most disgraceful steps taken by this Government, who have acted disgracefully since they came into power.
Sir K. Joseph: I really believe that the vast bulk of the public who support both great parties in this House would, on the whole, agree with the change which the Government propose in connection with supplementary benefits for those connected with trade disputes.
As for the three waiting days, the hon. Gentleman will surely admit that since that provision was introduced the whole position of the person who is short-term or medium-term sick or unemployed has been transformed by higher wages, increased savings, redundancy pay—
Mr. Orme: Come off it.
Sir K. Joseph:—employers' sick pay schemes, which now cover 40 per cent. of the working population, and earnings related benefits.
Mr. Orme: Shocking.
Mr. Pardoe: While entirely accepting the principle that the State should not have to pay strikers when on strike—[Interruption.]—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to estimate how much of the £19 million that he thinks will be saved by ending the three waiting days will end up as an extra cost on industry, the employer having to pay this sum?
Sir K. Joseph: The employee often gets the benefit of both industrial payments and National Insurance payments. As a result of this change there will be
1158
some more claims on supplementary benefit for those who cannot get by on National Insurance and employers' pay, but we calculate that these claims will amount to only £1 million a year as against the £20 million that will be saved.
Sir S. McAdden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some time those whose income has been derived from pensions resulting from war service and so on have felt a sense of disagreement that those sums should be regarded as income liable to tax whereas payments made in the form of supplementary benefits are not added to one's income and are not, therefore, regarded as taxable? The announcement made by my right hon. Friend today is, therefore, justified all round.
Sir K. Joseph: I acknowledge the feeling, but the question which my hon. Friend raises is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Atkinson: Do the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has announced differ greatly from those made by various employers' federations and submitted to him some time ago? In other words, would he care to indicate the difference between his proposals and those made to him by various employers' groups?
Sir K. Joseph: I will do better than that. The proposal about disregards has been made by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and the one on the waiting days was proposed by the Labour Government.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of the public want him to concentrate supplementary benefits on those who are in need through no fault of their own, particularly the disabled and the very old, and that they are not so sympathetic towards supplementary benefits being paid to people who are in need in pursuit of their own advantage?
Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend has got the point exactly right.
Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he shows his ignorance of what this will mean to millions of working people who have no benefit other than that provided by the State, and that if he thinks that public opinion will be behind this step he is sadly mistaken? Is

1159
he aware that he is equally mistaken if he thinks that this will affect workers who are striking for justifiable demands? It will only make disputes more bitter because workers will continue to resist if they believe their case is right.
Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about supplementary benefits is that the Government are removing an anomaly that has crept in. As for the waiting days, the hon. Gentleman really must acknowledge, if I am said to be ignorant of the implications, that it was a Government of his party who introduced this proposal.
Mr. Orme: But we stopped it.
Mr. John Mendelson: When the Secretary of State told the House that because of the high level of incomes the change in the three waiting days did not matter, he showed his ignorance in a surprising way, because for the 6 million to 8 million people now on low wages this will be a serious inroad, for they need the money very badly. Does he not realise that, in spite of his attempt to disguise it, his decision to make the conditions of families and children much more difficult is a malicious decision to punish the families of men on strike and fully justifies working people in now taking every kind of action to oppose this class legislation?
Sir K. Joseph: Before making such provocative remarks, the hon. Gentleman should contemplate that the low earner who is involved in a trade dispute and who has no benefit from tax reliefs has had the supplementary benefit protection under which we are now suggesting that the man with a family should be treated.
Secondly, I do not accept that I showed any ignorance about the waiting days. The low earner has not been able to manage on National Insurance sickness benefit. This has meant that from the very first week he has been on supplementary benefit. The retrospective payment for the three waiting days in the third week will not make a ha'porth of difference to him, as it is merely an adjustment between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the National Insurance Fund.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I correct something which the right hon. Gentle-
1160
man said earlier and which drew great applause from his own side? He will recognise that I accepted that the Opposition when in Government had moved against subbing, but he will recall that in the Industrial Relations Bill which was mooted by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Employment a change was made in disqualification in directly the opposite direction to that in which the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to move.
Sir K. Joseph: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. I did not realise that I was referring to the Donovan Report in this connection. Certainly the hon. Lady is right and her Government sought to legislate as the Donovan Commission recommended.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) put a question to the Secretary of State to which he did not reply, perhaps recognising that it was a matter not for him but for you, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to make a submission to you about it.
My hon. Friend asked how it came about in that almost every newspaper today there was an advance story in great detail about the statement. It also happens that in almost every newspaper over the weekend there was an advance of the statement that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is about to make. This matter was previously referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) when the Secretary of State made a statement about an inquiry into the working of the Abortion Act, and the Secretary of State then implied that it was a coincidence.
It is plain that these Press stories which appear in advance of Ministerial statements are not coincidence but are the result of briefing. No journalist could be asked not to publish a story on which he had been briefed, and clearly any journalist will rightly print a story which he has obtained.
But the present situation when Ministerial statements to the House are being anticipated consistently by Press briefings is fast becoming a contempt of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to initiate inquiries to discover how this

1161
briefing takes place and to ask the Leader of the House, who is responsible for Government information, whether he will arrange for a statement on the matter to be made.
Mr, Speaker: Those are not matters for the Chair.

LOCAL COMMERCIAL RADIO STATIONS
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I am presenting today a White Paper announcing the Government's proposals for establishing an alternative service of sound broadcasting. The Government proposes a service of local radio to be transmitted on very high frequencies and on medium frequencies, and to be financed from the sale of advertising time. Up to 60 stations attaining coverage of about 65 per cent, of the population on V.H.F. can ultimately be provided. On medium frequencies the daytime coverage will reach about 70 per cent.: by night it will be about 25 per cent.
The service will be entrusted to the Independent Television Authority, which will become the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The I.B.A.'s rights and duties in relation to its radio service will be similar to those of the present I.T.A. in relation to television. Rolling three-year contracts, renewable each year, are however proposed for the radio programme companies-a system that will combine strong powers of control for the Authority with prospects of greater security of tenure for the programme companies than can be obtained with fixed term contracts.
The Government's intention is that the stations should combine popular programming with a good service of local news and information. Another major objective of the new service will be to provide an alternative source of national and international news on radio. The White Paper identifies three ways in which this might be provided and will, I hope, promote discussion about the best means of securing a good central news service.
1162
Following detailed consultations with newspaper interests, the White Paper contains proposals which will entitle the Press to participate in the companies awarded contracts.
The White Paper also announces the Government's conclusion that the B.B.C.'s 20-station service of local radio should continue, and that in due course it should be transmitted not only on V.H.F.—as at present—but also on M.F. Thus it has proved possible to plan the new service alongside the existing services of the B.B.C., and I should like to thank the Corporation and its engineers for the assistance we have received from them in overcoming the frequency problems involved.
The Government believe that competition will be as welcome in radio as it has been in television, and that our proposals will afford a significant extension of choice for the listener.
Mr. Proudfoot: On a point of order. I should like to ask your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The White Paper was available at 4 o'clock. I am led to understand that the Press has White Papers on any subject before that time in any case, but I am informed that the B.B.C., which at the moment has a monopoly in sound broadcasting, has had this White Paper since this morning. Could the House inquire into that?
Mr. Speaker: The matter could be inquired into, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Richard: May I say at the outset that we are glad that the Minister has finally decided to make a statement, although we are astonished that it took the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition to make him do so.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): It was my fault.
Mr. Richard: I do not know whose decision it was, but we are glad that the statement has now been made.
The Opposition regard the proposal as nothing more than the establishment of another 60 pop stations. There is no demand for them. This is a piece of Conservative theology designed to satisfy

1163
an ill-considered and half-baked pre-election pledge. We quite well understand that the Minister has been leaking like a sieve up and down Whitehall for the last fortnight dissociating himself from these proposals; they are not his proposals; it is not his White Paper; he proposed originally a national network actually producing the programme.
Why has that proposal been omitted from the White Paper? Why has he gone back on the original proposal to set up a national structure, which it might have least been argued was a real alternative to the B.B.C? What happened to that proposal? Why was it axed in the Cabinet? Is it not because a Conservative Party has again put cash before standards?
May I ask three specific questions—I have had a chance to look at the White Paper for only a couple of minutes? First, how much cash does the Minister estimate it will take to establish this structure? Secondly, he says in his statement that the Independent Broadcasting Authority's rights and duties in relation to its radio service will be similar to those of the present I.T.A. in relation to television. Does that include such matters as the balance of the programmes? Does it include programme content? Does it include such things as protection of minority interests and the proportion of advertising time per hour of transmitting time? If it includes all those items, how does he think that individual local stations will be financially viable?
Finally, how are these standards to be enforced other than through a national system which he and the Cabinet have rejected?
Mr. Chataway: The somewhat feverish way in which the hon. Gentleman seizes on every bit of tittle-tattle that he can get hold of conceals, I suppose, the difficulty the Opposition are finding themselves in in deciding whether to go through a repeat performance of their opposition to commercial television. I know that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has urged his hon. Friends not to do that. If we are to have outright opposition from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite over the introduction of competition in radio
1164
I am sure that many of us will probably store up some of the sayings of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for use in the next election.
On the three points to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if there is no demand then these stations will not survive, just as if there had been no demand for commercial television that would not have survived. The duties of the I.B.A. will be similar in all respects that he mentioned to the duties that it performs in relation to television at the moment. I believe that in broadcasting as in any other sphere of activity competition benefits the consumer.
Sir G. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend most warmly upon honouring precisely a Conservative pledge at the last General Election, may I ask him to satisfy the House on two points? First, will he say that commercial radio will not entail any support with Government funds and that all commercial radio stations will be financially self-supporting? Secondly, as he has drawn the analogy between commercial television and commercial radio, will he give an undertaking that the advertising of cigarettes on commercial radio will not be permitted, as it is not permitted on commercial or any other form of television?
Mr. Chataway: I can confirm that there will be no public subsidy whatever for commercial radio, any more than there has been for commercial television. While specific regulations about advertising would be for the Authority, it is practically inconceivable that the advertising of cigarettes would be allowed on radio, since it is not allowed on television.
Mr. Grimond: I should declare an interest in that I was in the past a member of a consortium which made a bid for a television station—thank God, unsuccessfully. I am also a trustee and a director of a newspaper group. May I ask the Minister whether it is intended to choose these new contractors for radio in the same way as the television contractors have been chosen, because it is a most extraordinary method, not seen in this country since the 18th century? It ought to be looked at again. Apart from the question of subsidising them, will they be subject to a levy, the levy or any payment to the Government?

1165
Secondly, is he aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction in certain parts of the country with the present coverage of radio and television? Can we have an assurance that this new service, which will no doubt operate in the populous and paying areas, will not mean that the B.B.C. will be discouraged, financially or otherwise, not only from maintaining but from extending its present services? I want an assurance that that will not be placed in jeopardy.
Mr. Chataway: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am sure that the Authority will bear in mind what he says about the allocation of contracts. I believe that the proposal in relation to a rolling three-year contract will be thought to have considerable merit in this context.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend make certain in the interests of full competition that the local B.B.C. stations have access to the medium wave in the same way as the commercial stations?
Mr. Chataway: I am glad to say that this has proved possible.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman for having lost the main battle against the commercial radio lobby? May I congratulate him for having saved something from the wreck and in so doing for having moved slightly in the direction that I was pressing upon him some time ago? Will he recognise that unless the advertising revenue goes to the Authority and not to the commercial companies, the commercial companies will exploit this situation unmercifully and will not provide a radio service capable of competing on artistically level terms with the B.B.C.? Secondly, will he recognise that if he further involves the Press in the communications industry, a situation which is even now disquieting many people—the lack of a wide variety of information sources—will be worsened? Will he look into this question seriously before he agrees to the proposition of the involvement of local newspapers in commercial local radio stations?
Mr. Chataway: As to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I am afraid that there is a considerable misconception on his part and on the part of the hon.
1166
Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in relation to the proposals for a national channel. It was suggested from a number of sources, and was very seriously considered whether in addition to the structure I have proposed today there should also be a national channel. There were arguments in favour of that. The principal argument against it was that it could have unacceptable implications for the national Press. It is for that reason that I come forward with a proposal for local stations only, of course, in a national network as they would be.
As to the involvement of the Press, the White Paper circumscribes the situation in which local papers may have a controlling interest in local radio stations and would, I think, therefore prevent the spread of any undesirable monopoly. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this White Paper is diversifying the sources of information and I believe it is as important that there should be alternative sources of news in radio as it is that there should be alternative sources in the Press and television.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to see that the local radio gives truly local representation to the Lincolnshire area, which does not presently happen with I.T.V.?
Mr. Chataway: I will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what consultations he has had in preparing these proposals with the Newspaper Society, the N.U.J. and working journalists? Would he also accept that the admirable standards set by the B.B.C. in its new local radio stations are standards upon which we must insist now and in the future?
Mr. Chataway: I have had full consultations with the National Union of Journalists and the Newspaper Society. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is much in the B.B.C. local stations which is worthy of support and development.
Sir J. Rodgers: While welcoming this statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify one point? Under this new system of the 60 local stations, will there be opportunities for a national hook-up among these stations at peak listening periods?
Mr. Chataway: They will be in a network, but I do not envisage that local stations would for any significant period of time switch over to a national sustaining service. I think it will be found that the local stations will not in their own self-interest wish to do so.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Since presumably this will entail legislation, could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication to the House when he expects the legislation to be forthcoming, this Session, next Session, or whenever it may be? Like the rest of the House, I have had only minutes to look at this White Paper, which we will all wish to study. Does it not appear that local newspapers with a substantial circulation in an area of coverage will have the right to participate? Can that not mean in certain areas with a population of, say, half a million to a million, which I suppose will be the target or the average, the local evening papers, already reasonably prosperous, will have the right to participate whereas the local weekly newspaper with a circulation of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000, which will be most prejudiced by the local advertisements, will have no such right? Might there not be wholesale slaughter of weekly local newspapers as a result? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a final view but perhaps he will look at this and make a statement to the House.
Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his measured reaction to these proposals. The legislation will not be introduced in this Session. It is not for me to say whether it will be introduced in the next Session. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point on the right of the Press to be involved in local stations. It must depend upon the definition one gives to "circulation which is significant" in relation to the transmission area of the station. But the intention would be to ensure that any newspaper which could be significantly affected by the introduction of commercial radio should have the opportunity of participating. I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's points in mind.
Mr. Wilson: Lest the right hon. Gentleman's opening words in reply to me become a legend, may I point out to him that I did not give a measured reaction to his proposals. The measured reaction was given on behalf of my right
1168
hon. and hon. Friends by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in very careful, cautious and measured terms.
On the last point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman which he has undertaken to look into more closely, is he aware that the two concepts he has used may not come to the same thing? He has just said, if newspapers are "significantly affected", whereas the White Paper says, if they have a significant circulation in the area. They are two different things. Newspapers could be "significantly affected" and destroyed without having a significant part of the circulation in the area.
Mr. Chataway: I do not accept that the impact of commercial radio on the local Press is likely to be as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence pointing in the other direction. The point which the right hon. Gentleman raises has to do with the definition given by the Authority to "significant". We shall think about that further. If I wrongly detected a difference between the somewhat hysterical reaction of the hon. Member for Barons Court and the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I apologise to him.
Mr. Haselhurst: How local will be the stations which emerge from my right hon. Friend's proposals in the White Paper? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the system which will emerge from the arrangements which he has outlined will be more nearly local than metropolitan?
Mr. Chataway: My proposals give the Independent Broadcasting Authority the opportunity of developing really local stations. The extent to which they are able to serve small communities will depend upon their ability to attract audiences. But with the possibility of up to 60 stations being set up it is conceivable that cities with populations of between 100,000 and 150,000 will be served.
Mr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind the Minister's remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the debate in the Conservative Party about commercial television in 1953 contained many serious reservations and their absence today is,

1169
we think, a sad commentary on the Conservative Party? There are no objections by right hon. and hon. Members opposite to many of the proposals in the White Paper.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three short, inter-related questions? Is the new I.B.A. to be financed wholly by contributions from the companies? There is nothing about that matter in paragraph 4 of the White Paper. Secondly, are the franchises for the rolling contracts to be made as a result of public tenders in view of the I.T.A.'s bad record in making people live up to their promises? Thirdly, did the right hon. Gentleman's Department carry out any surveys about the possible effect of transfers of advertising, particularly local newspaper classified and display advertising, to commercial radio?
Mr. Chataway: The Authority will be financed by contributions from the companies, with no subsidy from the Government. We shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion concerning public tenders. We made exhaustive investigations in many quarters concerning advertising revenue and looked at such precedents as there were which certainly did not suggest that commercial radio was always a disadvantage to local newspapers. There were many instances in which the evidence seemed to point in the other direction.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot proceed further with this matter today.

ST. VINCENT (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)
Sir John Rodgers: I have to report that the delegation, given leave of absence by the House on 17th December last year, to visit St. Vincent and, on behalf of the House, to present a parliamentary library has discharged its duty. The delegation consisted of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), a senior clerk of the House, Mr. Donald Limon, and myself as leader.
The gift of the library was intended, as the letter from you, Mr. Speaker, to
1170
the Speaker of the House of Assembly in St. Vincent stated, to be a symbol of the Parliamentary tradition cherished by the people of our two countries and to mark St. Vincent's attainment of complete internal self-government and associated status with the United Kingdom within the Commonwealth. I was requested by the Speaker of the House of Assembly in St. Vincent, on behalf of himself and the whole Assembly, to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your letter.
Our delegation was received every where with the utmost warmth, friendship and courtesy, not only by the Speaker, but by the Governor, the Premier, several of his Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and by elected and nominated members equally.
The presentation ceremony took place on 11th February and was a deeply moving experience for us all. While we were in St. Vincent we were able to see both the windward and leeward sides of the island and to talk with officials and the ordinary people up and down the island. We learned a great deal about the difficult problems facing that small country which relies so much on its main crop, bananas, and to a decreasing extent on the other staple product, arrowroot, for which the island is famous.
With a rapidly increasing population, there is an urgent need for the island to diversify its industry and especially to develop tourism. In neighbouring areas, such as Barbados and St. Lucia, we saw how much tourism, in its widest application, can mean to a country such as this and we were delighted that our visit coincided with a visit by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. We must never forget, Mr. Speaker, that it is to this country, with which they have been associated for so long, that they look for advice and help, both public and private. I hope that we shall never let them down.
The House of Assembly is a small but lively parliamentary body and, judging by the number of strangers present, our visit aroused considerable interest. The Premier, Mr. Milton Cato, informed us that he would be printing the speeches made at the handing over ceremony, with appropriate photographs, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when you receive your copy

1171
you will approve of what was said on that occasion.
It gives me the utmost pleasure today to convey the greetings of the Premier and other dignitaries of St. Vincent to their fellow Parliamentarians here.
After leaving St. Vincent, we were privileged to pay brief visits to St. Lucia and Barbados. Again, we met the Speakers of the two Assemblies there, the Governors and Ministers. I am sure that all of us came away grateful to the House for providing us with the opportunity of visiting these most friendly and beautiful islands. One thing above all others was obvious, namely, the warm and genuine friendly feelings between our countries and the trust which they repose in us.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his report, to acknowledge the greetings which he has conveyed to the House and to thank him and his colleagues for the excellent way in which they carried out the mission entrusted to them.

BILL PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
  Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Maudling, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Sir John Eden, Mr. Michael Alison, and Mr. Paul Dean presented a Bill to amend the law relating to benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 and to certain benefits under the National Insurance Act 1965 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965; to increase the penalties for failure to pay contributions under the said Acts of 1965; to abolish local advisory committees under the said Act of 1966; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
4.31 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, the aviation industry in this country, and, indeed, in the world, has been going through a period of very rapid change, some of which is reflected in the various Clauses in this Bill. In particular there has been a blurring of the distinction between scheduled and charter services. At this particular moment we seem to be in a period of the cycle when capacity has got ahead of demand in international airlines, and thereby has provided a strain on their profits. This is one of the matters we have to take into consideration.
Because the United Kingdom is one of the few countries which has a multiplicity of airlines and in this much regulated industry there are problems of regulation, there is the need for the industry structure and the regulatory machinery to move with the times. We have had for the last few years, particularly since the completion of the Edwards Report, a period of uncertainty in civil aviation which I believe both sides of the House would now like to see brought to an end. We have had an occasion earlier to thank Sir Ronald Edwards for the very considerable help he and his Committee gave in dealing with these problems. The Committee produced three main recommendations. First, the Civil Aviation Authority; second, the Airways Board—and this Bill deals with both of them; the third recommendation which it made was that a second force airline should be established. I made a statement on 3rd

1173
August on this subject, and a second force airline is now in being, but I shall come back to this no doubt rather controversial subject during my speech.
In the civil aviation context the Civil Aviation Authority has two main aspects. It reflects the fact that airlines are increasingly operating in a single environment. There are, indeed, very close links between the economics and the financial health of the airlines and the safety of their operations, and between operational safety, airworthiness, air traffic control, and navigational services. It does not, I think, make sense to try to regulate all these different things in different compartments and this is why the Civil Aviation Authority is, I believe, very much needed at this moment.
It is, of course, a constitutional innovation. The key point perhaps is that we are in this Bill hiving off a regulatory function. Ministers remain responsible to Parliament for policy, but detailed decision rests with the Authority. Clause 3 is the key to the new relationship because it sets out the broad objectives which the authority should pursue, and provides for more detailed guidance to be given from time to time in writing, subject to approval by Parliament on affirmative Resolution.
There are three broad objectives. The first brings together four elements, the importance of satisfying all substantial sections of the market, the importance of low fares so as to bring air travel within the reach of the widest public, the importance of safety, and the importance of an economic return for a sound industry.
The second of the three objectives provides for opportunities to be given to the second force airline, these opportunities to be defined more precisely in the guidance.
The third objective is, of course, the balance of payments and the contribution to our national economy, and in this I include the importance of the regions within that framework, but this third objective is, I think necessarily, subordinate to the other two, and the balance of payments cannot override safety.
In the opening words of Clause 3(1) and (2) I think it is made perfectly clear that the authority will have discretion in following the objectives and the guidance and this, I think, is correct because it
1174
is essentially a task of balancing and reconciling different strands of policy which may sometimes pull in different directions. It would, perhaps, be attractive to some people if one could resolve every conflict in advance, but if we were to try to do that we would in effect be putting the industry in a straitjacket and it would be quite impossible even for the collective wisdom of Parliament to foresee today what the situation may well be in a year or two or three years' time, and, therefore, the only alternative to allowing the authority this discretion is for the Government themselves to do the job and I believe that this is not the wish of Parliament at this stage.
It also follows that the objectives and the guidance, which will be in general terms, mainly about economic considerations, are not suited to ultimate decision by the courts. Appeals, therefore, must lie with the Secretary of State, and I think here with the last Administration, we depart from Sir Ronald Edwards Committee's own recommendation.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Unfortunate.
Mr. Noble: It may be unfortunate, but I think that when one is dealing with appeals on economic grounds these are things with which the Secretary of State can deal and with which the courts find it very difficult to deal.
Nor can the grounds of appeal be limited to consistency with policy since, as I was saying earlier, to try to give policy sufficient precision for this to operate would inevitably be almost impossible. However, it is not the Government's intention that they should regularly substitute their decision for that of the authority. We have seen perhaps rather too much of this in aviation history recently. The Secretary of State's policy, when considering appeals, will be to uphold the decision of the authority unless there are clearly major reasons for departing from it.
Then on the question of guidance, this will be mainly about economic matters. I do not mean, in saying this, that safety is unimportant. Far from it. The intention both of the Bill and, I think, the House is that safety is absolutely fundamental; but it is also relatively straightforward as far as policy is concerned.

1175
I do not find it conceivable that the authority would allow economic considerations to override safety.
The guidance will be set out in writing, probably in a White Paper, nearer the time when the Authority is set up in the early part of 1972, and time will be allowed for discussion. It may, however, be helpful to the House if I say now what sort of guidance the Government have in mind to give when the time comes.
There can be no argument about the guidance that should be given on safety matters. We shall stress the need for safety standards—whether of airlines, aircraft construction and maintenance, or in the operation of aerodromes—matching the highest standards achieved anywhere in the world.
In running the National Air Traffic Control Service, which under the Bill becomes the joint responsibility of the Authority and the Secretary of State for Defence, the Authority will be required to have due regard for the interests of military and civil users, including general aviation interests, so as to ensure the best use of our limited air space.
The guidance which will apply to the granting of air transport licences and the regulation of fares and charges is of particular importance. The Authority will be asked to allocate licences so as to bring about the greatest benefit to the nation in terms of the objectives set out in Clause 3 of the Bill. We want to see the industry increasing its share of the world's civil aviation air transport market in so far as this can be done profitably. The industry has a great part to play in fostering the development of our export trade, including the bringing of tourists to this country.
In licensing I do not consider the Authority should reserve any particular type of service, whether scheduled or chartered, exclusively to public or independent airlines, or indeed impose any set balance as between the public and private sectors. We do, however, want to see more than one British airline engaging, or at least being ready to compete, in each type of operation, even though the entry of additional airlines may sometimes need to be carefully controlled in order to avoid wasteful fragmentation of effort. It follows, therefore, that airlines, whether public or
1176
independent, should where possible be given the opportunity of developing both their scheduled and non-scheduled services in line with the development of the market. This is just as important to the Air Corporations as it is to the independents, since most of their major foreign competitors have this freedom.
We want to see the rules covering the sale of seats on a bulk or wholesale basis, whether on scheduled or non-scheduled services, brought up to date and simplified. Our guidance will, therefore, be that restrictions should be kept to the minimum necessary to ensure that there is reasonable capacity for those who wish to buy individual seats on scheduled services at the public fare.
The guidance will set out the opportunities that should be given to the second force airline in rather more detail than was done in the statement of 3rd August, 1970. The Government, in making certain routes available to Caledonian/B.U.A., have had to do what the Edwards Report intended should be done by the Civil Aviation Authority. But once the Authority is set up it will take over the task of deciding the future pattern of routes that will be needed to keep abreast of traffic growth.
Nobody would dispute that the Air Corporations should continue to be the principal providers of scheduled services. What has now been established is that Caledonian/B.U.A. should be the principal independent scheduled airline. The need to ensure that these airlines have the strength to compete effectively in the world civil air transport market must in general limit, at least for some years to come, the grant to other British airlines of licences to operate international scheduled services that they do not already operate.
There are severe practical limits to the scope for double designation. In the shorter term the opportunities will be confined mainly to the routes mentioned in the Edwards Report—the North Atlantic and perhaps a few places in Europe. Within these limits, however, the Authority should license more than one British airline to serve the same scheduled service route wherever in its judgment, first, the traffic will be sufficient to support such competing services within a reasonable time; second, the choice and standard of services available to the public are likely to be improved; and, third,

1177
in the case of an international route, the aggregate share or the total traffic that is secured by the British airlines is likely to be increased to an extent that will more than offset any lasting disadvantages.
The Authority should accord to Caledonian/B.U.A., where practicable, a measure of preference over other airlines in the allocation of licences for new scheduled service routes, for routes on which double designation is desirable, or for charter operations where the number of British airlines needs for the time being to be restricted. The Authority should, however, in every case also take into account the effect of its decisions on the development of other airlines; it is not the Government's intention that there should be an automatic or complete preference.
The route patterns served by British airlines have grown to some extent haphazardly and do not always lend themselves to the greatest efficiency. This is especially true of regional air services within the United Kingdom. The Authority should examine from time to time, with the airlines concerned, whether scheduled service routes at home and abroad should be adjusted or reallocated among British airlines in order to rationalise any of their route networks. But routes should be transferred between airlines only where this would be likely to promote our main objectives.
In regulating domestic air services, the Authority should have regard to their place in the total internal transport system, and will keep in close touch with the Department of the Environment, so as to avoid competing investments that have no prospect of proving profitable. The Authority must take account of the contribution which air services may make to regional development. The Authority will also have the task of advising the Government and others concerned on the provision and development of aerodromes to match the development of air services.
The Bill sets out certain limitations as to the disclosure of commercially confidential information, but within these limits the Authority should publish promptly full statistical and other information about the industry and enterprises within it. In so far as it is for the Secretary of State to determine whether information should be disclosed,
1178
he will favour the widest possible disclosure.
The functions which the Authority will assume are not at present financially self-supporting, but the intention is that they should become so, so that the annual grant in aid can be progressively reduced and finally dispensed with. This means that the Authority will be required in due course to recover from the airlines and other users the full cost of the navigational and ground services it provides. There are certain limitations to the progress that can be achieved: in particular the charges for certain navigational services are subject to international agreement. But within this limitation and bearing in mind that the Authority will be providing some services to the Government against payment, the Authority should as soon as possible recover out of its revenues the whole of its costs including the cost of capital, without further subventions from public funds. Provided agreement on navigational services is reached with the other countries concerned, the Authority should be in a position to be self-supporting not later than the financial year 1977–78.
The Bill to some extent sets out the division of functions between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority, and it may be of help to the House if I summarise them shortly. The Government will remain responsible for international relations and also for matters concerning the environment, especially for aircraft noise.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The Minister says that the Government rather than the Department will be responsible for aircraft noise. Does this mean that this responsibility could be exercised by the Department for the Environment rather than by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
Mr. Noble: I do not want to be drawn on a subject which we have already debated in this House. The question of the environment spills over into two or three different departments. I am not at this stage trying to give hard and fast rules about which particular department deals with which particular problem of the environment. We feel this method to be right because both the matters I have mentioned involve considerably

1179
wider interest than simply civil aviation. It is, after all, only governments which can sign treaties.
There is then the problem of accident investigation.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Before my right hon. Friend turns to another matter, could he clear up one point? In using the term "international relations", does he include the negotiation of landing rights abroad as a matter for the Government or for the Authority?
Mr. Noble: Yes, that will be a matter for the Government. On the question of accident investigation, we accept the recommendation of the Edwards Committee that this should be kept separate from control of safety. I understand that this was the intention of the previous Government. The Government must be responsible for making any subordinate legislation which may arise. These are mainly questions of safety. The Government must retain the responsibility for the public bodies which already exist in this field, namely, the Authority itself, the British Airways Board and the British Airports Authority. The Government must also retain responsibility over matters of land use planning. Again, as with other problems involving the environment, a number of Ministers are often involved. Last of this catalogue, the Government clearly must remain responsible for policy formation.
It therefore follows that the Government must have powers of direction over the Authority in matters for which the Government remain responsible, but these essentially are reserve powers. The power of general direction contained in Clause 4(3), common to public body statutes, cannot override the general objectives in Clause 3(1); in other words, it cannot be used to upset what Parliament decides the objectives to be. The powers of particular direction in Clause 4(4) should not need to be used often, if at all, because the Authority and the Department will be working closely together.
Clause 20 provides for particulars of directions given to be published in the Authority's annual report so that we can all see how often—or, we hope, how rarely —these powers are used.
Mr. John Rankin: I find it difficult to grasp all the authorities mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Could he tell me whether, when these authorities become effective, their presence at the airport will slow down the entry of passengers into the aircraft or whether they will slow down the exit of passengers at the journey's end?
Mr. Noble: I very much hope that when the authorities of which the hon. Gentleman speaks have got into full swing they will do exactly the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and that they will enable passengers and traffic in general to move more quickly rather than more slowly.
Mr. Rankin: Is that a promise?
Mr. Noble: I cannot say that is a promise. I cannot make a promise on behalf of a board that does not exist, but since the whole purpose of the Bill is to streamline an already considerably complicated system, one can hope with considerable confidence that this will be the result.
I should like to say a few words about the Air Registration Board which is being rechristened the Airworthiness Requirements Board. The fact that we have retained the initials A.R.B. at the specific request of Lord Kings Norton is a tribute to the success he and his fellow members have had over the last decade or more in creating a standard which is not only very high indeed in this country, but which is regarded internationally as most important. We hope that those concerned in future with airworthiness will be able to make an even greater contribution within the broader framework of the Authority.
A word or two about staff. When one undertakes a hiving off operation, inevitably there are some anxieties. The staff numbers 8,000, of whom about 7,500 are civil servants, and I should like to recall the undertakings which have already been made. Their conditions of employment will be at least as good as they are at present and we shall encourage development within the Civil Aviation Authority of a comprehensive system of staff consultation. This system has been provided for in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Could my right hon. Friend say something about the composition of the new Airworthiness Requirements Board?

1181
In the past the members of the Air Registration Board were drawn from people in aviation who had rendered great service to the country. Will this practice continue?
Mr. Noble: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I believe that the composition of the Board will be, if not exactly the same, drawn in a very similar way. It has been a great success story and we hope that it will so remain. The Department of Trade and Industry will retain only a small nucleus dealing with civil aviation and we do not intend to duplicate the Authority's activities.
In regard to the Airways Board, since our time for debate is short, I will simply say that this was a recommendation of the Edwards Committee which has been accepted broadly on both sides of the House—
Mr. Ian Mikardo: No.
Mr. Noble: With the exception of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo).
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: No.
Mr. Noble: And perhaps a few others. I said "broadly"; I did not say "totally". It is the result of a long debate which has been going on for a number of years about whether it would be more efficient and effective for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to merge into a single line. Sir Ronald Edwards, who looked into the matter with great care, felt—and I agree with him—that the only way of deciding this problem was to study it carefully for some time from the inside. Clause 39 requires the British Airways Board to look closely into the group's organisation and report its findings. It can if it wishes propose a complete integration of the Corporations, but this would need the approval of Parliament before any change as drastic as this were made. Any substantial changes in group organisation will in any case require the Secretary of State's consent and the Secretary of State may also give directions about group organisation.
I wish to pay tribute to the Boards and staffs of the Air Corporations, with whom we have discussed details of this Bill on which there has been a large measure of agreement. I am confident that when these provisions come into operation we shall have the wholehearted
1182
support of all the people involved in the new organisation.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that this proposal will not mean that there will be such large numbers of people employed by the Board that this will cause difficulties to the Air Corporations in that there will be a heavy weight of bureaucracy interfering all the way down the line?
Mr. Noble: No. I think that I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that point. We do not intend the Airways Board to reduplicate both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The Board is much more in the nature of a holding company, and I guess that its staff would be extremely efficient but quite small.
Mr. Mikardo: May I raise a small and simple point, but one that intrigues me? As far as I know, this is the first Measure setting up this sort of public organisation in which there are Schedules —Schedules 1 and 8—laying down the composition and method of operation of the board and, in one case, the Authority, in which no qualifications are laid down for membership of the board. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that is so?
Mr. Noble: I suspected that the hon. Member's small and simple point might not be quite so small and simple. He has much more experience than I have of studying Schedules to nationalised industry Bills. I do not know why the qualifications were not set out, but if the hon. Member is interested I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to answer him at the end of the debate.
Mr. Russell Kerr: You just have to to be a friend of the Government.
Mr. Noble: I told the House on 15th December that the major part of the routes to be transferred to Caledonian-British United Airways, in accordance with the statement of 3rd August, 1970, would consist of B.O.A.C.'s route to West Africa. Caledonian-B.U.A. will start to serve this route next Thursday, 1st April. The balance of the transfer will comprise B.O.A.C.'s service between London and Tripoli, together with the introduction, at a later date convenient to Caledonian-B.U.A., of services between Gatwick and Paris-Le Bourget.

1183
In addition, the Government will no longer require the imposition of restrictions on the carriage of first-class traffic on Caledonian-B.U.A.'s services to East Africa. The effective dates have yet to be settled but it is likely that Caledonian-B.U.A. will start to serve Tripoli this summer and Paris either towards the end of this year or in the early part of 1972. The French and Libyan authorities have been informed. British United Airways have held for a number of years a licence permitting two services a day to Paris but this could not be used without a corresponding reduction in B.E.A.'s services. When Caledonian-B.U.A. is ready to start its service, B.E.A. will make way for them by relinquishing up to four daily frequencies to Le Bourget. The House will appreciate that this arrangement contributes not only to the strengthening of the "second force" airline, as envisaged in the statement of 3rd August, 1970, but also to an increase in competition in circumstances that should benefit the public by providing a choice not only of airlines but also of airports for travel to Paris.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can the Minister tell the House the total amount of route revenue transfer that is now envisaged, involving the route transfer from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.? What is the total amount?
Mr. Noble: I am told that the total is exactly within the level that I gave to the House in August.
Mr. Huckfield: I wonder.
Mr. Noble: There are other routes which we looked at which would have been even more attractive to Caledonian-B.U.A. than those which have now been selected, but the impact on the Air Corporations and on the total national interest would have been disproportionately great. The measures which have now been decided are within the terms of the statement of 3rd August, 1970, including the value figure defined in that statement.
The Government do not intend any further transfer of routes in this context, and the powers under which the transfers are being made will be repealed by the Bill now before the House. Thereafter, only the Civil Aviation Authority will have the power to transfer a route from one airline to another—from any airline
1184
to any other airline—in accordance with the objectives in Clause 3 and with the guidance given to it from time to time under subsection (2) of that Clause. This is a power that the Air Transport Licensing Board has had throughout, and I think that it is accepted on all sides that it is a necessary power to meet all manner of circumstances. This is in no way inconsistent with the assurances that I have given that no further transfers will be made from the Air Corporations to Caledonian-B.U.A. as part of this exercise.
All these measures are designed to strengthen our civil aviation industry for the difficult and perhaps highly competitive years ahead. We can look forward with great confidence to the part that they are able to play, based on their success in the past. I am sure that the House will wish the Bill well, and I therefore commend it.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Roy Mason: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, although in a very low tone, introduced the highly controversial topic of the hiving-off of more routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to the second force. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in introducing a major Measure of this kind it would be sensible to try to get a consensus of the House and not purposely to introduce this highly controversial topic, on which most hon. Members will now focus their minds and spend some time debating this afternoon, which will mean that in terms of the House's fully understanding and appreciating the contents of this major change the debate will not have served a useful purpose.
Is it not true that although the second force is now in being it has not yet legally received the routes? Is the question not subject to affirmative Orders of the House? The right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House an Order transferring routes to Kano, Lagos and Accra to Caledonian-B.U.A. from B.O.A.C., but that is subject to an affirmative Resolution that has not yet been debated. In that case, how is it that Caledonian-B.U.A.—as the Minister suggested—can commence operating on Thursday, 1st April?

1185
Secondly, having announced that he is taking another route from B.O.A.C.— namely, the London-Tripoli route—when it was understood at the outset that the B.O.A.C. routes had all now been taken, and what remained was the possibility of a transfer of B.E.A. routes, from London to Paris, is not this really akin to a kick in the groin for B.O.A.C. when its position is already, to say the least, financially disturbing?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the total change, in terms of the routes to Kano, Lagos and Accra, and the Tripoli routes, including Paris—Le Bourget, to be transferred from B.O.A.C. to the second force is well within the £6 million annnal route revenue. That is not the point; the point is the profitability that flows from the routes.
Only last weekend B.O.A.C. announced that the routes taken from it accounted for a profit of £1½ million per year. I hope that I shall have time to deal with the question of the second force more fully in the context of the Bill.
The industry has waited a long time for this legislation. We established the Edwards Committee in July, 1967, and it reported in May, 1969. We then introduced a White Paper—Command 4213— in November, 1969, and the House and the aviation industry has had to wait until this Monday for the Bill. It is likely that four years will have elapsed from the first probe to the legislative act.
Sir A. V. Harvey: When discussing the long waiting period, will the right hon. Gentleman say why the House was not given the opportunity to discuss the Edwards Report?
Mr. Mason: I cannot take any responsibility for that. As the hon. Member knows, matters debated in the House are usually agreed through the usual channels, and I was not one of the spokesmen of the usual channels at that time.
The fact is that it will have taken four years for the recommendations to get on the Statute Book, and for all concerned— the Corporations, the Air Transport Licensing Board, the Air Registration Board, the thousands of civil servants, the independent airlines and the many workers whose future is dependent on this
1186
vast industry—it is time for this uncertainty to be ended. Also, because of the many imponderables confronting our civil aviation industry, the debate is timely, and the creation of the new Civil Aviation Authority and the Airways Board fits into a time scale which may well enable all the expertise jointly and more quickly to tackle some of the major issues troubling the industry.
In that context we have only to think of the future fleet requirements of B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and the independent airlines; the introduction of the 747s; the wrangles taking place about the airbus; the TriStar and the Concorde; the Rolls-Royce problem; the dilemma of the third London airport; the increasing traffic movements, especially over London; air traffic control problems and, within a decade, the advent of short takeoff and landing aircraft.
Fortunately, and credit is due to them, the Corporations have both had good years, but the worries of the future appear in their latest annual reports. The June, 1970, report of B.O.A.C. seems to sum it up best. It stated:
"Industry-wide costs of production are rising, revenue yield falling, both trends being likely to continue for some time to come. It is thus an industry faced with over-production, rising unit costs and falling revenue rates."
In view of the statement at the weekend, how right the report has proved to be. There are others, both on the Continent and in America, faced with similar and in some cases more worrying futures. So, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the fact must be faced that air transport generally is entering one of the regular cycles when there is every probability that capacity will exceed demand for quite an appreciable period.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. Therefore, will he accept that B.O.A.C. has made it plain that the profit fall-off it has recently had is largely due to such factors as troubles with the cargo centre, the non-operation of the 747, with consequent loss of revenue, industrial troubles of various kinds, and a massive loss of revenue resulting from the postal strike; and that, however farsighted he may consider the Corporation to have been, some of these factors could not have been foreseen six months ago?
Mr. Mason: I do not think that the hon. Member is being fair to B.O.A.C. It did not then visualise that the 747 would be grounded for so long, with loss of revenue. It did not visualise the trouble in industry at the time, the continuing depression in the United States market and, above all, the recession which has been brought about here since the return of the present Government. So the hon. Gentleman is not being fair to B.O.A.C.
One cannot help but be struck by the pace of change in civil aviation. The industry has moved through the era of turbo jets, pure jets, and then the wide-bodied aircraft. It is an industry which, during the last decade, has been doubling its output every five or six years. This has been quite exceptional expansion. Now the cycle is on the downturn—and, paradoxically, with the advent of jumbo-jets and, possibly, TriStars and Concordes. All these aircraft necessitate heavy investment at a time of some hesitancy about the future.
It is also an amazing industry, as is witnessed by the changes every decade technologically, commercially and even the changing face of the airlines. The periodic sizeable investment decisions, too, have a frightening aspect when one realises that a factor of consumer appeal or disapproval, which cannot be so easily appraised, can determine the payload, and hence the success or failure of the investment. As Ronnie Edwards suggests, the industry exists to serve the consumer, who by his choice lets the industry know in no uncertain fashion if he was or is being ignored.
Speaking of the consumer, we have noticed recently that the battle for long-haul bulk travel and long-haul inclusive tours has begun. Both of the Corporations, Caledonian-B.U.A. and the other independents are all competing. It is a big market, and fierce competition has now developed between our own carriers within Europe and beyond. As this fight grows for the overseas holidaymaker and the exploitation of bulk travel, it will be incumbent on the Civil Aviation Authority to protect the consumers and see that they benefit. Licensing the inclusive tour operators should increase the protection for the public against any unscrupulous or financially unsound firms, and I hope that that will be done.
1188
Speaking more specifically about the Bill, I want, as did the right hon. Gentleman, to praise Ronnie Edwards and his Committee. We have done this many times before, but it must be most gratifying to them all to see so much of their work coming to fruition and so many of their recommendations being accepted. Their Report was thorough and comprehensive and they certainly had scope in the terms of reference. The Committee produced a survey in depth, including recommendations for sweeping constitutional changes. This was followed by our White Paper, which embodied most of the Committee's proposals.
Command 4213 is a charter for the fuller development of all our civil aviation forces, and the Bill is modelled to some extent on that charter. We visualised a new major powerful regulatory authority covering the whole of our civil aviation transport, and an airways board strong enought to marry the kith-and-kin services of the Corporations, with powers, if necessary, to effect a merger. That was the aim of our White Paper, and I hope that we shall get an assurance from the Government that they, too, have that goal in mind.
With regard to the Civil Aviation Authority, the need for more purposive regulations is clear. Our record of safety in the air is quite good. The British Airline Pilots Association has some reservation about safety being subject to economic pressures and would like the Government to consider the creation of a separate aviation authority. That is a point that might well be worth considering in Committee.
We are pioneers in dealing with the problem of aircraft noise. In 1966 I chaired an international conference at Lancaster House, when we managed to get an agreement to develop less noisy aero-engines and to grant airworthiness certificates only if the aircraft complied with the new perceived noise decibel rating—and, of course, the RB211 was the engine which we hoped would start to make that break-through.
The record of the Corporations for stability and regularity of air services is unquestionable and compares with the best in the world, but this is an international industry necessitating diplomatic contacts at all levels in Government and in the industry itself in order to establish

1189
a network of regular airline services throughout the world. This subject therefore requires some Government involvement.
Our licensing system has been much criticised, and I do not blame the Air Transport Licensing Board. The Board has been hamstrung from its inception with restrictive terms of reference, and successive Ministers have caused havoc with various appeals. Licensing, therefore, is urgently in need of reform.
The Air Registration Board—a body possibly without parallel—built up a fine national and international reputation for airworthiness. Lord Kings Norton has a magnificent team, but it is right to say that the Air Registration Board—now being newly named the Airworthiness Requirements Board—should be under the umbrella of the Civil Aviation Authority. It is still keeping a measure of independence within the Authority, but I know that it is expressing concern at its loss of autonomy. It would be good for the A.R.B. to be under the umbrella of the Authority.
All the independent airlines must be registered with the Civil Aviation Authority, and must give that Authority the fullest information of their finances and all their operations.
The Authority, with all these regulatory powers, is a major constitutional innovation and is bound to be a new form of corporation—8,000 persons and a board of mainly, I would hope, aviation personnel led by a strong chairman. There is now a chance for many within the Civil Service to cease shuffling and gradually settle within the Authority and develop aviation expertise, a chance for many who were previously compartmentalised in their respective aviation boards and councils to encourage cross-chance to regulate all our civil aviation fertilisation and make the Authority all the richer because of it. There is a transport industry for the first time.
Having said that, it must have power. At the moment the Bill is riddled with Ministerial interference; and if it stays that way the Authority will be stifled and frustrated from the outset. What real authority is to be granted to the Civil Aviation Authority? To what extent, how easily, and in what spheres, can it be politically overruled'? Time after
1190
time the Secretary of State may "order" or "require", may give general directions. There is interference and interference throughout the Bill. Much of that will have to be curtailed; and this will be one of our objectives in Committee.
Second, one of the Civil Aviation Authority's tasks will be, as the Minister suggested, the allocation of routes, because now it is the licensing authority. Will paragraph 33 of the Civil Aviation White Paper apply when it comes to reallocation of routes, when it comes to licensing the second carrier on a scheduled route? I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will particularly answer this question, because in paragraph 33 we laid down certain conditions that had to be met.
I quote from that paragraph:
"… the Authority will need to satisfy itself that three conditions are met."
This is dealing with licensing a second carrier on a scheduled route.
"First, the applicant airline should have the skill and resources needed to mount an effective service and make it viable within a reasonable period. Secondly, the designation of an independent airline on a route already served by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. should not unduly impair the Corporations' services, or their capacity to meet the financial obligations laid upon them by the Government. Thirdly, the net increase in traffic gained by the two carriers together and the resulting benefits to consumers and to the balance of payments should more than offset any diseconomies."
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let us know whether that will still apply.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement which he made towards the end of last year when he said that a once-for-all transfer of routes to Caledonian-B.U.A. would be effected and that there would be none after that. I take it from what he said during the course of his opening remarks that that is true, that that will bind the Authority, and that there will be no more transfer of routes from the Corporations to the independent airline.
Mr. Noble: We have made this point often, but I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent anything I have said. I have consistently said that this is a once-for-all operation on this exercise. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Bill he will see that it is also true that the Civil Aviation Authority may in the future want to rationalise

1191
routes at home or overseas and it has this power. The Secretary of State has made this point quite clear on a number of occasions.
Mr. Mason: It was pleasing that the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet, but it was not so pleasing that he started wriggling in his reply. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will spell out particularly to what extent that once-for-all transfer that the Minister so specifically mentioned and stood by in past debates may effectively bind the Authority—that there will be no transfer of routes by the new licensing authority from the Corporations across to Caledonian-B.U.A.
This new-found second force of Caledonian-B.U.A., based on what we described as a disgraceful, despicable act, may have a very limited life. These pinched routes from the Corporations— £6 million worth of route revenue now and we already know from B.O.A.C. that £1½ million of profit per year is involved —have been taken away without compensation. We have already decreed that these routes will be transferred back to the Corporation on our return to office and, because they have profited in the meantime, they will be transferred without compensation.
The Minister had better clear the air about this force. The second force is not to work against the Corporations. We accept that some competition is inevitable, but it would be farcical and ridiculous to allow a war to develop which would weaken all. The Authority and the Board are being established with a view to stablising and strengthening the whole industry and not to create a war between the two.
Also, I hope that the Civil Aviation Authority will, under its powers of licensing all the independents, take note of paragraphs 8 to 11 on pages 4 and 5 of the last Report of the Air Transport Licensing Board, dealing with pricing policy and traffic regulations. The A.T.L.B. strongly recommends that the
"… authority should require the licensed airlines to produce financial results for individual routes (or groups of routes) and types of traffic on a common accounting basis which the authority should determine"
and
"that this financial information, on which"
1192
the tariff decisions will be largely based "should be made public". So far the independent airlines in particular have refused. The Civil Aviation Authority must remove that impediment.
The Report also spells out in paragraph 15 why there is dissatisfaction with the appeals procedure. The Minister mentioned this. In paragraph 31 the Board describes the "lamentably confused situation" and uncertainty of planning for the future by the airlines under the present licensing system.
Therefore, we hope to see disclosure of all information, a better appeals procedure, and a licensing technique which is designed to further the developments of British civil aviation.
On 18th March, when dealing more fully with our White Paper, I said this in the House:
"The other main thing that the Government will do to strengthen the industry is to set up a Civil Aviation Authority that will bring together all aspects of the regulation of the industry under a single roof … By bringing the various regulatory functions together in this way, we hope to establish a body"—
Mr. F. A. Burden: 18th March?
Mr. Mason: Yes, 18th March.
Mr. Burden: 1969.
Mr. Mason: No—1970; I am sorry. I continue reading:
"By bringing the various regulatory functions together in this way, we hope to establish a body that will build up a breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the industry such as will enable it to guide and assist the industry's development in the best possible way. Under the broad guidance of a statement of Government policy, which it will be bound to observe, the Authority will have a considerable discretion in its day-to-day decisions, and our intention is that it should be left to get on with its job."
I emphasise the last sentence—"to get on with its job", not to be, as the Bill suggests, subject to constant Ministerial interference.
Within that broad guidance we would hope that the Authority would benefit the interests of the consumer, obtain an economic return on investment, have rational pricing policies, conduct safe operations, provide good working conditions for those in the industry, obtain greater earnings from abroad and so

1193
strengthen our balance of payments and make a greater contribution to the national economy.
We want an Authority with the freedom, within a broad Ministerial directive—that is, a formal statement of policy—to plan all our civil aviation services, have authority to co-ordinate all the participating bodies in the industry, and make a greater assault upon the rich and expanding opportunities in the world markets. These, therefore, generally are the guidelines that we would like to see, to allow the Civil Aviation Authority the powers to plan for sensible growth of the whole of our civil aviation industry —the Corporations, the independents and our regional services.
What of the British Airways Board? Again, on 18th March last year I said:
"In the public sector, we propose to set up an Airways Board whose task will be to strengthen B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in every way, including all forms of co-ordination up to and including complete merger if that turns out to be in the national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 438.]
Sir Ronald Edwards suggested a holdings board over the two Corporations, operating a light rein. We visualised a stronger board that would force the pace of marrying common services. I hope this is what the Government have in mind. Sir Ronald Edwards levelled a few criticisms against the Corporations, especially mentioning their low productivity record and also pointing out that although their foreign earnings were high, they could be higher. Above all—and this was stressed in our White Paper—there was too much overlapping and duplication of common services.
So whilst one recognises that the Air Corporations Committee has been paving the way, it would seem that there is great scope for examining the possibilities of central administration marketing, publicity, catering, transport and hotels, the handling of inclusive tours, computer development and industrial relations, route rationalisation, the planning and operating of the route networks of the two Corporations in a more integrated manner, and, flowing from that, common equipment purchasing, common engineering services and maintenance.
On the latter point, the airlines on the Continent are perhaps making more
1194
progress in this regard than we are. Two consortia—K.S.S.U. covering K.L.M., S.A.S. and Swissair, and the Atlas consortium of Air France, Alitalia, Lufthansa, Sabena and Iberia—are already perfecting these procedures.
One worrying aspect of this question is the likelihood of rationalising and integrating the fleets of the Corporations because not many, if any, new British airframes are evident, and it may well mean in the future that the Corporations will always have to buy foreign aircraft, and, with the mess that the Government have landed us in with the RB211, it may be with foreign engines as well.
The possible exception is Concorde. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not thrust this down the throat of B.O.A.C. against their commercial wisdom, particularly at a cost of more than £12 million per aircraft and doubtful commercial viability. I hope also that they will not ask B.O.A.C. to take it at that price, anticipate refusal and give the Government an excuse to cancel and blame the Corporation for it. If in B.O.A.C's judgment it is a commercial risk, and if the Government think it is important to get Concorde in commercial service, then the Government must be prepared to take that into consideration when settling their financial objectives and their rate of return on net assets.
On the British Airways Board, once more it would appear from the Bill that this Board, like the Authority, will be subject to too much Secretary of State interference. The Secretary of State is mentioned on more than 50 occasions in the section dealing with the Board. There is no clear indication in the Bill of the powers of the Board—the light rein or the powers to control—or is it that the Government are waiting until the whole of the Corporations' services have been reviewed before they determine that?
What is also most disturbing is that within the Civil Aviation Authority's functions in Clause 3 there is a duty to recognise the second force but no such duty to recognise the Corporations. Does not that seem foolish to the Government? Why is it? Also, although it is enshrined in the Bill that the Chairmen of the Corporations are to be members of the

1195
Board, do I take it that no other member of the Corporations will be on the Board?
What also of consumer interests and trade union representation on the Authority and the Board? I hope the Government will also take note of the chapter on human relations in our White Paper and that when the Civil Aviation Authority is satisfying that an airline has adequate financial resources, competent management and the ability to operate safely before a licence is granted, it will also be satisfied about industrial relations and will not grant a licence unless there are also proper negotiating procedures and consultative machinery established.
Once the Civil Aviation Authority is in being, it will be necessary to have a national trade union and management forum of equal importance. This should be the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. This, as we all know, is not fully representative of the industry at present. But if we are to have planned orderly growth of all our civil aviation transport, then the Civil Aviation Authority should be advised at the outset to recognise the National Joint Council and decree that all its airlines become members of it.
I note that the Government will retain certain powers—the right hon. Gentlemen went through them briefly—of investigating accidents, the international negotiations on traffic rights, the exercise of control over aircraft noise, pollution and the siting of aerodromes. That is enough. Within the context of our White Paper and what I have said today, we hope that the Government will lay down the objectives and policy for the industry as a whole and see that the Authority carries them out with the minimum of interference.
Finally, many airlines of the world are in difficulties at the moment. Four American carriers between them have lost £72 million and have laid off nearly 10,000 staff. This downturn of the aviation cycle may not yet have reached the bottom of the trough. Fortunately, because of a forward planning and good management, our major carrier, B.O.A.C., and, to some extent, B.E.A., may just avoid such a calamitous position. Above all, we have to stop this fragmented and
1196
at times buccaneering approach in our civil air transport industry. The Authority and the Board should enable us to do this.
With that in mind, we shall do all we can to make them both effective, powerful and, for the prizes there are to be gained in the expansion of civil aviation, also help them both to succeed.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: If I may start as I shall not necessarily continue, I should like to express agreement with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that there has been too much uncertainty in civil aviation for far too long. Indeed, I well remember the morning of 26th July, 1967, when the then President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) came and told us that the Edwards Committee was to be set up. It fell to me to greet this announcement with modified rapture from the then Opposition Front Bench—rapture which was qualified partly by the fact that there had been an all-night sitting the night before and also because it seemed to me, as it still seems, that the Committee had been given very negative terms of reference, and I feared—events have now borne this out—that much time would be wasted as a result.
I should now like to say to my hon. Friend—though he may not detect it from all that I may say—that I welcome this Bill and, if I may give an unqualified welcome to anything, I give it to his statement that the transfer of routes to Caledonian-B.U.A. is now complete. I do not understand the churlish objections which the right hon. Member for Barnsley put forward. If there is any logic in the point that he seems to be adopting, it is that he would like the route pattern to be frozen for ever and no transfer made in the name of rationalisation from Caledonian-B.U.A. to another operator. I do not believe that is what he means, and I feel sure that on reflection he will see that his attitude is a bit silly.
My hon. Friend will know that his Bill has not been greeted with roars of applause throughout the industry. I hope he will not take it amiss if, in some

1197
respects, we regard it as a basis for negotiation. I take as an example Clause 4(4), which, to my relief, my right hon. Friend said was unlikely to be much used. Anyone who has read Clause 4(4) will, no doubt, say "Hear hear" to that, for it really is one of the nastiest bits of terminological sludge that I have seen for a long time. It reminds me of the good old days of the Post Office Bill. Here is what it says:
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Authority, give to the Authority directions requiring the Authority to secure that a particular thing which it is doing is no longer done by it, or that a particular thing which it has power to do and is not doing is done or not done by it, if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to give such directions …"
Without inflating my own powers of draftsmanship, I reckon to be able to offer the Secretary of State a more economical set of words which will achieve much the same purpose—something along these lines:
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Authority, and if he considers it appropriate, give the Authority specific directions …"
Here and there throughout the Bill— I mean no offence to the draftsman—one comes across other little monsters from the black lagoon of parliamentary sludge, and I very much hope that we shall be able to get rid of some of them in Committee. But that is by the way; it is not my main grievance against the Bill, though I thought it right to mention it.
Now, some questions for my right hon. Friend, the answers to which, I think, will be helpful to the House. Again, on terminology, we find in Clause 3(1)(b) the curious phrase "charter and other terms". What does that mean, and why is it phrased in that way? Is it because there is some difficulty in defining "schedule"? Indeed, why are those words necessary at all?
Now, a more substantial query, perhaps: Why is there so little mention in the Bill of operational safety? I can find no reference to the A.O.C. Is it because the 1949 Act powers are thought to be sufficient to cover the present situation, or is there some other reason which has escaped me?
Again, on terminology, what is meant by the words in the sidenote to Clause 26,
1198
"provision for persons of accommodation in aircraft"?
Is there some curious idea behind it that people might live in the disused hulks of unwanted jumbos or something of that kind, or is it a somewhat oblique reference to travel organisers or tour operators? If the latter, what is wrong with just those words?
Dodging about a bit, I now take up a point raised by the right hon. Member for Barnsley regarding the attitude which the Bill reveals—or, rather, conceals—on the publication of statistics. There seems to be a lot of power to call for statistics and some limitation regarding what statistics may be released to anyone, whether a private person or a public body, but there is little to indicate precisely what positive approach will be adopted to the publication of statistical material. I do not necessarily believe that the more statistics are published the wiser people will become—I see no direct connection between the two—but it is generally recognised that more statistics could with advantage be made public.
Next, am I right in thinking—I apologise if I heat the blood of the right hon. Member for Barnsley by asking this —that under Clause 40(1)(b) there are powers which could be so used as, in effect, to denationalise the Air Corporations, one at a time or both together, on a B.P. basis or in some other way? I only want to know, and I hone that that notion will not overheat the Front Bench opposite.
Finally, what is the situation now as regards the B.E.A. second tranche, the £12½ million—if I recall the figure aright—which it was entitled to claim if it found that, in operation, it was unable to secure the return on the Trident which might at one time have been hoped?
I come now to a major omission from the Bill which worries me, namely, the very sparing reference to airport policy. I recognise at once that policy in major areas must be made by the Government, and it may well be that airport planning and location is one such, but I should have thought that the Civil Aviation Authority could make an important contribution to the Government's chances of getting a national airport plan right. Ought there not to be a duty put upon the Authority to take part in that?

1199
If the rumours circulating at the weekend about "No airport for Cublington" are right—I should welcome that—and if the decision is to be taken in stages in this way, I should not necessarily say that that was wrong, but I should very much hope—I hope, also, that the Civil Aviation Authority might be able to help in a process of this kind—that those responsible for taking decisions on which a national airport plan will be based would first recognise that there is no reason to suppose that the statistics on which the planners have been working hitherto are wholly accurate. There is considerable evidence of a falling away in the rate of growth of both passenger movement and freight movement by air, and the pattern of passenger movement may well alter if the United States and the North American continent open up as a major holiday outlet, replacing, perhaps, the Costa Brava and the Mediterranean. This could happen, and it would have considerable relevance to national airport planning.
To take a broader point, it would seem wrong to take any action, if not absolutely unavoidable, which would have the effect of shifting this country's centre of gravity further to the east. We have lived far too long with the great weight of national attention, effort and growth on the South-East. If we have an opportunity to do anything to redress this imbalance, we should take it. There is a strong case for saying that the further to the west of London a new international airport is built, the more likely it is to be in the right place.
Further, if we are to economise in projects for which enormous sums of money are needed, it is very much to everyone's advantage that we should take what profit we can from the infrastructure which exists. Not to dwell on it at length, but to make the point briefly, I suggest that my right hon. Friend, if he went to Severnside, would find in that area roads, houses, schools and all the infrastructure which a workforce needs virtually already established within a radius of 20 or 30 miles, and little need for the massive public investment in building it up such as there could be if an airport were ever to be established at some such place as Foulness. There could be considerable
1200
potential economy in investment in that way, and this at a time when we certainly have not enormous sums of money to spend on aviation or anything else.
Mr. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the difficulties and problems associated with Foulness, and I am sure that the people concerned there and in North-West Kent will be grateful to him, too.
Mr. Onslow: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Another unfortunate small omission to which I draw attention—I hope that we can put it right in Committee—is that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which has the effect of strengthening the consultative machinery which was widened by the Civil Aviation Act, 1968. The time has come for a statutory requirement on aerodrome managers to satisfy the Secretary of State that they are providing adequate consultative machinery for the benefit of local residents, and they should be at risk of losing their aerodrome licences if they fail to meet that requirement. I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend to accept an Amendment on this point.
Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend knows Fairoaks aerodrome in Surrey very well. The lack of consultative machinery there has caused a great deal of concern among the local residents. I imagine that that was the sort of point which he had in mind when calling for adequate consultation.
Mr. Onslow: I am one of my hon. Friend's constituents, I can see that aerodrome from my window, and I rely on him to advance my interests in every possible way.
I find myself now in the rather unaccustomed position of agreeing, without too many reservations, with the right hon. Member for Barnsley. I think that Part 1 of the Bill is by far the most important. Whatever the provisions and consequences of the Clauses dealing with the Airways Board, we have to some extent to reserve judgment on them because the powers therein make sense only if it is determined that there should be a merger between the two Corporations, and they are powers which we can well do without if, on inquiry, it is found that

1201
a merger is unnecessary and inappropriate. That, to some extent, is something we can come to much later.
The Civil Aviation Authority is a very important step forward, but as the Bill is worded it appears that whatever the intention of the Clauses may be their effect is likely to be restrictive. So much depends on the nature of regulations we have not yet seen, and on the terms of guidance, which my right hon. Friend has been able only to outline to us. I understand, of course, that one function the Authority would have had—the transfer of routes, though not significant routes—to a second force, in the words of the White Paper and the late Government, has been superseded by events, by the keenness of the directors of British and Commonwealth to find their way round the proposals to which both the Government and Opposition were committed. But I still do not understand whether a satisfactory answer has been given to the proposition that if the A.T.L.B. have been set up right and staffed right and left alone it might have done the job as well as we expect the C.A.A. to do it.
The weakness of the A.T.L.B. seemed to centre all through on the fact that it was always possible for anyone to appeal against its decisions, that its attitudes were never clearly known, which was partly its fault, and that its members all seemed to be old gentlemen—I do not blame them for that—who did not necessarily last a full day very easily. I do not know whether other hon. Members present have attended a session of the A.T.L.B., as I have. It seemed to me a potentially very workable machinery if it was allowed to take decisions which had effect and stood, if it was prepared to formulate attitudes instead of retreating from them, and if its members' ages could be somewhat reduced.
My right hon. Friend and I had some correspondence on this subject. I complained to him that the latest appointments had not succeeded in reducing the average age of the Board below threescore years. He wrote me a comforting letter saying that when the C.A.A. was formed it would be possible to introduce younger executive types because the opportunities would be that much greater, the scope would be correspondingly larger, and it would offer a job content
1202
and remuneration attractive to younger men. I hope that my right hon. Friend is right. We must test this in Committee. So far it does not seem to me to be proved beyond a doubt that the functions of the Authority in its licensing sphere will necessarily be such as to attract the men of ability, imagination and drive without whom it will not work at all. It will make a home for many civil servants who are doing a splendid job, but it does not yet seem to me to be so constructed as to make certain that it will attract new blood into the industry and give the drive which the operators have a right to expect of the licensing system which controls them.
I find much sympathy with the editorial in the last week's edition of Flight, the burden of which is that the restrictions that the C.A.A. appears to be going to be placed under will be still greater than those which now exist and which have been applied for a long and not necessarily very happy period in British aviation. That is the real burden of my complaint.
This is a civil servants' Bill, inevitably drafted by civil servants, and, I have some suspicion, drafted for civil servants. Just because it is non-political, it is not necessarily non-controversial. I hope that we can persuade my right hon. Friend to follow the important precedent of civil aviation Bills in Committee of accepting the Committee's help to improve the Bill.
We all—many more of us than those who are here this afternoon—understand the importance of aviation to our economy. There is no sense in pretending that the aeroplane has not been invented. There is no sense in pretending that civil aviation does not face considerable difficulties through prejudice, ignorance and competition of a kind that is not always fair. It is affected perhaps more than most industries by momentary hiccups in the economic circumstances surrounding it. The House has been reminded of evidence of that. If it is to flourish, as we must all wish it to flourish, and if the House is to play the right rôle in enabling it to flourish, it is most important that we should create the maximum conditions of certainty and the maximum of confidence on the part of those who earn their living in it. By that I mean nationalised bodies, independent bodies and every man who depends on civil aviation for his livelihood. I hope that we

1203
shall not forget that in the end the profits and successes in civil aviation will be won by the operators, not by the regulators.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: During the period in which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and I have been in the House together there have not been many occasions or issues on which I have found myself in agreement with him, but on this occasion I agree very much with three points he made. First, I agree that airport users' consultative committees must be strengthened. The reason why they are not very strong was elicited by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its examination of the British Airports Authority.
The fact is that those bodies are not in the real sense of the word independent, because they have no resources. They must rely on the British Airports Authority to give them a room in which to meet, and in some cases to provide other facilities, including the calling of meetings. In at least some cases—I do not know whether this applies in all cases— the chairman receives some sort of honorarium from the Authority. I am not saying that on these grounds the chairman or members of the committees will say, "Because we get an odd cup of coffee and a biscuit from the Authority, we shall not be critical." But it is pretty obvious that if we want to create a situation of conflict, as we do here, because the committees must look after the interests of the consumer against the Authority, then we must give them some resources of their own. To do so would not cost much, and I invite the Minister to think about it. A few thousand pounds a year would go a long way to satisfy the perfectly proper demand of the hon. Member for Woking in that regard.
Second, I agree that the Bill is stodgily worded. I have been following through a number of Measures with broadly similar objectives, and it is funny to note how they get longer and longer and more and more wordy. They start by having belt and braces and finish up by having belt, braces, suspenders, safety pins and the whole lot. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I wish that he had carried further his examination of the beautiful wording of Clause 4(4), part of which
1204
says that if the Minister discovers that the wicked Authority is not doing something he can tell it not to do it. That is going a bit far.
Third, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the ineffectiveness of the Air Transport Licensing Board, though I am not sure that my diagnosis of the reasons for that are the same as his. The evidence given by witnesses from the Board to the Select Committee when it examined British European Airways, which is published as an appendix to the Report, is one of the choicest pieces of comic literature ever published by the Stationery Office. The way in which those venerable gentlemen, as the hon. Gentleman rightly described them, milled around under what was really a modest, gentle, kindly and charitable cross-examination of what they were up to revealed that the Board could not have worked in the way in which it was supposed to be working.
Much more than I agreed with the hon. Member for Woking, I agree with a great deal of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). Because I shall say one or two things about him in a moment or two with which he may not find himself in the most enthusiastic agreement, I should like at this stage to pay my tribute to the many constructive elements in his speech.
The Bill is bad—I will vote against it and if I were the only hon. Member to feel this way, I would still vote against it—because it contains measures for weakening, and potentiality for destroying, two of the safest, most efficient and most successful airlines in the world which, between them, constitute a piece of British enterprise that brings great credit to this country wherever they operate.
I find myself in a different position from my right hon. Friends over this, and I do not intend to mince words about it. I am concerned to save B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and not to save the faces of former Ministers of the last Labour Government who opened the way for the introduction of this bad Bill.
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley that the Caledonian-B.U.A. merger was bad and

1205
a carve-up. It would not have taken place had he not stopped the B.O.A.C.B.U.A. merger. I can, therefore, be somewhat more expansive than he can in expressing my indignation.
The Bill totally ignores the lessons of the history of British civil aviation. I have followed this history for a long time and I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reference to the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport, of which I am a member. The Joint Council is approaching its 25th anniversary and I discovered to my horror the other day that I am the only surviving founder-member, which makes me feel very ancient indeed and tends to impel me to write a letter of resignation.
By that means, and elsewhere, I have been following the history of British civil aviation for a long time, and there has been a constant thread running through it. It is that whenever the industry suffers, as it has several times, an act of fragmentation, it starts to go downhill and within a few years that act of fragmentation must be reversed to put the industry on its feet again.
The story starts way back in the 'thirties, when we had British Airways and Imperial Airways. They were fragmented and represented a duplication of effort and a waste of resources. They cut each other up. The facts were so obvious that even a Conservative Government had to merge them under public ownership. Thus, B.O.A.C., the first publicly-owned airline in Britain, was not the creation of some red, rabid, revolutionary Socialist Government but of a Conservative Administration because the facts of civil aviation life at that time were inescapable.
The Cadman Report was, in my view, a much better document, allowing for the difference in time, than the Edwards Report, nearly 40 years later. It exposed all the nonsense of trying to have double designation for British civil aviation. It was as a result of that exposé that the fragmentation of that time was reversed and B.O.A.C. was formed.
In 1946 the then Labour Government stupidly hived off South American routes to a separate corporation, and a few years later that had to be reversed. The British South American Airways Corporation was integrated into B.O.A.C.
1206
Later still, under a Conservative Government this time, we had the third act of fragmentation when B.O.A.C. was compelled, by one of the most shabby commercial manoeuvres I have ever come across—a manoeuvre which, if it had been perpetrated in the City, would have landed somebody in court for fraud—to pass over some of its business to Cunard.
Again, it was a failure. This double designation across the Atlantic had to be put into reverse. The two pieces had to be merged and the fragmentation brought to an end, simply because British aviation will not work in this humpty-dumpty fashion. Successive acts of fragmentation have proved a failure and have had to be reversed and there are five reasons why this has been so.
The first is the obvious one; that the duplication of services cuts into the profits of both bits. It does not matter whether the two are private or public or whether one is public and one is private. The two cut into each other because the laws of economics operate in that way. Duplication means higher sales costs and higher overheads per unit. No philosophy, Labour or Tory, can get away from that.
Secondly, such duplication, double designation or fragmentation represents a serious waste of scarce resources, and there are some very scarce, advanced and sophisticated skills in this industry. When there is fragmentation and there is a disparate organisation the rich butter is spread too thinly on too many slices
Thirdly, the private sector in civil aviation has never been able to offer its employees proper standards of pay and conditions. In fact, the private sector had never been able to compete fairly with the Corporations. Compared with the Corporations, it has always underpaid, and this is bound to cause trouble.
Fourthly, perhaps because of lower criteria in pay and conditions—perhaps for other reasons also—the safety standards in the private sector, as the Edwards Report clearly shows, are substantially lower than those of the Corporations. The incidence of accidents in the private sector is correspondingly substantially higher—
Mr. John Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Mikardo: —and if that is on this point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I hope he will save his trouble by reading the Edwards Report, where he will find all the figures.
The fifth reason for the failure of every act of fragmentation concerns double designation.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Mikardo: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have made my fifth point.
Because of the delicacy and sophistication of reciprocal rights between the aircraft flag carriers of different countries and because of the complexities of pool arrangements, the effect of double designation has always been that, overall, there is less for British airline operators, public and private, and more for their foreign competitors.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Mikardo: I promised to give way shortly. The bloke must think he has some act of genius to bestow on the House.
It is idle my right hon. Friend and the Minister talking about double designating where it will not hurt the Corporations and where there will be an increase in the totality of traffic. The whole history of civil aviation shows that double designation benefits the competitor, and the real beneficiary on the London-Paris route will not be B.E.A. or B.U.A. Caledonian but Air France. Now I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) aware that his remarks imputing lower standards of safety among the independents were unjustifiable and most irresponsible, because they will affect the confidence of thousands of passengers throughout the country? If he had looked at the Edwards Report thoroughly, he would have found that the number of notifiable accidents per 100,000 stage flights of British United Airways was significantly lower than that for B.O.A.C. I would say that that was not a significant fact, but he should not draw such monstrous conclusions from the statistics.
Mr. Mikardo: I guessed that that was what the hon. Gentleman wanted to inter-
1208
vene about, and I have answered it. I rest on the Edwards Report, which has been quoted with approval from both sides of the House. I rest on the annual reports published over the years. I take no pleasure in it and I am not saying it for pleasure or to make any political point—I am sad about it. The only accident record I should like is accidents in the public sector and in the private sector, nil; but the sad fact remains that all the evidence goes to show that the incidence of accidents is substantially higher in the private than in the public sector, and the hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that fact.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It is interesting to observe that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) has quoted the best figure for the independents. If he had quoted the figure for dear old British Eagle, with which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was associated, he would have found that its record was twice as bad as that of British United Airways.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry, but this is my speech. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can speak later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If he wants to use figures in the House, he must learn to do one thing—to compare like with like and average with average, not the best of one group with the average of another.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Mikardo: No, I am not giving way again. The right hon. Gentleman can repeat himself later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: He is a jack-in-the-box.
Mr. Mikardo: I was quoting the average of one against the average of the other. I will spell it out for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman in short sharp words of four letters, so that he can take his L-plate off if he likes: the average incidence of accidents of both Corporations on all routes is substantially lower than the average incidence of accidents of all private operators on all routes—"That ain't me, that's Edwards".
I am sorry to have been a little diverted. I was arguing that the whole

1209
history of civil aviation showed that wherever the industry was separated out, it went wrong, and I have tried to analyse the reasons.
Yet Clause 3(1)(b) repeats the mistake of the past, but makes it more dogmatically and outrageously than ever before. It says that, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what changes may take place in the pattern of demand, no matter what changes may take place in civil aviation as a whole, or what differences there may be in the economics of the industry, regardless of circumstances and merit, there must always be a private airline.
If it loses money we have to have it; if it is grossly inefficient, we have to have it; if, as inevitably it must, it cuts into the profits of the Corporations and thereby costs the taxpayer money, we have still to put up with the taxpayer providing money in order to make profits for the shareholders of the private airline. If employment standards are lower, as they have been in the past—and this is the first ever Civil Aviation Bill not to lay down employment standards, and we have had many—the poor employees must put up with that. If it results, as all past experience shows that it must, in our losing traffic to foreign airlines, we must go on doing that in the sacred name and the sacred interests of a private airline.
Hon. Members opposite sometimes use the word "doctrinaire" as though it were a club to beat their opponents, but what can be more doctrinaire than that? We must have a private airline even if it loses money and costs the taxpayer money and results in a foreign airline taking business from us. The idiotic thing is that the Bill sets up a Board specifically to avoid duplication and the waste of resources between the two Corporations, but then specifically creates duplication and waste of resources between the two Corporations on the one hand and a private airline on the other. This is a brilliant manifestation of Conservative management science.
There are four other respects in which the Bill ignores the lessons of history. They are technical points, not of major importance, but not unimportant. First, the right hon. Gentleman made much of the fact that the Bill contained the time-honoured power to give general direc-
1210
tions. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman read something of the history of the nationalised industries? A dozen or 15 Ministers for up to 25 years have had the power to give general directions to between 15 and 20 public corporations. During all that time, two general directions have been issued, both on small narrow technical points. As anyone knows who knows this history, a general direction by a Minister to a public corporation is an unusable tool. Matters just do not work that way. Relations between a Minister and a chairman of a corporation cannot be run on that basis, and so it has fallen into desuetude.
One can understand that in 1946, when the first nationalisation Measures were being drafted, someone might have thought that it was a good idea, and I may have done so myself, but one has to look at the record, and the record shows that it has turned out to be a boner, a dead stumer. Why, therefore, do we go on putting it into Bills claiming, as the right hon. Gentleman almost did, pride of parentage?
The second ignoring of the history is in the financial obligations which the Bill lays down. Only two are laid down. The first is the old tired 1946 formula of making ordinary revenue balance ordinary expenditure, taking one year with another. It has been abundantly demonstrated that when there is total control of pricing policy, when there is a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic pricing control situation, it is absolutely meaningless and no guarantee of efficiency. The second is the requirement of a certain percentage on total assets employed. Anybody would think that 1946 was yesterday!
In 1961, the then Conservative Government realised that this was, if not nonsensical, a totally inadequate formula for controlling the economies of public corporations, and so they introduced the 1961 White Paper on the financial implications of the nationalised industries which sought to impose more sophisticated criteria than those blunderbusses of yardsticks, if that is not a strangely mixed metaphor, laid down in 1946 and 1947.
That 1961 White Paper has been ignored. That turned out to be inadequate so there was another White Paper

1211
in 1966 on the financial obligations of the nationalised industries which carried these sophistications a bit further and introduced for the first time into invest-men appraisal of the nationalised industries the technique of discounted cash flow. That was a great improvement on 1961. Since then the Select Committee has analysed that and there has been much more thinking in the Civil Service, the Treasury, in this House, among academics. All of this has gone by the board. All that there is on financial obligations in the Bill is exactly the same as there was in the Civil Aviation Act, 1946—as though 25 years had just run under the bridge.
The third thing on which we have not learned from history is shown in that this Measure is terribly deficient on one point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley rightly attached great weight, and that is consultation of employees. I rubbed my eyes when I heard the Minister in moving the Second Reading say that the Bill includes "a comprehensive system of consultation with employees". It has nothing of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman admitted in reply to an intervention by me that he had never got down to doing much reading of past Bills on what they provided for qualifications of members of boards. It is obvious that he has not done much reading about what past Bills provided in respect of consultation, because again the obligations to consult laid upon the Authority are exactly those laid down in the 1946 Act.
In one respect they are worse than the provisions of the 1946 Act, because the Authority is not required to consult at all with its employees about their pension arrangements. It can decide about pensions unilaterally. Since that 1946–49 nationalisation splurge we have gone a long way with consultation. More recent Measures have gone much further. The Steel Act does, as does the Post Office Act. The abortive Ports Bill went a good deal further.
None of this has impinged on the consciousness of the right hon. Gentleman who thinks that if he repeats what was done in 1946 he has done all that is necessary. That is for the Authority. As
1212
far as the Board is concerned no consultative arrangements at all are laid down in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may well say that that is because the Board will only have a small staff, but the Bill envisages the possibility of a very substantial increase. What happens if it absorbs the two Corporations? The employees of those Corporations now have some consultative rights which they will lose under the Bill. Not only is it not a great step forward, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested; it is actually a falling-back.
The last of my points concerns the Airways Board. The Corporations do not like that Board being set up, that is no secret. They have no one to blame but themselves. For the last 20 years I have been warning successive Chairmen of both Corporations that if they did not get together and work together in certain areas this would happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley reeled off a list of functions on which it would have been sensible for them to work together. It took them 20 years to set up such an obvious thing as a joint medical service. Even now I am told that if a person goes into the clinic, or whatever it is called, at London Airport, and he is a B.E.A. employee he is more likely to be seen by a B.E.A. doctor than a B.O.A.C. doctor.
It took 20 years to have such an obvious thing as a joint medical service. It is nonsensical that they can have computers which will rationalise aircraft movement at 400 airports and yet have not got a computer that will rationalise bus movements between Cromwell Road and Buckingham Palace Road so that sometimes a person can be waiting for a bus at one place and there is a surplus of buses at the other. Both Corporations do extremely well in staff training, including management training. But it really is a gross waste of resources to do it separately. The two Corporations have always watched each other out of the corner of a wary eye. Each was always afraid of being taken over by the other. When B.O.A.C. was doing well, and B.E.A. not so well, B.E.A. was frightened about being taken over, and vice versa. Because of that, they fenced and edged away from each other all the time. The Chairmen's Committee was generally a bit of window dressing.

1213
I do not feel strongly about the Board, I do not think that it will add much or take much away, but there is one bit that worries me. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this being a streamlining operation. There is one respect in which it will not streamline and that is with respect to Government appraisal and approval of investment programmes of the two Corporations. One of the difficulties from which our nationalised industries suffer is that the chain of command through which they get their investment programmes approved, with or without amendments, by either their sponsoring Minister and/or the Treasury is already too long. It involves too much work and duplication, too much to-ing and fro-ing, too much delay and too much expertise being wasted.
The Corporation gets out its investment programme, it goes to the sponsoring Ministry who vet it and argue for months about it. That is finalised and the whole caboodle goes to the Treasury which talks with the sponsoring Ministry but not the Corporation and all the cabbages are cooked a second and third time. One of the grievances of the chaps responsible for running the outfit, and the investment programmes is a very important part of it, is that they can never talk to the bloke who decides the investment programme, namely, the man at the Treasury. They talk to the chap at the Ministry who in turn talks to the chap at the Treasury. They are always talking to the monkey and never to the organ grinder.
What is worrying now is that we have an extra link in the chain. Now the investment programme will go from the Corporation to the Board to the Ministry to the Treasury. This pattern is too long-drawn-out, and a much too complicated and cumbersome, bungling apparatus is made much longer and much bigger.
I feel very strongly and not altogether without some little knowledge of what goes on in the industry, that assuming this Bill is passed, and I suppose it will be, in five years' time British civil aviation in total, taking public and private together, will be less healthy and prosperous than it is today. It is for that reason that I shall tonight go into the Lobby and vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. James Allason: I welcome the opportunity of talking on fresh legislation relating to civil aviation in view of the huge expansion in flying which has taken place and the very great disturbance caused to the public. The Roskill Report has shown that the choice of a site for an airport is a matter of fantastic complication.
Clause 3 of the Bill lays a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to encourage "a favourable balance of payments". I shall be very interested to learn how this matter will be judged. Who benefits by charter flying? Is it the traveller who spends his money abroad? Is British aviation generally encouraged? Or does benefit arise only when the traveller stays in a British-owned hotel when he is abroad? This will be a most difficult act of judgment which the Authority will have to make when it licenses charter flying. If it results in a certain amount of trepidation about licensing charter flying. I for one shall not he desperately upset.
I wish principally to speak on Clause 4(4) under which the Secretary of State may give direction on noise and disturbance. The Government have been unduly soft about the difficulties which confront them when they have to judge between aviation earning a profit and the intense discomfort caused to people on the ground. Night charter flights cause great harm to people over whose property flying takes place. But the Minister's attitude has been that it is not fair to increase the cost of flights by compelling all flights to take place by day. I have given him the relative difference—£9 on the cost of an average charter holiday of £50. The time has come for us to look into this matter more carefully.
Charter holidays have become extremely cheap and reasonable, but they are so popular that intense discomfort is being caused to the general public. Certainly we in the South-East have enough of them already. It is necessary to have a greater measure of control. But the Government are encouraging night charter flying by permitting a lower cost to the extent of £2 to be charged for a night charter flight as against the cost for a day flight. The Government now have the chance to review their policy.

1215
The Government's policy is to encourage the ownership and management of municipal airports by local authorities in the belief that these bodies are better placed to judge the transport needs of a region and that they can also be expected to be responsive to local factors about matters connected with the airports. The first breach in the Government's confidence was the setting up of airport consultative committees, which are certainly needed. Whether they are effective is another matter.
I wish to take the example of the municipal airport at Luton to show the difficulties under which Luton has to operate and the judgment which is applied in accordance with the Government's intention that the authority shall be mindful of the needs of the area.
Luton is a particularly difficult airport from which to operate. First, when taking off to the west, aircraft must, unfortunately, fly for about 30 miles at a maximum height of 4.000 feet above sea level, taking them right over the roofs of Chequers. A lot of the hilly country in the area is at a height of 800 feet. Therefore, aircraft fly very low for a considerable period, and in very congested air space within the London control zone, very close to the Bovingdon stacking area. They are in an area which is already too congested for flying. They fly over especially fine countryside. The Chilterns are of outstanding beauty.
During the debate on the Roskill Report we heard a great deal about the beauty of the Vale of Aylesbury, but it does not bear comparison with the Chilterns and the National Trust country at Ashbridge. It may be announced that it is quite intolerable to allow an airport to be built at Cublington. It is possible that if expansion at Luton continues as it is at present there will be more flying from Luton before the end of this decade than there would be at Cublington in 2002.
Another difficulty about Luton is that it is sandwiched between two new towns —Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. They are both considered to be very fine examples of how Britain should be in future, with people having the opportunity of living decent lives and getting away from slum conditions and into fine new town areas. Both new towns are
1216
spreading. It is fortuitous perhaps but their development is taking place towards Luton. A report on this matter has already been issued by an independent expert at Stevenage, and the same will apply to Hemel Hempstead. It is a battle between the expansion of Luton and the orderly development of new towns.
Control should be exercised over the expansion of flying services at Luton. There is a consultative committee at Luton, but the Luton Corporation takes very little notice of it. It just goes ahead with steady expansion of its charter services, trying to draw in to Luton as much business as it can and to make a profit for the municipality regardless of the disadvantages to people much further afield. It is essential that there should be more effective control over municipal airports.
At the moment, all that the Government can do is to say, "If you require further planning permission we shall call in the planning application and hold a public inquiry". But that is not much good. It is possible for a very large number of day and night aircraft movements to take place at municipal airports. The present system of controlling municipal airports is unacceptable.
I believe that the consultative committees need teeth, and I believe that it would be even better that municipal airports should be licensed, possibly annually, by the Civil Aviation Authority, which should be able to lay down the conditions of operation so that it shall not be possible any more for the Minister to write to me and say that he is very sorry and appreciates all the difficulties which there are but the Government have no control over the operations of Luton and that he has every confidence in the good sense of the Corporation of Luton and that he is quite sure that it will do nothing in any way out of keeping with the general policy of aviation in this country. That is just not good enough.
Therefore, I welcome this Bill, if it will effect a very considerable improvement in control over aircraft noise.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that there are about 14 hon. Members wanting to speak and that there are about 140 minutes before I shall have to start calling Front Bench speakers again. Hon.

1217
Members are able to draw their own deductions from that, and I hope that they will have regard to the length for which they speak.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. William Small: I shall follow the guidance which you have given, Mr. Speaker, and make only a short contribution to this debate.
For myself, I have a lukewarm attitude towards this Bill and its construction. I would say first of all that the objective of the Bill has not been spelt out. Unfortunately, because of air transport delay, I did not hear the Minister's speech, B.E.A. being two hours late from Glasgow today. Nevertheless, the Bill does not spell out the Government's policy clearly enough, if the objective of the Government's policy is as that policy was enunciated at the General Election —to provide for full, fair, free competition. If that had been spelt out, it would have been understandable, and if it is the Government's policy it should have been in the Bill, but it is not the objective as stated in the Bill.
The Bill seems to have a measure of rationalisation as its objective, but also to give benefits to the independents but not necessarily through full and fair competition in the true sense of the word. That is one reason why I take a rather lukewarm view of what the Bill is attempting to do.
I am interested in co-ordination of air services and of transport as a whole in 1971 and in the future, and there ought to be a co-ordinated policy. I cannot envisage Glasgow to London electrification by 1974 or 1975 and competition by rail with B.E.A. or any other air operator from Glasgow to London unless there are signs of a fares structure being applied by the Minister with the right to fix a fares structure. It seems to me, after the experience of seeking to improve rail services between London and Birmingham and then laying down the Ml, so that freight, which might have been of benefit to the railways, suddenly goes back to the roads, that it may be rather a lot to expect co-ordination of rail and air transport in the near future in Britain. I do not find it spelt out here in the Bill.
I come to the composition of the Civil Aviation Authority and its duties as laid
1218
down in Clause 3. Its duties are laid down in subsection (1)(b) as being among other things
"to secure that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing, on charter and other terms…"
Air transport services to satisfy all substantial categories of public demand at the lowest possible charges. It has always been my contention that nationalised transport should have an opportunity to go in for chartering and for trooping and for a share of that traffic, and I should have thought that the new Authority should have a fair share, and I should think that that would be in the Authority's mind.
It seems to me that the composition of the Airways Board, from eight to 15 members, is a very wide margin, but is the chairman to be consulted about the membership, or will that be subject purely to Ministerial direction with no consultation with the chairman, or between the chairman and the appointees?
Clause 38 is the "general duty" Clause, and I find its wording peculiar in this sense—how does one make this judgment of what would be to the best advantage in terms of investment policy at any given time? Would the Clause prohibit loss making for a year or two years even on essential services? Under that Clause the board has the duty
"to exercise its powers in a manner calculated to secure that the air transport services…are developed to the best advantage and the resources…"
The principle of ownership would come into this matter, as I would view it, and one cannot separate the financial obligations, which the Minister has mentioned 17 or 18 times. I welcome the Secretary of State's having the right to be an interventionist in matters of national concern, and I would hope that the obligations on the private sector are equal to the obligations on the public sector.
I say this especially having regard to the services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Subsidy for the role to be played in the Highlands and Islands by nationalised services which are a public need should not in any way be weakened by this Bill and the obligations which

1219
are laid upon the public sector, and when the Government talk about things being equal as between public and private enterprise I hope that things are equal, too, in the obligations on the independents in providing public services and providing them in real terms.
I am concerned about another thing. Are the appeals to and decisions by the Air Transport Licensing Board to be a matter of precedent? Is past practice to be the precedent and to be carried over into the new arrangements, and will it apply to the right of appeal? Are the previous precedents abolished, or will they be the criteria for appeals under the new arrangements? Will Ministerial decisions be binding on the new Authority?
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: First of all, I think this Bill is a welcome attempt to step forward in civil aviation legislation. At the same time I find it, as an instrument for promoting the development of civil aviation, one which lacks in many respects the types of detail which are needed, and I think it needs considerable improvement, which, I am sure, will be effected in Committee. I do not find that it stresses customer demand as strongly as it ought. It seems to me to be much more a charter for civil servants than a charter for civil aviation, and I think that it seeks to regulate rather than to encourage.
Here, I think, we can perhaps see the transference of some of the views of the Edwards Report, which, in Chapter 20, says that this is "a regulated industry". I think we can see the word "regulation" being passed over far too easily. We ought to see more of the objectives of the Edwards Report where we have the statement that it was a guide to action, and I would like to see action and encouragement being given to the industry rather than regulation.
In total, I find that the Bill constrains the industry in a way which has become almost a tradition in this country. Since the Second World War this has become almost conventional wisdom with successive Ministries concerned with civil aviation. I should like to amplify these points and, perhaps, identify some solutions.
1220
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) regarded the industry as one which has gone over the peak and is now on a downturn. It is on a downturn in terms of the total effect of the results against the budget. The International Civil Aviation Organisation last year forecast a 14 per cent. compound growth rate, which has been traditional over the past few years. The amount achieved was only 12 per cent., but it is still, as we remarked in terms of the debate on the Roskill Report, probably the fastest growth industry in the world. We should not underestimate the demand that exists and our legislation must be just as active as that demand.
I will deal briefly with certain particular points. First, I do not doubt that the Civil Aviation Authority will be welcomed on either side of the House, but in the terms of the Bill it will have less power than the Air Transport Licensing Board in its ability to promote the interests of civil aviation route licensing.
There are many more occasions throughout the Bill when the Secretary of State will now be able to intervene than he has had heretofore under existing legislation. Clause 3 is an example, and one has always to read the small print. Clause 3 states that the Secretary of State will issue to the Authority a statement which will mean that the Authority has to accord with guidance which the right hon. Gentleman gives. This is, therefore, the Department of Trade and Industry telling the Civil Aviation Authority what it has to do. How will that be balanced against the other part of Clause 3, which provides that the Authority has to perform its functions
"in the manner which it considers is best calculated"
to achieve the objectives?
The question becomes, who is boss? The answer is that the Minister is boss and, therefore, in terms of being able to give guidance, he must achieve priority. Although there is obviously a need in the Civil Aviation Authority and it is recognised that it must be as independent as possible, it is a pity that the Minister has this easy right to weigh in and state, "I am the boss". Under Clause 4, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned, the Civil Aviation Authority can regulate domestic fares but has no right to discuss international

1221
affairs. Here, it is subject to the Department of Trade. That is a pity, because there is an interface here where all the experience which, we hope, will be put into the Civil Aviation Authority is not there by right of consultation.
Hon. Members have already referred to the lack of normal consultative machinery between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Authority. There should be a right of interchange of opinion both ways, and the one should not be the subject of instructions to the other. This is important, because if one is trying to get a Civil Aviation Authority which will work, it must draw to it because of its authority men of sufficient calibre to make it work. If it is not its own master, I do not think that those men will come forward.
In Clause 21, there is a reference to the type of authority which the Civil Aviation Authority will have. It will prohibit the use of any aircraft for carriage or reward of passengers or cargo on specified flights. It does not say specifically whether those will he United Kingdom-registered aircraft or what happens to aircraft with foreign registration.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the situation in the United States, where the Civil Aeronautics Board has the right and the duty to issue foreign carrier permits to airlines seeking to operate into the United States and thus regulates the type of frequency of operation and the type of airline which comes into the United States. There are many instances at the moment where all the airlines in this country, whether the national airlines or the independents, are at a disadvantage compared with many United States operators coming into this country. I hope, therefore, that in terms of policy, the Department of Trade and Industry will not simply make policy and look upon the Authority as a means of implementing it, but will regard this as a joint partnership in which the Department regards the Authority as the true authority on civil aviation.
Clause 1, which deals with the constitution of the Authority, states that it shall consist of
"not less than six nor more than twelve persons appointed by the Secretary of State".
I have three questions. First, for how long are those gentlemen or ladies to be appointed? I hope that they will be
1222
appointed only for fixed terms. Secondly, I hope that they will be appointed for overlapping terms, thereby preserving continuity. It is essential to have men of experience and with successful records in civil aviation, and not just wash-outs who happen to be available at the time to fill positions.
My third question is how much they are to be paid. I am sorry to be rather mundane about this, but we are back to the question of getting the right men of the right calibre. If we do not give the right pay, in the terms of the trade union maxim, we shall not get the right job done. One of the pities of the Air Transport Licensing Board has not been so much its age but that it has essentially been part-time and, therefore, it has been able to get only part-time or retired men who have the time available to come and help.
I would like to refer to the change of nomenclature from "air service licence" to "air transport licence". Clause 25 states that there will be this transition. Here again, however, I feel that in the Bill we have not yet got down to the detail which is necessary. I hope that routes will be licensed for certain defined periods—say, seven or 10 years. That is about the right period for the airlines to digest and accommodate if we are to help to keep competition going between one national board and another, and between the national boards and the independent airlines, and keep the adrenalin flowing through the veins of the boards of management. Too often I find them rather asleep on the fact that they have got the routes and they can never change. Some of the argument today has been about the very situation in which change has occurred. This is a pity. Routes should be licensed only for a defined period.
What chance is there for airlines which have ideas and initiative, and which want to open up new markets, if they do not know that they can bid for new routes on equal terms with anybody else? A simple example is that of Lloyd International Airlines, which wanted to open up an all-freight route from London to Hong Kong. It made two applications to the Air Transport Licensing Board and was the only airline which applied. B.O.A.C. objected, and so the application was turned down on both occasions. The

1223
result was that B.O.A.C., which had never thought of it before, started an all-cargo route to Hong Kong. There must be a chance for new airlines to thrive. If they have the opportunity, they can be given encouragement.
I feel that Clause 25 is still weighted towards the protection of the airlines which come under the Airways Board without sufficient recognition that the competition lies not between one airline and another in this country, but between all airlines in this country and foreign airlines. That is the real competition.
Within the context of air transport licensing, I welcome, however, Clause 32, as a result of which we shall be told a lot more about the pooling details in which B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have engaged with foreign airlines. I must say that I regard the gift to B.U.A. of the Gatwick-Le Bourget route as a little bit of a backhander. Nobody want to go on from Le Bourget. It is due to be closed down in the not-too-distant future and it is impossible to make any interconnection between Le Bourget and any other part of France. I hope that the connection between Gatwick and Le Bourget which is offered to B.U.A. can eventually be transferred to Orly or Paris Nord.
Fourthly, the A.R.B. has been renamed, but this makes no difference to the fact that the Air Registration Board in this country is the finest Air Registration Board in the world. It is acknowledged to be such by the United States and by every other foreign country. This can be seen from the way in which it vetted the Boeing 707 when it was introduced into B.O.A.C. and made it a stable aircraft, completely free of some of the problems which it had had hitherto.
I am disappointed that under Clause 27(2)(c) the Civil Aviation Authority will be required to consult the Air Registration Board. The words needed here are "will be required to accept". The members of the C.A.A. will not have the ability, collectively or individually, to determine whether or not the built-in lifetime's experience and knowledge of the members of the A.R.B. should or should not be accepted. The A.R.B. is sacrosanct in the opinion of everyone in aviation, its credibility has never been in doubt, and I hope "consult" will be changed to "accept".
1224
Two points are missing from the Bill. First, there is no mention of private flying. This is where we are back again to regulation rather than encouragement. Private flying is the base of all aviation, and it has been for too long neglected and depressed. I should like to see it encouraged and not frustrated. We should encourage people to realise that flying is a normal, natural, means of communication which everybody should have the right to take part in and enjoy.
Mr. Rankin: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the local authorities were encouraged to play the part they used to play in licensing this would help private flying to succeed?
Mr. Warren: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, whose views on this I respect. He is absolutely right.
The other missing item is statistics, which is an item which must be brought into the Bill as an active ingredient before it can become an Act. Clauses 19 and 20 both identify the possibility that statistics could be produced, but there is a need for something more than the suggestion. There is a need for something parallel to the Civil Aeronautics Board statement in the United States, which is a full monthly statement of air travel usage and route profitability on each and every airline. The statement in the Bill about the Official Secrets Act worries me. People may whistle back behind this and leave us without the information which has frustrated so many airlines for so long. This has landed far too many independents into a market about which they had no knowledge. Although the statistics existed in the Board of Trade they were not made known to the airlines because it was considered not to be in the public interest to do so. It is about time we stopped this nonsense and had a monthly publication telling us who flies where, how often, and whether the route is profiable.
There is nothing wrong about this. Complete disclosure of company information is required by other Acts of Parliament, and it is about time we had this in the air transportation business. The shield of secrecy which has been held over air transportation for far too long has been a disincentive. An example of it can be seen in terms of the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. Small) who arrived

1225
two hours late and has already left the Chamber and who travelled today between Glasgow and London. Over this route in the last ten years the air fare has doubled, whereas on a comparable route from San Francisco to Los Angeles in the same period of time the air fare has halved, simply because it is an air route which stimulates growth and people know how to operate the airline and the passenger demand.
Mr. Robert Adley: And there is competition.
Mr. Warren: As my hon. Friend says, it is also an example of competition.
My last point is on the subject of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Having spent six years with B.O.A.C., I am conscious of the high standard of operation of B.O.A.C., but neither B.O.A.C. nor B.E.A. has any right to protected routes over an unlimited period of time. I have commented on the need in route licensing to define limits in time. I have in mind not only existing routes but routes which need to be exploited but which are withheld from anybody else's operation, such as routes between this country and the Southern and South-Western States of the United States. I also have in mind the existing haphazard routes between this country and the Middle East, where B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are the greatest competitors one with the other. One has to be absolutely sure—and I hope B.O.A.C. will take account of this—that these two airlines, when operating in competition one with the other, and when challenging independent airlines on routes, will tender to the Authority accounting procedures which are identical and stated in terms which everybody can understand.
We have had the classic example recently, where B.O.A.C. has said that the Concorde is much more expensive to operate than the Boeing 747, and yet it has disclosed subsequently that the accounting procedures used for each aeroplane were totally different. I do not think, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley said, that we want to subsidise Concorde—it would be quite ridiculous. The Concorde could make a lot of money and certainly the Concorde is not for knocking.
The Bill is a pointer to the way ahead in "the 'seventies" but needs the benefit
1226
of practical civil aviation experience to make it into a sensible, progressive and profitable Act. I am confident that the Government will add the essential momentum to get the Bill airborne as an Act.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. Russell Kerr: There is an old saying in show business—"Try never to follow a good act". Anyone who has heard the act, if I may so call it, of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) will agree that I am following a very good act indeed. He has covered 82 per cent. of the points which I had intended to make had I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, a little earlier. I have three observations to make, one of a general nature and the other two of a particular nature before I save the time of the House by sitting down a little sooner than I originally intended and thereby earning your gratitude, Sir.
It is fairly well known that I am for my sins one of the people who attempts to speak for the workers of London Airport which immediately adjoins my constituency. Thousands of my constituents, perhaps even tens of thousands, are employed at the airport.
I will not repeat the arguments which I advanced just over a year ago, but one year after the decision of the previous Government to proceed, albeit on rather different terms, with the establishment of a second force airline, there is still great anger amongst my constituents who are employed at London Airport. This applies not merely to the rabble-rousing elements at the bottom of the income scale but also at the top, in both Corporations.
No less vigorous anger is expressed amongst the senior executives, whom I have from time to time to meet in my constituency work, than at the bottom end of the income scale. Almost to a man they feel cheated and let down by the proposal to set up the second force airline, and doubly so when they look at the nature of the proposals advanced by the Government on 3rd August, which have been followed by legislation in accordance with that basic decision to proceed. They take the view, which I agree with, that they have struggled for

1227
more than 25 years against great odds to make these two national enterprises successful, until in recent years each has become an acknowledged leader in its own field. As a result of their success, and the way they have managed to haul the British flag right to the top of the mast, they have made a considerable contribution to the national Exchequer. They are also angry because they know the fierce competition they experience every day of their working lives in international air transport. Anybody who has taken the trouble to study this industry, involving hundreds of millions of £s, knows this to be only too true. This is a tremendously important industry for the economic well-being of the country.
The reason for all this anger nearly a year after the announcement of this decision is that there is a widespread feeling that the present Government in almost unseemly haste have sought to line the pockets of their political friends so that the ability of the two national Corporations to compete successfully in the international airline jungle has been gravely impaired.
Recent news strongly suggests that the whole of the international airline community is about to enter a very frosty period indeed. Already there are indications from B.O.A.C. that its future profitability level will bear this out. These sorts of matters make people fearful for their job security and of the ability of the airlines to provide them with the career opportunities and all the rest which they have a right to expect. If the Government had deliberately set out—I am not suggesting that in fact they have —to destroy these two great national assets, they could hardly have done better than to advance the cause of a second force airline in the way they have.
As a result of these highly politically inspired moves by the Government, morale among both management and workers at London Airport, and no doubt elsewhere in the industry, has already taken a nose-dive. One fears that the relatively peaceful industrial relations which have been characteristic of this industry over the years will before long suffer a serious decline. I trust that this state of affairs is not the sort of thing right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite
1228
are seeking to achieve now that they are in Government.
I should like to say a few brief words about some of the detailed matters in the Bill. I should like first to mention the licensing of air transport, a considerable section of which is dealt with in the Bill. Members will recall that the Edwards Committee was critical of the old Air Traffic Licensing Board procedure whereby appeals to the Minister against adverse decisions were virtually automatic. Indeed, Edwards suggested that many applicants for licences deliberately understated their case at the original hearings so that they could bring allegedly fresh evidence to the appeal and thus favour their chance of success. A major fault of the present proposals in the Bill is that we shall see a repeat of that kind of situation in which the final decision will again be left to the Minister. I anticipate that this legislation will produce all the old faults of the previous A.T.L.B. system.
Finally, I wish to say a brief word about the British Airways Board. I am not as enthusiastic as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar about this proposal in the Bill. I have spoken to a number of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. senior officials and nothing I have heard persuades me to believe that it is either necessary or desirable. The case for integration along the lines proposed rests upon largely hypothetical grounds of shared overheads and greater utilisation of aircraft. There is already fairly extensive use of shared facilities; we have heard this afternoon about shared health and medical services, joint pilot training schemes, joint engineering apprentice schemes and so on. I have no doubt that further co-operation along these lines, is possible including perhaps on the hotel and catering services front.
But I believe that the case for a higher level of integration in the optimum use of aircraft becomes very doubtful indeed. Both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. managements are against the whole idea, which is perhaps not surprising. They point to the fact that there are very big differences as between operating a long-haul service and a medium-haul service since both services require different aircraft types, different methods of sales promotion, different catering facilities, and so on.

1229
A further matter which should be underlined is that if this type of integration is pursued as between medium and long-haul aircraft, one predictable consequence will be the effect on the British aviation industry. For reasons which Swissair and Alitalia have made obvious, we shall end up with an all-American aircraft fleet. And as somebody with considerable faith in the technological and scientific ability of the British aircraft industry and its ability to create breaks-through, I should be very sad indeed to see action by this Government or any other Government resulting in the British aviation industry being forced to use only American aircraft.
If we go in for a mixture of medium and long-haul aircraft, it will inevitably mean that the long-haul machines will have to cover the medium-haul services, not the other way round. We ought also to look at the cost saving which is claimed by a number of people who have spoken on this subject. The idea that there will be certain substantial savings as a result of the marrying together of these disparate airline functions is almost totally fallacious. In terms of the use of long-haul aircraft on European routes, according to the figures I have before me, it can be seen that when the Lockheed 1011–8 operates on routes of 2,000 miles and above, the cost per passenger mile is of the order of 1½ old pence; whereas when operating on shorter routes the cost increases by something like double, to 5 old pence per passenger mile. For purposes of comparison, it should be pointed out that the Trident on shorter routes operates at well above a 15 per cent. saving as compared to the long-haul aircraft route. Therefore, any idea that the Corporations will save money by this mixture of the two types of aircraft should be rejected by the House.
I wish to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, that this Bill is a very bad piece of legislation, not least because of the blanket powers it gives in respect of an extension of the activities of the second force airline. I join with my hon. Friend in asking others of my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight in at least a token demonstration of opposition to one of its main propositions, the creation of the second force private airline.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. F. A. Burden: I want to comment briefly on the speeches made by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Roy Mason). Each of them talked about savings to be made by rationalisation, and the previous Minister went further and talked about integration. The hon. Member for Feltham wanted to safeguard the jobs of his constituents and the hon. Member for Poplar spoke for workers in the aviation industry generally. If rationalisation and integration come about there will inevitably be a reduction in the number of jobs. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They must face the consequences of what they are saying and realise that their proposition would mean fewer jobs.
It was time that we had a review of the whole of civil aviation. The Edwards Committee, set up by the last Government, carried out such a review, and it is therefore not surprising that the Opposition today generally support the Bill, with reservations that will come out in Committee. The weakness of the old licensing system—which will be repealed by the Bill—was that appeals against the allocation of routes went through the Commissioner and not direct to the Minister. The Commissioner decided the appeal but the Minister gave a final "Yea" or "Nay" to the Commissioner's decision.
That anachronism led to much delay, and when the Minister overruled decisions both of the A.T.L.B. and the Commissioner it weakened the position of both, and especially the A.T.L.B. I am therefore relieved to find it emphasised in Clause 1 that the Authority which will decide on licensing is not to be the servant or agent of the Crown. If the Minister is prepared to face the consequences of that provision and give the Authority the right degree of control he must use any power of appeal that he possesses in a way that will not undermine the Authority. His powers must not be lightly used. If they are, the statement that the Authority will not be an agent of the Crown, although being true in fact, will make little real sense.
Considerable play has been made of the alleged improvement that the Bill

1231
will bring for British airlines. In general, it would appear that apart from the Corporations no real change is made from the A.T.L.B. position. What real improvements are there? The British Airways Board has power to control the activities of the Corporations. It will have power to authorise the dissolution of either Corporation—"either", not "both". That provision is deliberately designed to investigate the possibility of integration—the possibility of there being one great body rather than B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It goes beyond ordinary rationalisation.
Industrial experience shows that we can have an industry that is far too big, where communications become clogged up and the organisation loses the very soul that it is necessary for big industry to keep if it is to be fully efficient and ensure the wellbeing of its employees. I suggest that although some advantages are to be derived from rationalisation, and from creating one body rather than having two Corporations considerable disadvantages also can ensue. The balance must be weighed carefully.
There would be savings in equipment and in servicing. There would obviously be savings in catering, computerisation, and other services—including ticket offices. But would there be a great overall advantage? The question will have to be considered very carefully over a long period.
The new Authority will exercise considerable power over B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I hope that the new body will not interfere too much with the general management of either Corporation or both, because that would be fatal. If the general managements of the Corporations were constantly looking over their shoulders at the interpretation placed upon their actions by the British Airways Board it would not be very inducive to good, long-term management.
I have always felt that the essential weakness of the A.T.L.B. was that it was comprised exclusively of lay people. Whatever may have happened in the past the new body, because of its extensive powers, must consist of men with a good deal of experience in the airline business. They must have a wide
1232
knowledge of the industry and also some experience of management in the industry. That is vitally important, not only if the new body is to be successful but if it is to be regarded as the right sort of body by the airline industry itself. It would be intolerable if the new Authority, with its great responsibilities and powers, did not consist of men who knew what the industry was all about.
If control of the private sector must be exercised through licensing I suggest that it should be on a "use-it-or-lose-it" basis. In other words, if licences are issued airlines must be told that they should operate under the terms of those licences within a certain period. If they fail to do so the routes must be taken away from them.
Before the Bill goes to Committee the Minister ought also to consider the question of separately licensing each route and discontinuing multi-purpose licensing. Multi-purpose licensing encourages route-hogging. Many licences now have so many origins and destination points that amount almost to blanket licences. Consideration should also be given to the question of licensing on a minimum and not maximum frequency basis.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley referred to Caledonian-B.U.A. I hope that notwithstanding all that has been said by hon. Members opposite the Government intend to ensure that Caledonian-B.U.A. has a square deal and the possibility of profitability. What amazes me about the right hon. Member for Barnsley is that Caledonian-B.U.A. was his conception, yet every time he speaks about it here, instead of encouraging it he looks at it and says, "You bastard". I am sorry to say that, but that is exactly his attitude. The child being his, he should at least accept some responsibility for its decent upbringing.
Mr. Mason: The child was not conceived in such rottenness as the Tory Government introduced when they pinched routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in order that the conception could take place. We did not agree with that action, and the hon. Gentleman knows it full well, so he had better stop repeating a sentence that he has uttered three or four times. Further, does he not agree that his right hon. Friend seems

1233
to have jumped a step ahead today'? Is it not true that, legally, Caledonian-B.U.A. cannot operate those routes it has pinched until affirmative Orders have been passed?
Mr. Burden: That is a matter for the Minister, and I see that he shakes his head in denial. The simple fact is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite refused to allow B.U.A. to be taken over by B.O.A.C., and stated emphatically that it had to be the core of the new second force. He cannot wriggle out by smooth and snide remarks. if the Labour Party is intent on taking away all the routes that Caledonian-B.U.A. now operate, I hope that the whole staff there will realise that their jobs are not only in jeopardy but would be lost completely if the Labour Party became the Government again.
Whereas I have earlier argued against blanket routeing for freight, which I believe will continue to grow, it is essential that freight licensing should be looked at rather differently from that of scheduled service and passenger licensing. It is essential in good freight operation to have the possibility of more ad hoc dropping and picking up than now exists.
The Bill does not mention hovercraft but I presume that this form of transport is still under consideration, because there is no doubt that it will come much more into use. Not a lot is known about hovercraft at the moment, and I presume that as this type of transport develops it will be brought much more into discussion, and the necessary controls imposed.
This is generally a good Bill. It advances much that Edwards wanted. It must be looked at very carefully in Committee. I hope that the Minister will take the view that it will be so interpreted that the Government will interfere in the activities of the Authority and of B.A.B. as little as possible. I am sure that that is the only way of seeing that the people operating them do not feel that their actions are likely to be undermined or inhibited.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I have never previously intervened in this Caledonian-B.U.A. discussion, for the simple reason that, like me, Adam
1234
Thomson is a good Scotsman, and will be a good Scotsman whether he is running an aircraft, or an aircraft service, or merely serving in some minor capacity. I know him. I have had him in the House. I have visited his headquarters. I assert that Adam Thomson, who has done well in every aviation venture he has touched, will continue to do well, and will discharge with credit the obligation that we have placed upon him.
The debate reminds me to some extent of what has happened in the past. When I have heard criticisms of the aircraft that are being used today I recall that just about 22 years ago I was flying backwards and forwards between Glasgow and London in a DH Rapide at about 90 miles an hour. The sole refreshment was a glass of water, if water was carried, and if the wind did not blow kindly there was no protection such as we now have. That was just over 20 years ago, when five of us who were Labour Members used to make that journey.
On the other hand, on Friday night I flew with my wife from London to Glasgow in less than an hour, at a speed of 400 miles an hour, in a beautiful new aircraft—the third mark of the Trident. In two years there have been three marks of that aircraft, each providing more and more comfort. Most people are fairly well satisfied to make the journey from London to Glasgow inside 60 minutes in conditions that could not be bettered in a top level hotel. What more do we want? Who will deny the progress made in this much criticised service? The increased speed and comfort and all the other improvements have come about as a result of knowledge, of research, and of the ability and determination of the workers to go ahead. We should remember that background in criticising progress in the industry.
Mr. Grylls: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the improved service to Glasgow. Does he agree that it was the independents who first introduced jets and started competition with modern aircraft?
Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but I did not grasp one word that the hon. Gentleman enunciated. I heard plenty of sound but was unable to decipher what was said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will

1235
forgive me if I proceed as I had intended before his interruption.
The Bill provides a British Airways Board to oversee, and later perhaps to merge, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The Bill also sets up a Civil Aviation Authority to regulate British airlines.
The most important part of the Bill, however, is that dealing with licensing. So far it has not attracted much attention. The headlines have found a greater attraction in the possibility of a merger between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
The proposed absorption of the Air Registration Board has not aroused much interest. Closer co-operation between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., especially on the investment side, would be acceptable, but not necessarily merger-provoking. Even taking over the A.R.B. is not a priority. The Edwards Committee proposed a Civil Aviation Authority but did not get far. The Bill is giving the Department of Trade and Industry far more power than it presently possesses.
Mr. Noble indicated dissent.
Mr. Rankin: The Minister is shaking his head at my assertion. It is my view, and perhaps I will be shown where I have reached a wrong conclusion. The Department will retain control over international fares and traffic rights and exercise both functions without any consultations with other interested parties. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that I shall be corrected. It should be noted that 70 per cent. of Britain's air transport is international. Yet these economic keys will be delegated, not, as suggested by Edwards to the Civil Aviation Authority, but to the Department of Trade and Industry, as decided by the Government.
On the matter of public versus private enterprise, I trust that there will be no attempt to predetermine shares of the total air transport market. It is unrealistic to think of transferring existing routes and opportunities from the Corporations to the private sector. What we should do for the future is ensure that both private and public enterprise have access to the future growth and opportunities available in an industry which I am assured will double in size over the next seven years.
1236
According to paragraph 30 of the White Paper, the suggested Airways Board will have the authority to merge parts of the two Corporations to get the best possible results. So long as the purpose of this move is to reduce costs, provide the public with a better service, with better career structures for the staff, such proposals can be commended and supported. But if there is any attempt to implement the proposals before agreement about them is reached among affected employees, the resulting problems could prevent any advantages being obtained. The advantage to be got in mixing private and public capital in our transport undertakings is most doubtful. For that reason, the public and private sectors should remain separate, and therefore the two Corporations should not invest in private airlines.
The provision of airports and weather forecasting services, communications, and so on is very expensive. Only a body like the State is fitted to bear it, or perhaps some separate body directly accountable to a Government Department. The Board of Trade might fill that bill. Independence is not possible where there is almost complete reliance on public funds, and in any event policy decisions in these areas will undoubtedly be made, despite all that may be said, by the Government of the day.
7.46 p.m.
Mr. Michael Grylls: I warmly welcome the Government's initiative in giving effect in the Bill to one of the most important parts of the Edwards proposals, namely, the encouragement of a second British carrier. I believe that most people will give this proposal full-blooded support and will wish it well. Greater British competition and greater British variety in airlines are definitely in the interests of the travelling consumer. It is in the interests also of the aircraft industry that there should be diversity.
In recent months we have had many debates about the aircraft industry. In and out of the House people always say, quite rightly, that we wish to see a healthy British aircraft industry. But a healthy aircraft industry depends on good orders from British airlines. In this respect the independent airlines in Britain have made a major contribution to the British aircraft industry in continuing to order British. Of course, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.

1237
have made their contribution, but I believe that orders received from an independent airline which is buying simply on commercial judgment, rather than on any other, carry greater weight. I quote just the example of the BAC111 which is made just outside my constituency but by workers most of whom live within it. The success of the BAC111 has come about partly because B.U.A. has placed very good orders for it and foreign airlines have found this a convincing argument to go on buying BAC111s.
I find the Opposition's policy tonight one of double-talk. Paragraph 10 of their White Paper published in November, 1969 —Cmnd. 4213—says that
"the Government favour the licensing of a second British carrier…".
To that extent we are four square. Where they have gone wrong is that they have dodged the issue of exactly how we should be able, in practice, to establish a healthy second force. All we seem to have from right hon. and hon. Members opposite is screams and yells about the rape of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I believe that the present Government have faced up to the realities and have shown the right determination in establishing a second force. Whatever may be the political fortunes in future years, I believe that we shall see the second force here to stay.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, the public have seen that competition means a better service. I should like to refer to the hon. Member's Glasgow service, a point which I tried to explain in an intervention and for which I apologise. The Glasgow, Belfast and Manchester routes previously were served by traditional aircraft—nonjet aircraft—but when the independents arrived they introduced jets on to these routes. They probably did so in the interests of competition. Subsequently B.E.A. had jet aircraft. Therefore, I believe that one can say that to this extent the independents have contributed to a better service to the public on domestic routes.
Mr. Rankin: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in comparing aircraft he is comparing vessels that are all doing the same speed? Therefore, speed is not such an important competitive factor. What I was dealing with was the total service rendered by the aircraft.
Mr. Grylls: I do not think there is much between us on this point. The fact remains that the jet is the modern fashionable aircraft, and when jet aircraft are operating on a route, generally speaking people will choose to fly on that service.
I want to refer to the contributions made by inclusive tour operators. Nearly every day in our newspapers we see advertisements for tours to the Costa Brava or the Costa Blanca at cheaper rates by tour operators. One may or may not approve of this, but the public seem to like it, and to this extent it has been a contribution. Generally speaking, the independent airlines have played an important part, and, thanks to the proposals of the present Government, they will continue to do so.
I should like my right hon. Friend to consider one particular point arising from the Bill. There was an exchange earlier this afternoon between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and myself about Fairoaks Airport. I mention this not as a narrow constituency point, but as a general point of principle. Clause 30 relates to byelaws applicable to Authority aerodromes. I have not been able to find any provision for the establishment of byelaws for privately-owned aerodromes. The trouble with Fairoaks and other small privately-owned aerodromes is that they are dependent on a rather woolly general desire that they should have consultative processes, but there is nothing specifically laid down.
What happens is that we have, as it were, expansion by stealth. At Fair-oaks the owner recently signed an agreement with an American helicopter firm for the sole franchise of a particular helicopter. My constituents are horrified at the idea of having helicopters flying all around what is basically a residential area, and I believe that they are quite right. But apparently there is very little that anybody can do about this. Some months ago there was a lot of night flying by private aircraft in the vicinity, and, despite complaints, there was little that could be done.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will be able to give some assurance that in Committee the Government will consider including in the Bill some provision for control over private aerodromes which I believe

1239
must be giving a lot of trouble to many people. This is not just a political matter. Aircraft can cause a great deal of nuisance and disquiet to people living in these areas, and it is right that provision should be made in the Bill for greater control over this type of flying.
I believe that the Bill generally establishes a sensible and modern framework for the aviation industry. It is, above all, a practical framework which will work. It is the sort of framework which, when it is applied, will ensure that in the years ahead we shall have a healthy and expanding British aviation industry.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I intend to speak briefly to allow as many of my hon. Friend as possible to get into the debate.
Clause 3 has been mentioned from time to time, and it is interesting that the Minister said that this Clause is the key to the new relationship. If that is so, it is a pretty biased relationship. Representations have already been made to hon. Members on both sides of the House by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
One paragraph in the Edwards Report says:
"As for the airlines themselves, both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have a good reputation among their peers and high standing as innovators in the technical and operational fields."
If the Edwards Report can say this in all honesty, that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have got this great reputation amongst their equals in the industry, and they are able as innovators, why is it that in Clause 3 there is a tremendous bias in favour of the independents?
I think I know why. I am reminded of the story of Esau and Jacob. Esau was a hairy man and Jacob was a smooth man. The smooth men in the Tory Party are largely responsible for the drafting of Clause 3. Clause 3 does not give the Corporations equality of opportunity with the independents. If we study the wording of the Clause we find that the duty of the Authority is to "encourage" British airlines in respect of the public sector, but to "secure" in the case of major airlines not controlled by the British Airways Board. Clause 3, in fact, will provide the basis for the opposition
1240
to this Bill. I very much hope that it will not provide a licence to steal further property from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
In the matter of a second force, the Minister clearly said that this was an once-for-all seizure. When he was asked whether he would put that statement into the Measure he declined. He said he wanted the C.A.A. to have independence and freedom of action. Who is ruling here? Is it Parliament or is it the C.A.A.? In this debate we have to deal with the powers of the C.A.A., and seemingly we shall have to do so when the Bill goes into Committee. The Minister has clearly said without equivocation that this is a once-for-all hand-over. Yet he is not prepared for this condition to be written into the Bill. Will he agree in Committee to consider a provision stating that this is a once-for-all hand-over?
People like myself will spend much of our political lives trying to get this decision reversed, and we want the decision to be reversed without the payment o compensation. The riches which are to be handed over on a plate should be taken back by the public airlines, and I will say why. They will be taken back, I hope, without compensation, for the Under-Secretary of State has said that B.O.A.C. asked for compensation but it has been made clear that air service licences are not a form of property in respect of which compensation could properly be given. At the end of the day, therefore, the same rule should apply in the taking back of these motes by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
Many of us who were concerned with the Trade Descriptions Act thought that it would cover a much wider variety of activities than has proved to be the case in practice, and I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether the Civil Aviation Authority might be asked to exercise a degree of consumer protection within its functions. The C.A.A. will be responsible for overseeing inclusive tours, it will be responsible for package tours, and it will be responsible, I believe, for seeing that the consumer, the holidaymaker on the inclusive tour, has a fair deal. At present, however, under the Trade Descriptions Act, the protection given to the traveller is extremely limited.
There have recently been complaints which have not been dealt with as they

1241
should. I shall name one company. I have approached the company, and I have approached the Board of Trade to ask if it would reconsider the matter, and it says it cannot. The company I refer to in this instance is Clarksons, a reputable tour operator, the largest in the country, and one which from time to time gives very good value for money to a large number of holidaymakers, but it is very weak on this side and extremely reluctant to handle genuine complaints.
Will the Minister ask the C.A.A. to consider establishing as part of its functions—a sub-committee, perhaps, or through part of the Board—to take up genuine complaints from people who have had holidays arranged by air operators? This can be a matter of vital importance, particularly to the individual. The Trade Descriptions Act does not cover it. The small man who has had his holiday ruined has to go to court if he wants to take action, but he intensely dislikes having to go to court; he is frightened by it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will get his Small Claims Courts Bill to facilitate such matters, but, until such time as that is on the Statute Book, I should like the Civil Aviation Authority to have power to compel a tour operator to investigate every complaint and try to give the small man a fair deal. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to consider that aspect of the problem.
There have been references in the debate to air safety, and there was something of an altercation between two hon. Members over the fact that Edwards said that the public Corporations had a better record than the independents in this respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was challenged on that, but what he said is true. On page 265, Edwards acknowledges that there are airlines in the independent sector which have an excellent record, but I ask the House to note what Edwards says in paragraph 1082:
"Although the Safety Review has indicated that the Independents, taken as a whole, have a less satisfactory safety record than the two Corporations…"
That is quite clear, and it then points out that certain independents also have a good record.
Mr. Wilkinson: I emphasised that one should not be dogmatic in one's interpre-
1242
tation of such statistics as are quoted in the Edwards Report. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that, if one compared the most favourable statistics in the public sector with the most favourable statistics in the independent sector—
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I did not say that.
Mr. Wilkinson: —a significant margin of safety in favour of the public sector was shown. This is not true, if one takes the comparison of B.E.A. and B.U.A. Moreover, these statistics show that the kinds of operation involved are not directly comparable, since the independents often serve into small airfields on inclusive tour and charter work, which is quite dissimilar from the longer and medium-haul operations of the public sector.
Mr. Carter-Jones: As an ex-member of air crew, I should deplore the use of any unsafe airfields. All airfields should be equally safe, as far as one can make them, and one should not use an airfield where there is grave risk. I am surprised at the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Edwards said that the independents have a less satisfactory safety record than the two Corporations. As competition develops—some of us are rather alarmed about this—and prices fall dramatically, we should take heed of the warning given in Edwards. As competition intensifies, we must make quite sure that it is not at the expense of safety. In the air, it must at all times be safety first. There is no other way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to that matter also in his winding-up speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar pointed out that the one thing lacking from the Bill is good industrial relations machinery. Edwards has been extensively quoted today, but I quote him once again, and draw to the attention of the House two points made in the summary on page 243:
"The development of good human relationships is essential for the future prosperity of the British civil air transport industry."
Second,
"The U.K. airlines should examine ways in which greater staff participation and involvement can be achieved. We commend the

1243
experiments in the field of communications that have been instituted in some airlines."
If safety is to be taken into account, and if good industrial relations are to be taken into account, I very much hope that in Committee the Government will accept Amendments to Clause 3 and will give a guarantee that no more of the profitable routes of the public sector are pinched for the sake of their political friends.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. James Hill: In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said that this was a period of rapid change. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) recalled to us the days when he would hurtle down from Scotland at 90 m.p.h. in a De Havilland Rapide, bringing back memories of my own past. But my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is a period of rapid change.
My right hon. Friend spoke of the way in which the Bill would regulate the four departments or functions enumerated on page 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It seemed to me that the bringing of three of them under the same roof made good sense, but I am not so sure about the fourth. I take it that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will explain why the Authority will operate some aerodromes. The words are "some aerodromes", and, when one looks inside, one finds that they are Aberdeen and the Scottish Highlands and Islands aerodromes. If that be the fourth department, it seems to me that the British Airports Authority might be coerced—it would have to be coerced because there is a loss in running these airports—into taking over this liability from the Civil Aviation Authority. There are probably very important reasons why that is not so which will come out later.
The question whether Caledonian-B.U.A. will be compensated when it is stripped of its routes, if the Opposition ever form the Government again, is becoming an almost perennial problem. As has been made only too plain in debates, its rights to the routes are licences, pieces of paper. B.O.A.C. was not compensated for the loss of routes, and there is no justification for Caledonian-B.U.A. to receive compensation. I should very much like to have clarification of the
1244
position, because it will obviously be raised time and again in Committee.
In a first-class speech my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke of one or two things that have worried him, including the omission of any airports policy from the Bill. What a wonderful opportunity this would have been to have an overall policy for the United Kingdom!
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) also mentioned a lack of consultative machinery. My hon. Friend said that there should be consultative committees for the benefit of local residents. I do not know whether my experience is exceptional, but the Southampton airport company, which runs a private airfield, has set up a consultative committee composed of all sections of residents and industry in the area. The company pays its expenses, and the accommodation is kindly given by the Eastleigh local authority. This shows that it can be done, even where the airfield concerned is a small private one.
I was very pleased to see in the Gallery during the afternoon the three personages responsible for much of the Bill, Sir Ronald Edwards and the two Chairmen of the Corporations. I should like to have said while they were present that I, too, have great praise for the Corporations. I have worked for one. They have an outstanding safety record, and they treat their employees very well. It would have been nice to say that while they were here.
The hon. Member for Poplar spoke about a bias towards the private operator, and referred to Clause 3(1)(b), which speaks of securing
"that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing,…"
It is clear that if we set up a second force we want to make sure that it remains in being. To my mind that is the simple object of that provision—not to give any bias towards a private operator but to make sure that it remains in being.
There has been talk of medical departments. I have heard of one other example where slight merging might be helpful. I heard, I think from the Chairman of B.E.A., that both the major airlines have

1245
separate computer units, neither of which will work from the other's software. I believe that they purchased them at about the same period, so it would have been simple to arrange that the software was the same.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) said that we were nose-diving. He has all the aeronautical terms. Apparently, most of his constituents work at London Airport. I think that the hon. Gentleman was taking too frosty a view. Aviation is going through a period of self-inflicted injury. We have had a Post Office strike that lost that organisation £2 million, and various other things have happened that I will not repeat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) rightly raised the subject of private aviation. If we could have written into the Bill an airports policy, we could also have written into it a policy for private aviation, a much-neglected part of aviation. The majority of commercial airline pilots come from that sector, so we should not overlook it.
It is only too obvious that the Bill has been in the embryo stage since 1967. The Chairmen of both the nationalised Corporations must have known from the Edwards Report that the Bill is for the eventual merging of the Corporations. My view, borne out by the Report, is that merging will not create stability and efficiency. We have imagined that mergers of great companies or corporations will lead to more efficiency, but this is not always so, as we have seen. I hope that the Corporations are not pressed along the path of complete merger until the Bill has been given a thorough testing period.
Although the Bill has been introduced to hand over responsibility to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Secretary of State still has many reins and bridles to control the industry in excess of what I believe even he would desire. Perhaps the draftsmen have covered every crevice and crack by giving him the last word. The idea of the Bill is to create a buffer between Whitehall and airline managements, to give the managements the ability to get on with the job without too much Government interference, something in which on this side we firmly believe. If that is so, I hope that in Committee
1246
many of the provisions giving the Secretary of State powers to oversee matters can be removed.
One of the immediately obvious flaws of the Bill is on the financial side. We get back only one-third on our air navigational services and only a one-third return on the operation of aerodromes, while the Air Transport Licensing Board recovers all that it spends and the Air Registration Board recovers two-thirds. I look forward to the day—I think that my right hon. Friend said that it would be in 1977–78—when the Authority will be financially self-supporting and not, as at present, receiving back only one-third of the outlay.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) will forgive me if I do not continue the debate on the main topics with which he was concerned.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I am fundamentally opposed to the Bill because the whole history of civil aviation licensing in Britain has been one of capitulation to established interests and particularly to established private interests.
During the 'fifties we saw the springing up and increasing development of what were called "colonial coach services". During the 'sixties we saw the licensing of independent domestic services with catastrophic fares increases. Under the Labour Government—I was totally opposed to the concept of the second force—we saw the debarring of the B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. merger. Now, written into Clause 3 of this Measure, we have a lifelong guarantee that while this Bill remains on the Statute Book, a second force airline must exist.
I therefore fundamentally disagree with the philosophy expounded in the past by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). I do not accept the need for a second force and I have never accepted the need for a Bill of this kind, particularly when the evidence now before us from the United States and many other countries where a policy of route competition has been applied reveals fares increases, falling load factors and serious financial difficulties. To introduce a Measure like this now,

1247
which fosters more competition, shows a complete ignorance on the part of the Government of international and domestic aviation matters.
We need a strong civil aviation authority which will act as a watchdog over the economic and financial affairs of the industry. If we are to have a combination of the American C.A.B. and our F.A.A., it must be much stronger than it could possibly be under the Bill. I had grave doubts whether the proposed C.A.A. would have become "Mr. Mason's Bulldog". I have no doubt that the proposed Authority under this Bill will become "Mr. Noble's Poodle".
If one looks at the Dowers which the C.A.A. is given one is bound to need convincing that they are strong enough to stand up to the Secretary of State and to stand up against the airlines, particularly in the independent sector. Indeed, it seems a wry comment to have to make that the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States exercises more strict control over British independent operators than our C.A.A. will do.
When an hon. Gentleman opposite spoke earlier about the vast amount of financial disclosure required by the American C.A.B., particularly for foreign carriers' permits, I could not help thinking that the C.A.B. will be asking for far more financial information than the C.A.A. will ask of both independent and State operators in this country.
The 1960 Act never made it quite clear who was in charge, the A.T.L.B. or the Minister. Nor does this Bill. The Secretary of State and Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt be giving slightly different interpretations of these provisions, but if one looks at Clauses 3 and 4, in which some categorical directives are given to the Authority, and if one goes on to look at Clause 24(2), where the Secretary of State can stop the C.A.A. functioning completely—he can stop it dead in its tracks—then if the Parliamentary Secretary intends to claim that this will be an autonomous body, I must be allowed to beg to differ.
Consider, for example, safety. It is well established that the safety performance of United Kingdom airline operators is worse than that of American and Australian operators. It is about
1248
equal to most of the average European operators. Thus, to say that Britain has in the past had a "No-better-than-average performance record" is fair, and I say that taking into account the Jay and Edwards Reports and other documents and statistics which are available. Unfortunately, when I look at the powers which the Authority will have, I cannot see that situation being improved.
Under Clause 22 the Authority is not told in sufficient detail the amount of information for which it must ask for the granting of an air service licence. There is also no provision in Clause 24 for the Authority to publish the reasons for not granting a licence. The same can be said of the powers to compel disclosure. Not half enough importance is given to the whole procedure by which one applies for a licence. One must give certain financial information and then, if the licence is refused, one cannot find out why it has been refused.
In addition, it would appear that most operators can appeal to the Secretary of State. Thus, to claim that this will be a strong autonomous watchdog over the industry when, first, it has no teeth and, secondly, one can always appeal against its decisions, is to claim the rediculous because one is starting out by creating a weak and impotent body.
Mr. Burden: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is extremely interested in safety. Is he aware that one of the relevant points regarding the apparent greater safety, or lesser accident, rate in Australia and America lies in the fact that they are concerned there mostly with long hauls? He will appreciate that there are greater dangers with short hauls. The result is that the general picture in Europe as a whole is likely to show more accidents than are shown in Australia and America.
Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman is making an excuse for the rather lamentable safety performance of British Eagle, I accept his comments.
Mr. Burden: Cheap.
Mr. Huckfield: I speak in my capacity as Air Safety Adviser to the British Safety Council. The C.A.A. will not have the power to require disclosure. Nor will it be required to publish the

1249
details of licence refusals. There will be virtually unlimited appeals against it. In addition, because of the experimental abolition of part of the first provision, there will be tough price competition. I am not convinced, therefore, that the C.A.A. will have sufficient powers to govern the licensing of this competitive industry.
We have now reached the stage when many of the independent operators are screwing themselves down into ever-tighter contracts with inclusive tour operators. We also have accident reports like the British Eagle Viscount disaster at Munich, and the Donaldson International Airways' flouting of the pilots' hours regulations. I am convinced that we need a tougher body, with much stronger powers to compel disclosure and powers to go into minute financial and other details, including the facts about the management structures of many airlines.
I will only briefly consider the charter sphere, in which I have an interest. It would appear that we are going some way to tighten up on some of the rule benders—but I am not particularly concerned with the rule benders because I regard many of the rules as being foolish, anyway.
I hope that the licensing of tour operators and some of the charter airlines will mean our taking a first step towards completely abolishing Resolution 045, of I.A.T.A. and some of the other more foolish regulations, since we have now reached the stage when charter tickets can be bought over the counter. We should revise and simplify the procedures so as to give the ordinary man in the street a chance to fly to far-away places without making him go through a lot of stupid rules and regulations.
At the weekend we had the case of Laker Airways having a flight stopped at Gatwick. I do not want these flights to be discouraged. If there is to be a stoppage of cheap flights, then I hope the rules and regulations under which the present system works will be altered.
I will be equally brief on the question of the handling of air traffic control services in this country. Under the Bill, this will be done jointly by the Secretary of State and the C.A.A. I have developed a substantial interest in the new system
1250
of air traffic control at London Airport called Linesman Mediator. I have hardly received satisfactory answers to some of my questions about the Linesman Mediator.
It would appear that if we are to have the kind of situation in which we are to have half and half control between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Trade and Industry, it will be even more difficult to get information about linesman Mediator. For example, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to say something about the meeting at Gatwick last Thursday night between the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers and the Guild of Airline Pilots. I wonder whether he would like to say something about the fact that, despite Linesman Mediator's having been operational since 1st February, the work load on the air traffic controllers is already more than the work load imposed on A.T.C. controllers under the old system.
I wonder whether he would like to say whether he expects Linesman Mediator to be able to cope, with F.P.P.S. or without it, with the Easter traffic load. I can tell him now that there is a great deal of feeling in the industry that unless something is done about this, and particularly the Linesman Mediator part of it, we shall get some serious traffic delays around the London area, particularly over Easter. All the complaints we have had about night charter operations and about the noise and nuisance of the regular and late-night flights will be amplified and multiplied with the increasing congestion and delay which will be nourished by Linesman Mediator. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could come clean on that.
I do not have any too strong feelings about the board which will have the task of examining the possibilities of uniting B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I have always thought that they were rather different operations, B.O.A.C. primarily a long-haul carrier and B.E.A. primarily a short-haul carrier, with which, so it is always claimed, it is difficult to make comparisons. I suppose that there will be scope for rationalisation between the two charter fleets and room for rationalisation in other sectors, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind the fundamentally different characteristics of the two Corporations.

1251
I finish as I began by saying that I am not sure whether we should have one body for the economic side of the industry and another for the safety side. Whether we have them separate, as in the United States, or together, as is proposed, is a matter upon which I am not prepared to pronounce at the moment. Whatever happens, whether we have a combination of the two or two separate bodies, we have to give more teeth than the Bill suggests. The Secretary of State and the Minister will have to work very hard to convince many of us on this side of the House that it is an authority with sufficient teeth.
Apart from that, as it appears that on most fundamental matters the Secretary of State will be able to over-rule the C.A.A. anyway, we shall have a weak, nibbling and impotent body. I can see why the Government want a weak, nibbling and impotent body. It is because the Secretary of State wants to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the future of the second force. If we are to have a weak Civil Aviation Authority just to preserve the second force, if we are to tailor the whole of our civil aviation licensing policy just to suit the pockets and the whims of those who have backed the Conservative Party and helped to build up a second force, that is a bad and shocking reason for a new aviation policy. It is for that reason that I shall vote in the Lobby tonight against the Bill.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish to speak briefly in support of the excellent speeches that we have had from my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings (Mr. Warren), Woking (Mr. Onslow) and Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) who was himself an airline pilot for many years. I particularly welcome the fact that after waiting for two years—it seemed interminably—for Edwards, and then having to suffer even more procrastination because the last Government could not face the ideological consequences of legislating the provisions in the White Paper, we are seeing some action. The reasons for delay by the last Government were hinted at by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) who condemned so wholeheartedly the proposals of his own party. This is a long overdue Measure and I welcome it because uncertainty is
1252
the most damaging feature of all in aviation whether in the manufacturing or transport sectors.
I emphasise the criticisms that have been made on both sides of the House about the appeals procedure and the fact that later the power of the Secretary of State will be over-mighty. I particularly regret that we were not able to follow Edwards and have an independent adjudicator to whom appeals on air route licensing could be referred. My right hon. Friend said that the Government were better able to adjudicate on economic criteria in this respect, but I believe that this could conceivably be opening the argument to charges of political bias against whichever Government are in power. For that reason there is a strong case for an independent adjudicator.
It is a great pity that the Government were not able to bring forward the White Paper in which the guidelines of air transport policy are to be delineated. This would have given us a more comprehensive framework within which to judge the Measure. A number of issues will be raised in this White Paper and we await it with great anticipation. I mention one such issue now, the whole question of airports and airports policy.
The hon. Member for Woking particularly criticised the lack of an airports policy and I think he is right to do so. As a Member for Bradford I have been at the receiving end of what might be regarded as a backlash resulting from the lack of a national airports policy. Without being too parochial I will try to show the sort of dangers that can arise. Both parties when in Government have said that where possible airports should be run on a local basis. In the West Riding at Yeadon we had a local airport that was running well and profitably and which merely needed a small extension to the runway. Because it was thought that at some future date a national airports policy might suggest that a regional airport should be at Thorne Waste, or some other place, our own local claims which were very much based on regional development criteria were set aside.
I welcome the positive stipulation that criteria on regional development will be taken into account in the formulation of airports policy and management of airports. This is an important advance. It

1253
is something only hinted at by Edwards and we are being much more positive in making the suggestions that this legislation will enact.
On the other side of the airports coin there is the question of environment and aircraft noise which are to be a governmental as opposed to a C.A.A. responsibility. I am not entirely sure about that. Questions of aircraft noise are very much a function of operational criteria and therefore the C.A.A., as a most expert body, should adjudicate and lay down the law as far as possible in this respect. Otherwise there is yet again the danger of political considerations entering into it. There is the danger of a particular Secretary of State feeling bound for political reasons to come down in favour of environmental grounds against what could be the best arguments economically.
I come to the question of safety. Hon. Members opposite are very keen to denigrate the performance of the independent airlines. The statistics in the Edwards Report—and they are the only ones I have; I know that they are several years out of date—show that the State airlines, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., had three notifiable accidents per 100,000 stage flights on average, and the independents, excluding British Eagle—
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Oh!
Mr. Wilkinson: By excluding British Eagle I am being slightly unfavourable to my analysis—had 3·2 per 100,000 stage flights on average. That percentage includes British United Air Ferries and British United Airways group. There is a very small statistical margin.
Mr. Huckfield rose—
Mr. Wilkinson: I shall not give way; other hon. Members want to speak. The margin is so small—
Mr. Huckfield: If British Eagle is left out.
Mr. Wilkinson:—as not to be statistically significant. If there is any significance, it derives from the fact that many operators, for reasons best known to themselves, and because their passengers want to go there, operate into airports like Ljubljana or Barcelona and others which readily spring to mind, like Geneva or Innsbruck, which, for geographical
1254
reasons, are difficult to operate into. An hon. Member opposite said that all airports should have the same standard of safety. That is all very well, but one cannot bulldoze mountains into the sea to make them safe. Hon. Members opposite should remember that when they pontificate so dogmatically.
I wish to say a few words about the two important boards which I have not mentioned—the Air Registration Board, or the Airworthiness Requirements Board as it is to become, and the British Airways Board. I am slightly apprehensive about this superimposition of the Airways Board without clearer directions from the Secretary of State on its functions. I see from the Bill that the Board is to report periodically to Parliament on its progress. That is admirable. But I should like a date set by which the feasibility study of B.E.A./B.O.A.C. amalgamation should be concluded by the Board, otherwise its existence will be self-justifying and it could be a hindrance to efficiency and thrustful management in both the Corporations. I suggest that the review must be completed by 1975. I would hope that by then we would have had experience of supersonic aircraft in operation and a long period of operation of wide-bodied airliners. Without a thorough evaluation of the impact of both new developments on the air transport scene we shall not be able fully to comprehend the right pattern of the State sector.
I echo what has been said by the more expert Members on this side of the House about the Airworthiness Requirements Board. I do not entirely see the logic of incorporating the A.R.B. within the C.A.A. It fulfilled its functions superlatively well before. It had a worldwide reputation. Under the new scheme it is to be consulted rather than laying down the final criteria of airworthiness itself. The formation of the Board will not be as entirely professional as it used to be. Only up to half the Board will in future be representative of the various sections of the industry—manufacturing, air transport, piloting and air traffic—whereas in the past more than half was. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that the balance will revert more to the old pattern.
The time is getting late so I shall conclude by saying that, broadly speaking, I welcome this Measure, which is an

1255
overdue one. I particularly welcome the sensible allocation of routes structure between the second force and the public sector and in particular I welcome the designation of two services to the B.U.A. Caledonian Paris route. I know that Le Bourget has its disadvantages, but it will, as in the domestic sector, provide competition which is admirable for the travelling public.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. E. S. Bishop: I recognise that by this time of night a great number of points have already been made by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite, and there should be some time left for those who still wish to participate in the debate, but I want to deal very briefly with the contents of the Measure set against the Labour Government's White Paper of November, 1969, where the point was made in the first paragraph that the civil aviation industry is one of the world's fastest growing industries. That, of course, is still true today, and will continue to be true for a great deal of time to come. In this, of course, lie some of the technical and ensuing economic problems with which we shall have to contend.
I want to refer to the objectives mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his White Paper when he said that the industry must for various good reasons be regulated throughout the world. He went on to say that there is need for the highest standards of safety; there is need for control of aircraft noise; there is need for stability and regularity of public services; and there is the inescapable fact that international services depend upon a network of agreements reached with other countries defining traffic rights which airlines may enjoy. This is, of course, what this Measure should be all about.
It is on the last point that I want to make the first observation, and that is, that the problems which we face at our airports at this time, with overcrowding, are because the industry is one of the fastest growing in the world, and these increased demands on our airports raise air traffic control problems and safety problems which were referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), but, of course, from the point of view of the public use of our airports, there are problems of access in getting
1256
to and from them which might easily offset the advantages which may accrue later on from S.S.T. when supersonic travel comes to be familiar to ordinary passengers.
B.O.A.C. has worldwide operations and, like other airlines, is concerned with many bilateral agreements which have to be negotiated under the Bermuda Agreement of 1946, on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These treaties are not easily negotiated because of environmental and other problems, to which I have referred, in airport congestion.
There is increasing and natural public reaction to noise and pollution and night jet operation through charter firms and others operating what are scheduled services in all but name, and this problem has not received the attention which it should have received from the Government. There is urgent need to have a national examination of the possibilities and the potential contribution which can be made by S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. projects, and it is with these with which we should be mainly concerned at this time.
Undoubtedly the advances in rotary wing aircraft, helicopters, the development of high-lift devices, of S.T.O.L., and the advances in engine design, and V.T.O.L., all these advances made by various manufacturers—and there are a number of them in this country which have done work on these things—make it really imperative that the Government have a comprehensive policy on this matter, because it is not a matter which concerns manufacturers only. It is a problem which concerns civil aviation, which concerns airports on both sides of the Channel, and local authorities, and air traffic control and, of course, air safety rules. It is essential that we now get down to a policy, with all the interests of these people getting together, to make sure that we develop as fast as we can the potential of V.T.O.L. and S.T.O.L. aircraft to make their contribution with the conventional forms.
The most controversial aspect of the Bill, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred, is in Clause 3(1)(b), which states that there is a duty
"to secure that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing…services".

1257
That seems rather odd. The Minister must explain how he will secure that one major airline provides these independent, second-line services. If he has no power to make it do so, his only way is to attract it by giving incentives and guaranteeing its profits and returns, which are not guaranteed to the publicly-owned airlines, which are referred to in Clause 3(1)(a). This clearly means that the private operators will be in a very much better, stronger and more lucrative position than those who have to carry out the public service of running the State-owned airlines of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
It seems clear that the misgivings of my hon. Friends are justified, because in subsection (3)(a) of Clause 3 we have the skimmed milk for the British publicly-owned operators while the cream goes in subsection (3)(b) to the private operators who, without having any duty imposed upon them, will have to be invited with that very rich cream on the milk to take Dart. It is in this respect that some of us will have misgivings about the way in which the private sector makes the profits, even at the expense of running the airline. I would like to think that safety will not be one of the factors which is sacrified to bring this about.
The other aspect of my right hon. Friend's White Paper to which I have referred concerns human relations. Hon. Members, on both sides, have expressed concern that the question of human relations is not as evident in the Bill as it might have been. In his White Paper, my right hon. Friend spoke about the constructive approach to questions of human relations and, in particular, emphasised the value of proper consultations and negotiating machinery. There is no evidence of this being tackled in the Bill.
The previous Government shared the hope of the Edwards Committee that the industry of the future would offer stability of employment and attractive career opportunities and welcomed the Committee's view that high levels of labour productivity were essential, not only to the industry's well-being in an increasingly competitive environment, but also as a basis to afford high levels of pay to skilled and efficient staff. Here again, although the airlines have a fairly good record in human and staff relations, I
1258
should like to think that there was more in the Bill to safeguard those provisions for the future. The previous Administration were anxious to ensure greater employee participation. These are the points to which we shall be looking when the Bill goes into Committee.
I want briefly to refer to future aircraft. We have in mind Concorde, on which very little is at present known concerning the future, although we appreciate that this aircraft has come up to expectations technically and that the specification has been complied with. Those of us who have heard the experiments with Concorde against the VC10 and the Boeing 707 will recognise that from the ground approach angle, the Concorde is certainly no noisier than any of those other aircraft, and we have the assurance that there may be restrictions on flights over land.
In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) commented on the Government's intervention—or, it may be, interference —in the price aspect of Concorde. Most of us would hope that B.O.A.C. can set the lead to the world's airlines by buying this aircraft. Although one recognises that the Government of the day have an interest in the price to be charged, because the nation has invested a substantial sum in the project, one has to be careful that the Government do not impose a price level which makes it well nigh impossible for B.O.A.C. to set the example, which it ought to do, by buying this aircraft.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to ignore the advice of one backbencher opposite who last week asked that B.O.A.C. should be instructed to buy Concorde. I hope I am not being unduly suspicious, but I can see here a danger that if the Government want to get out of their commitment to the British aircraft industry and to Concorde they can do it quite nicely by not taking the plane and saying that B.O.A.C. has failed to put in an order. This would make the future of Concorde dismal indeed. We shall be looking carefully at the negotiation stage to see that this does not happen.
Concorde is the aircraft of the future, subject to other aspects also being considered. Those of us who have been

1259
fortunate enough to travel long distances, for example between here and New York, to Johannesburg and to Australia—and have taken 32 hours to reach Australia—will appreciate the advantages of being able to get there in half the time and set about our duties sooner. We are told by the scientists not to sign any contract for at least a couple of days after a long air journey, and Concorde can make a substantial contribution there.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who recently accompanied me to Australia on a round-the-world trip which took a week, will appreciate that Concorde has a potential in that part of the world without some of the environmental problems which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) tried to iron out in the United States. The future there is good.
In discussing airlines, we are discussing not the problem of conveying passengers from one part of the world to another, but the future of the British aircraft industry. We should recognise its substantial contribution to our export trade, to the balance of payments and to home demand. The value per employee in the aerospace industry is twice the figure for United Kingdom manufacturing industry as a whole. The industry earns about £1 million per working day from exporting. B.A.C. alone has exported £400 million worth in the 20 years to date, and supplied £380 million worth on the home market, apart from the spin-off. Undoubtedly, other aircraft manufacturers in this country also have a commendable record.
The aircraft industry needs stability which can only come from long-term planning and increasing public participation. No one in private enterprise can carry the immense responsibilities, costs and risks involved if we are to stay in the industry, as I am sure we must in future.
For these reasons, apart from others which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends, I support the Bill, whilst having the gravest misgivings about the part to be played by private enterprise and the threat which that imposes on those who have to carry out public commitments in the national sector.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Waltham-stow, East): I wish to give the Bill my general support. The Measure is badly needed and I suspect that most hon. Members, despite what some of them may have said in this debate, realise that it has to come.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about the Bill's drafting. It is not good enough that we should be presented with a Bill which seems to leave so much to be desired in terms of clarity and simplification of language. I remember my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying that the one thing he hoped to be remembered for was the fact that he had managed to put Bills into the sort of English that anybody could understand.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend why Section 37(2)(b) has been included in the Bill, it reads,
"The Board shall not have power to manufacture air-frames, aero-engines or airscrews except in so far as the Secretary of State provides by order that it shall have such a power."
When that information would appear to be self-evident. Then Clause 38 says:
"It shall be the duty of the Board to exercise its powers in a manner calculated to secure that the air transport services provided by the group are developed to the best advantage and the resources of the group are used to the best advantage."
What sort of criterion is "the best advantage"? Should not that phrase be spelt out in more detail? The Bill is full of these vague phrases and statements and one wonders why they were ever included.
The Bill is a fairly momentous step forward in British civil aviation. The setting up of a Civil Aviation Authority means that a new piece of machinery is being created by which the safety of air travel, aircraft and air landing systems is to be governed. If we are setting up such a piece of machinery should we not ask ourselves whether the Civil Aviation Authority as outlined in the Bill will do what we require of such an authority?
The drafters of the Bill have had the advantage of the Edwards Report—that large volume which has been so carefully put together—on which to base the various Clauses in the Bill. Therefore, I am somewhat disappointed that having

1261
produced their Bill they have not considered exactly what function they want the Civil Aviation Authority to have. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that this Authority has been hedged about with ifs and buts and all sorts of recommendations to the Secretary of State instead of being given the teeth and strength it must possess if it is to be able to stand on its own feet and effectively govern civil aviation.
I refer particularly to the question of airports. The drafters of the Bill apparently found themselves wondering whether they could take what seems to be the logical step of setting up a national airport authority, or whether they should leave the curious mixture of ownership which exists at present. We know that the British Airports Authority was set up in 1964. Any authority which rejoices in the name of British Airports Authority might reasonably be expected to control the destinies of the 42 civil aerodromes in this country. In fact it manages only four of them. Therefore it is not a British airports authority. It is at best a London airports authority. As we know from the Bill, the intention is that the Authority should go on looking after these four airports. Only the airports which were under the old Board of Trade will now come under the C.A.A., and its responsibility for them remains more or less the same as the Board's.
Much expert advice has been brought forward to suggest that there should be a national airports plan, a view shared by Edwards and by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which has recently been looking at the British Airports Authority. It says on page xxxix of its Report, in recommendation (3):
"Preparation of a national airports plan should be started in earnest without waiting for the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority."
There is also a reference to the need for either a national airports authority or national co-ordination by the new Civil Aviation Authority of the airports of this country. Finally on page xxxvii the Select Committee says of the British Airports Authority:
"The origins of the Authority lie more in the chance of history than in the application of any general policy for airports. The absence of a national airport policy at the moment
1262
can…impede the Authority in planning the future development of its airports."
A civil aviation authority that does not accept airports as part of civil aviation seems to me to be seriously missing in one of its major functions. I hope the Government will now consider whether they should provide the nation with a national airports authority under the C.A.A. which has overriding authority to manage and plan the sort of airports that we shall require. Many of us who took part in the debate on the third London airport will remember how, over and over again, there was reference to a lack of a national airports policy, and the feeling that, somehow, Mr. Justice Roskill had been asked to provide one—although it was not in his terms of reference.
At a time when aviation is going through a revolutionary period, as the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) said, with V.T.O.L. aircraft, S.T.O.L. aircraft, and Q.T.O.L. aircraft—or quiet-take-off-and-landing aircraft—coming on the scene, we must consider the planning of our airports with much more care. I beg the Government not to regard them as a kind of Cinderella, to be looked after at a later date.
As to environmental factors, we heard at the weekend that the Americans have decided to cancel their S.S.T., because the environmentalist lobby in the United States has won the day. By the same token, I wonder why we are pussyfooting on the subject of noise and pollution from aircraft, as we are doing in the Bill, and why we are not prepared to be more forthright and to give the C.A.A. power to lay down acceptable standards.
I was horrified by a recent answer that my right hon. Friend gave me, to the effect that no legal penalties are inflicted on those who exceed noise limits at Heathrow and Gatwick, and that our only instrument of control is the pious hope that it will not happen again. That is not good enough. Noise is intolerable. We have all said it, and we must be prepared to do something about it. If the Department cannot put up a better showing than it has done in the past we should set up some other sort of organisation to control it.
Even if we cannot give the C.A.A. total control of noise, can we not set up a tripartite control organisation consisting of the C.A.A., the Department of

1263
Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment? As well as aircraft noise let us not forget that smoke from aircraft engines is very objectionable to many people. It is high time that we took further measures, including penalties, to stop that sort of pollution.
I have said on a previous occasion that my company works for the Air Registration Board. It has often been state that that remarkable organisation has proved itself not only in this country but all over the world. It is a remarkable organisation because it represents the whole of the aircraft industry, and it probably has closer contacts with the industry and aircraft users than any other single organisation in the country. It also has an executive function. The A.R.B. is now independent, but I do not disagree that it should be a member of the C.A.A. What does worry me is that under the provisions of Clause 27(2) (c) it can be overruled by the C.A.A. I find it difficult to see why the C.A.A. should need power to override an organisation whose task it is to ensure the safe operation of aircraft. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can tell me in what circumstances the recommendations of the A.R.B. might ever need to be overruled.
Finally I am not so sure that we are right to condemn the British Airways Board. We have begun to see the blurring of the edges between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. on a number of routes. For instance B.E.A. flies to North Africa, which is not in Europe. B.E.A. used to fly to Moscow but it was then decided that the route should be given to B.O.A.C. There is a certain overlapping. The Airways Board may help to clarify and rationalise that overlapping.
I also suspect that we may see a greater similarity of types of aircraft in the future than in the past, and it would not be inconceivable to imagine B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. buying different versions of the Lockheed 1011.
It is a pity that when we are thinking of the Airways Board redefining the rôle of the Corporations we should not also be making up our minds about those routes they operate almost as a social service. I am thinking particularly of the Highlands and Islands route, which
1264
B.E.A. provides as a very major form of social service. The Corporation is not required to provide those routes and it loses £300,000 a year in doing so. Is it not time that we provided B.E.A. with a subsidy to run them rather than lumping them in with their commercial operations.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Milian: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) made a number of interesting points. I will not say now whether or not I agree with them, but such points as he and many other hon. Members have raised should give us a very fruitful Committee stage.
The Bill to a large extent follows the Labour Government's White Paper, and for that reason, and for a number of other reasons, my advice to my hon. Friends will be not to vote against it. Nevertheless, as I hope to make clear, a number of points require clarification, and in regard to a number of other points we shall seek to amend the Bill.
The Edwards Committee, the previous Labour Government, and now the present Government all came to the conclusion that there is a very strong case for bringing B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. closer together so as to have a greater coordination of their activities. That is the basic argument for the establishment of the British Airways Board. The basic argument against is the fact that B.E.A. is a short-haul and medium-haul airline whereas B.O.A.C. is long-haul, and many of the things they do are not comparable with one another.
There is, nevertheless, an area of overlap in which greater co-ordination between the two major airlines ought to provide very considerable economic and other benefits. A number of these were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in the White Paper: industrial relations, engineering maintenance, training of staff, computer facilities, advertising, marketing, the co-ordination of route development, and the important question of aircraft requirement. The kind of set-up established under the Bill should enable a more comprehensive look to be taken at the very important considerations involved.
Once the principle of closer coordination between the two airlines had

1265
been accepted, the decision that had to be made was whether the British Airways Board should be some kind of body superimposed on the two existing airlines and having a co-ordinating function over them, but on a fairly loose rein, or whether it should be given very considerable powers including, ultimately, the power of directing the activities of the two airlines. The previous Government took the view, with which I very much agree, that to have a Board without sufficient powers would make the present situation worse rather than better and that, therefore, if the principle were to be accepted, such a Board would need to have real powers. We are glad to see that the present Government have reached that conclusion, too, and have embodied it in Clause 37.
It is not yet clear from the Bill exactly which way the Airways Board will operate. It would help us greatly, even at this early stage of our consideration, to receive more information about the projected Board than we received from the Minister earlier. For example, he was not able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) whether there would be any qualification or background experience looked for in the Board members. There is no indication whether it is intended that the Board members should be full time or part time or a mixture of both. We are left very short of details about exactly how the Government envisage that the Board will work.
The Board is to be given as its first task the job of reviewing the organisation of the Corporations and producing recommendations for change. The Bill provides that these recommendations for change will be no more than that: they are basically recommendations to the Secretary of State. One feature of the Bill which has been widely commented on by hon. Members on both sides is the extent to which the Secretary of State enters into the reckoning with real power at every point, whether in connection with the Airways Board or the Civil Aviation Authority. There may be a case for saying that if anything as radical as the dissolution of the two Corporations was proposed the Secretary of State should have an important say. That may also be true if a substantial reorganisation of the work of the Board and the
1266
two Corporations is projected. However, the Bill is so drafted that the Board will have very great difficulty in doing anything in the way or reorganisation without the Secretary of State's specific authority. We shall wish to examine this in Committee.
Mr. Burden: The Bill does not give power for dissolution of both Corporations, but only one.
Mr. Millan: I will not argue with the hon. Member on that. We are talking about the question of the integration of the Corporations under the Board. It is irrelevant whether that is done by dissolving both Corporations or merging them in some other way. The net result is the same.
The Board will take over two airlines of a very high standard of operation, as has been stressed by my hon. Members, by the Edwards Committee, and by every authority which has considered the Corporations' operations. They are airlines also which are running on a profitable basis. The last Annual Report of B.O.A.C. made the very important point that, even if there had not been a write-off of capital five or six years ago, the profits which have been earned since then would have enabled the Corporation, taking the whole period of its operations into account, now to be in a profitable position, having paid its way over the whole of that period. The Government, sufficiently convinced by the experiment with public dividend capital in B.O.A.C., introduced an Order only last Friday morning to extend that for another five years. This is a real tribute to the success that B.O.A.C. has had in its operations over the last five years.
It is, therefore, all the more regrettable that we should have in Clause 40 an example of Government dogmatism on the hiving-off of profitable activities of nationalised activities. As I read the Clause, virtually any of the functions and operations of the two Corporations could be sold off to private enterprise at the Secretary of State's direction. We shall vigorously oppose this in Committee.
Clause 40(3) goes so far as to say in effect that a direction may be given where it can be proved that it is against the national economic interest that the Board should be divested of some of its activities. But the most serious attack on the

1267
future of the Board comes from the Government's proposals with regard to the second force independent airline. The Labour Government accepted, and my right hon. Friend's White Paper said, that there was a strong case for the establishment and building up of a second force, but it was made clear emphatically that that should not be done and that it would be grossly unfair for that to be done at the expense of taking away profit routes from the two nationalised Corporations.
This is precisely what the Government have now done, and this afternoon we had the announcement by the right hon. Gentleman of the routes which, in the initial stages, are to be taken away from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—the routes in the case of B.O.A.C. to West Africa and Tripoli, and some of the B.E.A. routes to Paris.
I was not clear, despite what the Minister said this afternoon, whether the revenue on these routes fell within the £6 million which the Government said was the limit that they would set themselves for this hiving-off operation. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some clarification. Whether that comes within the limit of £6 million or not, the fact is that B.O.A.C. has said that the loss of profit—not the loss of revenue—on West Africa alone will amount to something like £½ million when these routes are taken away from 1st April, which is later this week. Incidentally, it is not clear to me what authority the Government have to allow that to happen from Thursday of this week, when the Order on which it is based has not been debated or agreed by the House. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give some information on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon said that the principles on which the Government were acting in this matter were that what would be provided would be a better service to the public and a bigger share of the traffic concerned for British airlines. But the routes that we are talking about today do not meet either of these criteria. There is no suggestion that the granting to Caledonian-B.U.A. of the routes that I have mentioned will provide a better service to the public. If there is, perhaps the Minister will tell us how that will happen. Certainly there is no suggestion, nor can
1268
there be, that the divesting of these routes by the Corporations will enable a bigger share of the traffic to the areas concerned to fall to British airlines.
This would be serious enough. But what is even more serious is the Minister's inability this afternoon to explain clearly what was meant by the provisions in Clause 3 for the giving of guidance and guide-lines to the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government said originally that the transfer of routes from the nationalised Corporations to the independent force would be a once-for-all operation, and that once that had been done the second force would have to take its chance, as it were, with the new Civil Aviation Authority. But that is not what the Bill says.
That is not what Clause 3 says. Clause 3(1)(b) does not say that the chosen second British airline will have preference over other independent airlines. So far as I can see, it says that the second British airline will have preference over every one—over other independents and also over the two nationalised Corporations. If that is what the Clause means and what the Government intend, what is announced would only be the start of a general preference for the independent airline which presumably could be based on only one real principle and practice, and that is that, whatever happened, the new second independent airline would be given sufficient routes in order to ensure that it always made a substantial profit. The nationalised Corporations would have to make the best that they could of what was left for them.
If that is not what is intended by Clause 3, the Minister must give us a better explanation. As it stands, it is completely unacceptable to the Opposition, and this is one of the parts of the Bill which we shall do our best to amend in Committee.
As regards general guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, we had a series of generalisations from the Minister. I do not know whether he thought that they meant something, but they certainly did not mean anything to my hon. Friends or myself. What does seem clear—it was interesting that hon. Members opposite took up this point as well—is that the C.A.A., as the Bill is drafted, is subordinated to the Minister. Whether one

1269
takes the question of air transport licensing or anything else, essentially, the Minister is in charge, and by that token the Civil Aviation Authority is weakened. Again, this is a matter on which we shall seek to make substantial Amendments, and I hope that the speeches we have had from hon. Members opposite today will be translated into support for proposals which we shall make to that end in Committee.
It is a pity, also, that so little information has been given to us about the Civil Aviation Authority, the kind of people who will be appointed, whether they will be full-time or part-time members, and exactly how they are to operate. We shall want clarification on these important matters also before the Bill is given a Second Reading today.
A good many hon. Members and important interests outside are disturbed at the lack of precise information about the Civil Aviation Authority. All of us have had representations from, for example, the Air Registration Board. If the Government are to persuade the A.R.B. that the new Airworthiness Requirements Board will meet the kind of points which it has put to us, we must know a good deal more about the sort of role which the Government envisage for the C.A.A. under the Bill. If we could have such reassurance tonight, it might help outside bodies such as, for instance, the Air Registration Board. Whether it will reassure some of my hon. Friends, like my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, I am not sure, but that is really a matter for him rather than for me.
I agreed with virtually everything said today by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar except his decision that in any circumstances he would vote against the Bill. It seemed to me—I gather that one or two others of my hon. Friends took the same view—that what my hon. Friend was really doing was fighting again over the arguments which we had the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Act earlier this year. We on this side made our views on that Act very clear, and we shall make them clear again when the individual Orders transferring routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. come before the House. We have one Order already in respect of the West
1270
African routes, and we shall, presumably, have others within the next two days. We shall make clear then that we are absolutely opposed to the way in which the Government are taking routes from the nationalised airlines to build up the second, independent airline.
There are many other aspects of the Bill on which we shall wish to have more information, either tonight or in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar mentioned, for instance, the whole question of consultation with employees, and I agree with him that the Bill is grossly deficient in that respect. For my part, I am interested to know what the Government intend to do about the question of subsidies for domestic routes which, in the nature of things, must be run by the new Board or by the B.E.A. at a considerable loss. This was dealt with in the Labour Government's White Paper. We have heard nothing from the Government today, and I understand that there have been no discussions with B.E.A. about this important matter. I should like to have an assurance, before we leave the Bill at this stage, that the Government treat this matter with some seriousness and urgency, for it is of great significance, particularly for some of the Scottish domestic services. But these are matters which we can explore at much greater length in Committee.
This is a mixed Bill. Some bits very much follow the Labour Government's White Paper, and I find no difficulty in accepting them, but there are some bits that we shall want substantially amended. Since the Bill in so many essential respects follows the Labour Government's White Paper, we should not vote against it, but should try to amend substantially in Committee the various points that worry us, which I have tried to indicate tonight, some of which worry Conservative hon. Members as well.
We are dealing with an industry that is important economically and in other ways. It is an expanding industry, and an industry, as represented by the Corporations, which has a very fine record. The aim of the Opposition will be to make the Bill when it leaves Committee a real contribution to the success of this very important industry.
9.31 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): This has been an extremely interesting and useful debate. The speeches from both sides have contributed much to our knowledge and understanding of the subject. Many of the points raised were essentially Committee points. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that we shall welcome all the advice we can get from the Committee on what is a very complicated matter.
I welcome the somewhat limited praise for the Bill from the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). Their approach was sensible in the circumstances. I hope that by the time I have finished speaking that happy accord will be universally felt among hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the route transfers. They are subject to the negative resolution procedure, and therefore take place on the date in the Order to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, 1st April. He also asked whether this was to be a once-for-all transfer. As I thought my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade made clear, it is, so far as the initial operation is concerned. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear time and again, but he has also made it quite clear that it would be absurd to fetter the C.A.A., or to freeze the pattern of routes for all time.
Mr. Mikardo: Am I right in thinking that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the rape will be a once-for-all rape, and that after that all that happens is continuous seduction?
Mr. Grant: To use the words sometimes employed, I do not use filthy language like that. The truth of the matter is that the present operation has been clearly stated as being necessary to get the second force viable and off the ground. The routes my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon are the end of that operation.
Mr. Mikardo: Change the subject quickly.
Mr. Grant: I trust that the hon. Member for Poplar will do me the courtesy of allowing me to complete my remarks.
1272
It would be ridiculous to freeze the pattern of routes for all time. If that is what the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is suggesting, he is taking a surprising view considering that the industry is dynamic and changing all the time.
A number of hon. Members asked whether the proposed route transfers were within the forecast of the statement made by my right hon. Friend in August. The answer is clearly that they are. They are within the figures expressed by my right hon. Friend. They are within the approximately £6 million or 2 per cent. to 3½ per cent. of current annual revenue. We are satisfied that this is a modest removal of routes from the Corporations to get the second force working.
I agree that the West African routes have been profitable in B.O.A.C.'s hands. However, the Tripoli and Paris routes have been of quite a different order. Taking the package as a whole, I am satisfied that this will not make too great an impact on the Corporations, while yielding to Caledonian-B.U.A. the revenue outlined in the statement made by my right hon. Friend in August.
Mr. Russell Kerr: What about the Portuguese routes which are, we understand, also being transferred?
Mr. Grant: My right hon. Friend made no reference to Portuguese routes in his speech. I do not propose to deal with that issue because I am answering the questions that were asked in this debate.
A number of hon. Members referred to the double designation referred to in paragraph 33 of the Labour Party's White Paper and I was asked whether that was still applicable. The answer is "Yes". It will be part of the three criteria which we expect will be given to the C.A.A. as guidance and when hon. Members who are interested in this subject read the OFFICIAL REPORT they will discover that my right hon. Friend outlined this point.
Hon. Members on both sides queried whether there was too much Ministerial interference with the affairs of the C.A.A. and possibly with those of the Airways Board. The contrary view was also expressed by a number of hon. Members, some of whom suggested that perhaps there was not sufficient control over the Board.

1273
The position is relatively simple. As for the suggestion that excessive powers are given to the Secretary of State over the Board, the powers given to my right hon. Friend in relation to the public sector airlines group are, in the main, confined to those which are necessary to fulfil the standard responsibilities of Ministers in relation to nationalised industries. The aim has been to leave the commercial initiative with the Airways Board, and not with Ministers, though it is, of course, for Ministers to exercise general oversight and to account to Parliament for the group's performance.
The provisions relating to group organisation are new to civil aviation legislation, though there are similar provisions in the statutes applying to certain other nationalised industries. Essentially, the Secretary of State retains final responsibility for major changes in the organisation of the public sector group as a whole and must account to Parliament for it.
The power of direction to dispose of financial interests in other undertakings, or discontinue or restrict subsidiary activities, has parallels in other nationalised industry Statutes, and I stress that this power is heavily qualified. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the exercise of the power is consistent with the performance of the Airways Board's general duty; consultation with the Airways Board is required; and it is subject to the negative Resolution procedure. It is wholly reasonable that such a power should be available to the Secretary of State if occasion should require it. [Interruption.] I assume that hon. Members opposite want replies to their questions. Whether they like the replies is not relevant; they are going to get them.
I now deal with the suggestion that excessive power is given to the Airways Board, the reverse of the coin. The powers of the Airways Board in relation to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are broadly equivalent to those in the private sector of a holding company and are not excessive in relation to the rôle which the Board has to fulfil. It will be for the Board to decide the way in which it uses these powers, and we have every confidence that it will want to draw fully on the expertise and experience of the staff and management of the Corporations. I
1274
must stress that no substantial change in group organisation may take place without the consent of the Secretary of State, as I have described on the contrary argument.
It is easy to gain the impression from looking through the Bill that the Secretary of State will be intervening at every turn, but I ask the House not to be misled by this. [Interruption.] I must say as an aside that it is remarkably gratifying to find the hon. Member for Poplar and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) for once not wanting to interfere too much with British industry; they have spent the whole of their lives doing so; however, there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth!
The powers are largely reserve powers and the power to issue general directions—
Mr. Mikardo: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman making a few cracks, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and I have been members of the Select Committee of Nationalised Industries, which has spent most of its time trying to reduce the power of direction of Ministers over public corporations. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make silly cracks, he ought to get his facts right first.
Mr. Grant: I am delighted to hear that. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not slow to take advantage of an opportunity to make a silly crack. I welcome any way in which he tries to create more freedom for industry.
As he pointed out, general directions are rarely used in practice. The power in Clause 4(4) to give particular directions is necessary because it relates to the functions which remain with the Government, but here again we believe that the Board should rarely need to use this power, because the Department and the Authority will work closely together. The Authority, as an expert professional body, separate from the Government, may be expected to develop close consultative arrangements with the industry which it will be regulating. No less important will be the consultations which it will need to have with the Government on such international matters as air fares and relations with other countries. I believe that it will work in close harness

1275
with the Department and that this will be a satisfactory solution.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley drew attention to the difficulties that the A.T.L.B. had in publishing financial information. Clause 35, on publication of information, requires the consent of the Secretary of State, but my right hon. Friend indicated that when faced with this situation he will favour the maximum possible disclosure.
The right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members mentioned the very important subject of industrial relations. I know that this interests the hon. Member for Poplar and his hon. Friend. It interested the Edwards Committee, too. I hesitate to say this in view of the arrival of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but some of Edwards has been overtaken by the introduction into this House of the Industrial Relations Bill. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority has consultative machinery as described in Schedule 1, paragraph 14.
Mr. Mikardo: It is rubbish.
Mr. Grant: As to Caledonian-B.U.A. it will be negotiating terms and conditions of employment comparable to those offered by the air corporations on similar work. To this extent the creation of the new airline will be beneficial to those who work in it, offering better prospects and greater security. Caledonian-B.U.A. is now in full membership of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport and thus is a party to the same negotiating procedures as the air corporations. This brings employees of British airlines within the N.J.C. machinery and the Government see no justification for introducing statutory obligations bearing in mind the variations in role and scale of operations of different airlines.
Moreover employers who cannot afford proper standards for their staff, taking into account the scale and type of their operation are clearly unlikely to be the sort of employers who will succeed in persuading the C.A.A. that they have satisfied the requirement for entitlement to operate.
The hon. Member for Poplar referred to the fact that independent airlines have consistently underpaid their staff. He went back into history, and I can go back
1276
to the 1950s when I recall when I had something to do with this. I remember well what the situation was. Some of the independents in those days paid less than the Corporations and they did so because it was consistently found by the industrial court which heard cases on both sides that the work they were engaged in was not comparable. The situation is different now and it will be found that the terms and conditions of Caledonian-B.U.A. staff will be broadly comparable with the staff of the corporations. I do not believe that anxieties on the grounds of terms and conditions of those engaged in the industry are well-founded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, in an interesting and remarkably well-informed speech, drew attention to the drafting of the Bill. In particular he recited to some effect Clause 4(4). We will look at this wording in Committee but I would utter this warning. I have always had a lot of fun, particularly when in opposition, and particularly with Finance Bills of hon. Members opposite, in reading out some of the extraordinary jargon that has emerged. This is always amusing but I would add the caution that sometimes to try to shorten the wording of a Bill into what seems simple language is, in the long run, God's gift to the lawyers. We will look at this in Committee.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Before we leave the interesting subject of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), may we know from the Minister whether the Government endorse the hon. Member's opinion that this Clause leaves open the question whether B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. can be denationalised?
Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is not quoting that Clause. It was Clause 40 which has been referred to by other hon. Members. Dealing with that point he will discover that Clause 40 refers only to the question of subsidiaries and does not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member. If he wishes we can pursue that in Committee.
My hon. Friend asked why operating safety was not referred to. If he looks at Clause 2(c) he will see that reference is made to:
"such functions as are for the time being conferred on it by or under Air Navigation Orders…"
This question will arise in that context.

1277
The other matter referred to by my hon. Friend and by others on this side of the House was airport development generally. The Civil Aviation Authority will have the task of advising the Government and others on the development of aerodromes to match air services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) referred to the question of the consumer, as did the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who dealt with air tour operators. I share many of the anxieties expressed by hon. Members about the undesirability of some inclusive tour activities, but there is power in Clause 26 to provide for regulations to be made for the licensing by the Authority of air travel organisers subject to the negative resolution procedure. I am sure that that will have a salutary effect on undesirable operators. The Authority will have power to licence for definite periods if it wishes, but it is not for us to dictate to it.
On the question of private flying, it is very easy, when debating the objectives and policies to be pursued in regulating civil aviation, to think only in terms of commercial aviation. There is, however, a strong, important and thriving general aviation sector, which includes recreational and training flying done by flying and gliding clubs, flying done by owner pilots for recreational and business purposes, and flying done by business organisations other than air transport operators which own and operate their own aircraft. The development and regulation of this sector will be the Authority's responsibility.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Speed it up.
Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman has not been paying a notable amount of attention recently. I can only conclude that he has not decided whether to vote on this issue.
I refer to the question of aircraft noise. It is because the Government have a duty to maintain a balance between the interests of the industry and the amenity of the public that the main responsibility for noise abatement cannot he given to the Authority but must remain with the Government. The Bill provides for my Department to be able to issue specific directions to the Authority on matters concerning noise vibration, pollution or other disturbance
1278
attributable to civil aircraft. The Authority will, however, be the principal source of advice to the Department on safety, technical and operational aspects of proposed noise abatement measures on which close consultation will be essential.
In particular, the noise testing of aircraft will be delegated to the Authority, which will also act as adviser on all matters affecting noise certification. The Government have no powers at present to impose noise abatement measures at municipally or privately-owned aerodromes. I recognise the considerable interest that there is in this aspect which is under review. However, the separation of responsibility for noise from the other responsibilities of ownership raises a number of very difficult legal and financial problems with which it would not be appropriate to deal in this Bill. Nevertheless, I assure all Members who have referred to the problem of noise that we are very conscious of the difficulties which it imposes.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has said, as his colleague said, that this responsibility is the Government's. I note that in the Bill there is reference to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but that its principal supporter is the Secretary of State for the Environment. Does this mean that "Secretary of State for the Environment" can be read into the Bill where the words "Secretary of State" appear?
Mr. Grant: No, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman had had enough experience of Bills to know that that could not be done.
One of my hon. Friends raised the question of the Air Registration Board. The Government accept that the Air Registration Board has worked well and enjoys a first-class international reputation, and we have fully taken account of those factors in coming to our decision. The Air Registration Board was, however, formed in 1937, when civil aviation was vastly different from what it is today, and, although some minor adjustments of functions between the Department responsible and the A.R.B. have taken place from time to time, the increasing complexity of aviation means that it is no longer possible to look at individual safety factors in isolation. The

1279
airworthiness and operational regulation of the aircraft, the competence of the crew and the standards of aerodrome and navigational services are all part of one interlocking environment. Alternative formulae have been considered, including some suggested by the A.R.B. itself, but the Government have concluded that, if there is to be a unified body, then executive control of airworthiness must rest with the Authority.
We recognise the value of the A.R.B. having been separate from the Government and the importance of the consultative arrangements it has had with the industry.
The Authority will, of course, be separate from the Government and be able to maintain the A.R.B.'s consultative machinery. The Government have furthermore recognised the value of having a forum in which different sides of the industry can contribute to the development of airworthiness standards. The Bill provides, therefore, for the creation of an Airworthiness Requirements Board with much the same composition as the Council of the Air Registration Board which the Authority will be obliged to consult on airworthiness standards.
One thing which I want to make clear to hon. Members is that there is absolutely nothing in this Bill which takes away from the tremendous importance of safety. Further, the Bill makes it clear that safety in the air is the dominating factor, and will continue to be. I must say that I thought it was less than fair of some hon. Members opposite to endeavour to besmirch the independent
airlines in saying that somehow they were less able to provide safety. I think it would be helpful to remind hon. Members of the words of the Edwards Report:
"We therefore find it difficult to draw any clear-cut conclusions from the available accident statistics.…The most we feel able to say is that the evidence, so far as it goes, indicates that the larger airlines tend to be safer…and that there are fewer accidents on scheduled than on unscheduled flights."
I am quite certain that in future safety will be the dominant factor in all sectors of the aviation industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) was quite right to take hon. Members opposite to task for the allegations which they had made.
Mr. Mikardo: Read page 207.
Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend's fears, however, that people will be deterred perhaps from using independent airlines are unnecessary because I just do not believe that people proposing to go abroad will hesitate about using them and will think they will have to read first the speech which the hon. Member for Poplar has made.
In conclusion, we entirely support the views expressed in favour of the Bill by the official Opposition. I support the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who paid a handsome tribute to Adam Thomson. I wish every success to the Bill, and I hope the House will support it with acclaim.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 30.

Division No. 336.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Cockeram, Eric

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Coombs, Derek

Goodhart, Philip

Astor, John

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Gorst, John

Atkins, Humphrey

Cormack, Patricia

Gower, Raymond

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Crouch, David

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Curran, Carles

Green, Alan

Benyon, W.

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Biffen, John

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

Grylls, Michael

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Dean, Paul

Gummer, Selwyn

Boscawen, Robert

Dixon, Piers

Gurden, Harold

Bowden, Andrew

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Bray, Ronald

Drayson, G. B.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Eyre, Reginald

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Burden, F. A.

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

Fidler, Michael

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Carlisle, Mark

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Haselhurst, Alan

Chapman, Sydney

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Hastings, Stephen

Churchill, W. S.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Havers, Michael

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Fortescue, Tim

Hay, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Ruchcliffe)

Fowler, Norman

Heseltine, Michael

Clegg, Walter

Gibson-Watt, David

Hicks, Robert

Hiley, Joseph

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

Soref, Harold

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

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Speed, Keith

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Moate, Roger

Spence, John

Holland, Philip

Money, Ernle D.

Sproat, Iain

Holt, Miss Mary

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hornby, Richard

Monro, Hector

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)

More, Jasper

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morrison, Charts (Devizes)

Stokes, John

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Mudd, David

Sutcliffe, John

Hunt, John

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Neave, Airey

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Iremonger, T. L.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Normanton, Tom

Temple, John M.

James, David

Onslow, Cranley

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Jessel, Toby

Owen, Idris (Stockport)

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

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Tilney, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Percival, Ian

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pink, R. Bonner

Trew, Peter

Kinsey, J. R.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Kirk, Peter

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Kitson, Timothy

Raison, Timothy

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Knox, David

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Walder, David (Ctitheroe)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Ward, Dame Irene

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

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Warren, Kenneth

Loveridge, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Weatherill, Bernard

MacArthur, Ian

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

White, Roger (Gravesend)

McLaren, Martin

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Wilkinson, John

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Marten, Neil

Russell, Sir Ronald

Worsley, Marcus

Mather, Carol

Sharples, Richard

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Maude, Angus

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

Mawby, Ray

Shelton, William (Clapham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mr. Victor Goodhew and

Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

NOES

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Pavitt, Laurie

Ashton, Joe

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

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

Atkinson, Norman

Hunter, Adam

Sillars, James

Bidwell, Sydney

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Spearing, Nigel

Booth, Albert

Lawson, George

Spriggs, Leslie

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

Lestor, Miss Joan

Stallard, A. W.

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Lomas, Kenneth

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mendelson, John

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Driberg, Tom

Orme, Stanley

Mr. Russell Kerr and

Evans, Fred

Oswald, Thomas

Mr. Leslie Huckfield.

Hardy, Peter

Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CIVIL AVIATION BILL

  CIVIL AVIATION [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a public authority concerned with civil aviation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') and to establish a corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') with functions which include the function of controlling the activities of British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways, it is expedient to authorize—

  1282

  (1) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required for making loans to the Authority and the Board;

  (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling a guarantee given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Authority or the Board or stock issued or debts incurred by the Board;

  (3) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of payments to the Authority and the Board, of payments to local authorities in respect of expenses incurred by them in performing duties under provisions of that Act relating to health control and of refunds of fees paid in respect of applications for air service licences which abate, or as regards which appeals abate, by virtue of that Act;

  (4) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by a government department by virtue of that Act and o any increase

  1283
  attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  CIVIL AVIATION
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a public authority
  1284
  concerned with civil aviation, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the making of charges in respect of the performance by the said authority of any of its functions;

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be paid into that Fund in pursuance of that Act.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

RATING AND VALUATION (MINES AND QUARRIES)
10.10 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
As the House will be aware, the rateable value of property is based upon the rent at which it may be expected to let. In pursuance of that principle, mines and quarries have been assessed to rates on the basis of the royalty paid or the royalty which could be expected to be payable for the extraction of the minerals from that mine or quarry.
When it is considered that royalty for extraction of minerals is a payment for removing part of the land itself, not just using it, it is fairly evident that at least a part of that payment is a capital payment for the material extracted rather than a rental payment for the land itself. The Finance Act, 1970, recognised that factor in relation to income tax, surtax and corporation tax, and provided that for tax purposes such a royalty should be treated as 50 per cent. capital payment and 50 per cent. rent. The Government of the time announced that they would deal with rating on the same basis. On taking office we looked again at the matter and decided that the previous Administration were right.
The purpose of this Order is to reduce the rates payable in respect of a mine or quarry, but not in respect of mine buildings or mining equipment, in the first year to three-quarters of the amount otherwise payable and in the subsequent years to one half of the amount otherwise payable. I mean by "otherwise payable" upon an assessment based on the full royalty as the rent. Because the impact may be quite material in some cases on the local authorities, we have in the Order phased this change over a period of two years in order to cushion the impact.
In the first year the derating will be 25 per cent., and in subsequent years 50 per cent. Perhaps I could explain what the impact could be. I take figures for the present year 1970–71 since we do not
1286
yet know the figures of rates to be collected for 1971–72. Let us assume that this Order had been in operation for the year 1970–71. The figures, as best as we can estimate them, are as follows. The total mineral rateable value is £22·4 million, including coal; excluding coal, the figure would be £13 million. The average non-domestic rate in the £ for the year 1970–71 would be 14s. 5d. The total rates payable, therefore, including coal would have been £16·2 million; excluding coal, £9·4 million. We are dealing with the first year of derating, in which the figure is 25 per cent. The loss of rates if the Order had been in force during this year would have been £4 million including coal mining, and £2·4 million excluding it.
There would have been 171 local authorities who would have lost 5 per cent. or more of their total rateable value. Of those, 163 would have been compensated for that loss by the resources element of the rate support grant. In the case of seven of the remaining eight the 25 per cent. would have meant an increase in rates of 1 p in the £. That gives an idea of what we are talking about in terms of the payment of rates as a result of the Order. Of the fewer than 200 local authorities affected by the Order a large proportion would receive compensation in the resources element of the rate support grant, and a mere handful would suffer to the extent of about 1p in the £. In the case of only one authority might the loss have been as much as 3p in the £.
Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Will the Minister say whether an estimate has been made of the amount of rate that would have been collected on spoilheaps? None of this has been collected, as the matter has been in dispute.
Mr. Page: I do not have the figures broken down in respect of different kinds of mineral extraction, but speaking offhand I should have thought that the amount in respect of spoilheaps would be a small part of the total.
Mr. Dick Leonard: The Minister is teasing the House by saying that only one authority will lose as much as 3p. Will he say which authority that is?
Mr. Page: It is Ashby Woulds Urban District Council.
In the case of the 163 local authorities which will be compensated by the resources element I must say at once that the allocation of that element for 1971–72 has not yet taken this into account, but I can give the House an assurance that it is proposed to make a recalculation of the 1971–72 grant later this year to take account of that fact the Order provides for certain exceptional cases.
Article 5 deals with coal mining and the National Coal Board. The Board is assessed on a formula set out in the National Coal Board (Valuation) Order, 1963. By Article 5 of the present Order that formula is brought up to date and scaled down to the 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. figures respectively for the first and subsequent years.
Article 6 of the present Order deals with opencast minnig. There it is a matter of scaling down the tonnage factor in the formula. Article 7 deals with the fascinating case of the rate of tin, lead or copper mines. I am told that this originated as long ago as the Rating Act, 1874, and that before that date tin, lead and copper mines were free from rate. The intention in 1874 was that they should be rated, but there was an outcry from the South-West about the precarious state of the industry, and certain concessions were granted. For example, the rating was not on hypothetical royalties but on actual royalties. They have an initial holiday from rates when they are newly opened, but they have to go on paying after they have closed. Their plant and buildings are not rated.
These are the several advantages which mines of this kind receive. They are traditional and rather historical advantages, and although we have not in this present Order altered them, apart from adjusting them in order to bring them into the scale down to the 25 per cent. for the first year and 50 per cent. for subsequent years, I give warning that it may be necessary before long to review the special provisions and see whether the tin mines can be put on the same footing as other mineral workings. It is not appropriate to do that in the Order, so it preserves the special arrangements for the tin, lead and copper mines,
1288
subject only to the modifications needed to bring them into line with the 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. reductions.
The Order does not specifically deal with the shale heaps mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier). Shale heaps from which material is being extracted will benefit from the reductions in the same way as any other mineral working. In rating terms, there are two kinds of shale heaps or spoil heaps. The kind of heap which has not become so much a part of the land by landscaping or settling that it is still a heap of chattels is still rateable. That information may shock rating purists. Even if the shale is treated as a chattel it is still rated. That has a court decision to support it.
On the other hand, some shale heaps have so settled or been so landscaped into the land that they are part of the land, and are rated as such—
Dame Irene Ward: Before my hon. Friend leaves this subject, I am sure that he will know that some of us have been carrying on quite a battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get a reduction in the charges, etc. I therefore hope that by the advice it tenders, the Department for the Environment will urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer along in that direction so that we may look forward to getting something tomorrow.
Mr. Page: I do not know anything about the battles that my hon. Friend has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I know that hon. Members of all parties in the North-East have had a fierce battle with my own Department on the subject. We have tried to meet the legitimate aspirations of those who are as anxious as we are to clear the shale heaps and to landscape them properly—if we cannot reduce them to completely level sites yet to do the best we can to fit them in with the countryside.
To some extent this attempt has been helped recently by the acceptance of shale as a proper fill for road work. Only a small part can be used at present and the transport costs are heavy, so that it is not economical to use shale from a pit at any very great distance from motorway construction. Nevertheless, shale is being

1289
used for that purpose. We appreciate that the rating of the shale heaps adds a small sum to the cost of shale used for motorway purposes or construction of embankments or foundations. It is not a large amount. I have calculated that the increase in the cost is about 1p to 30p to 35p on the sale of the material from the heaps. This derating up to 25 per cent. in the first year and 50 per cent. in subsequent years will help to reduce that cost.
Mr. Bagier: Is not even the reduced cost of shale from the royalty point of view still considerably higher than the cost of dolomite and the equivalent competitors?
Mr. Page: It depends to a great extent on the distance that it has to be transported. Transport is a substantial element in the cost of any road foundations. Although we cannot go all the way with those who have advocated the complete freedom of the shale head from rating, the Order will be of some assistance by recognising that shale heaps which are being worked for this purpose come within the definition of mines and quarries—they are mineral workings—and will get the benefit of the Order.
From time to time I am pressed by right hon. and hon. Members from the North-East particularly, although not only from the North-East, to go the whole distance and relieve shale heaps altogether of rating. This has been a doubtful point in law for a considerable time. When the valuation officers started to rate the shale heaps at the time when the extraction of shale became something of a big business, there was a question whether they were right in doing so. From 1963 to 1968 when the dispute was going on between the shale heap owners or the undertakers of the mineral workings and the authorities the rates were not paid.
It was quite definite after the court decision in 1968 that the owners were responsible in law for the rates. It is unfortunate that now they will be called upon to pay the arrears of rates for that period since 1963 or even earlier, perhaps since 1961, but I regret that as the law stands I cannot do anything about that at present. The collection of the rate must date back to the time when the proposal was made. However, I hope that the Order will be of some assistance
1290
to the owners of the heaps in encouraging the clearance of them and the use of the material in road work.
I think that I have dealt with the main points of the Order. I am sure that the House would not wish me to go through the formulae in any great detail. This is a reform in the rating system which was to be undertaken by the previous Government and which we think is right. Although we intend to review the whole of local government finance at a comparatively early date by putting before the House a Green Paper for discussion with options as local government finance in future, we think that this amendment should be made now without waiting for that general review, because it was promised by the previous Government and seems a fair way of working out the rates as between the local authority and the mine and quarry workers.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Having listened to the Minister outlining his difficulties, one appreciates that this argument has been going on for some time—with his predecessor, with the junior Ministers of the Department as well as with the senior Ministers, and now with himself.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that these shale heaps were part of the landscape and that they could not be noticed, but I hope he will take an early opportunity to look at the 260 major pit heaps in the North-East. They are eyesores and they contain 200 million tons of this stinking black rubbish which has been there for many years.
It is remarkable that a change in the law such as is envisaged tonight should not even mention spoil heaps unless they are the result of mining or quarrying or some such activity designated by law. I appreciate the righ hon. Gentleman's difficulty when he says that he cannot interfere with the law, but we are the law makers, and we want to see these heaps shifted.
The fact is that although northeastern contractors—I do not know the position in other parts of the country—have been shifting these abominable heaps and using the contents on such laudable objects as roadworks since 1961, the Minister's statement that the rates have got to be paid from 1961 will mean that out of about 47 contractors

1291
in the North-East, 45 will go bankrupt because they had made no provision for this rate demand. It was not included in their estimates.
The Department may say that they ought to have done so, but may I draw attention to the fact that shale has been used in the North-East and elsewhere for many years. Before the war the great Team Valley Trading Estate was built on shale. The coast road from Newcastle to Tynemouth was built on shale. At that time there was no question of anyone receiving a rating demand. In 1961 onwards, when a need emerged for using some of these heaps it was natural that contractors would enter into contracts without taking into consideration any question of a rate demand.
It was not until 1963 or 1965 that a valuation order was first served on some of these contractors. On receiving it they appealed at local tribunal level, and the local tribunals were much more sensible than we seem to be at national level. They found in the contractors' favour. Then the Smiles case was heard by the Lands Tribunal which found against the contractor, and that led to the present legislation.
We should ask ourselves whether the sensible thing is to have these pit heaps shifted. It may be, as the Minister has said, that these pit heaps have become part of the landscape, or have taken root, or whatever rating valuation officer terminology is used, but the fact is that successive Governments have been prepared to pay 85 per cent. of the cost, in the form of grant, of shifting these pit heaps provided the local authorities were prepared to pay the other 15 per cent.
Good use has been made of these black, stinking, smoking things particularly since 1967 or 1968 by the Road Research Laboratory as infilling for roads and motorways. Anybody who was prepared to use them saved the taxpayer and ratepayer some money, and this was a good thing. It has saved money nationally and locally. But when the operation becomes commercially viable and contractors go to expense and utilise some expertise in making arrangements to have these heaps shifted and put into the motorways, all of a sudden these black, stinking heaps become a valuable mineral. This is absolute nonsense.
1292
Unfortunately, the alternative to removing pit heaps and using them for roadways is to dig a great hole alongside the motorway, a borrow-pit. Anyone who travels up our motorways can see these great holes dug to take out the clay and make the infill for motorway construction. No rates are paid on that sort of thing because they are not in possession long enough for rates to be demanded on them. I shall be glad to be told I am wrong about that, but I think that I am not. There is evidence throughout the country of eyesores being left in the form of borrow-pits, great holes dug in the landscape to provide fill, yet for very little extra cost pit heaps could be used.
Perhaps it is sometimes cheaper to do it in that way. The contractors are supposed to reinstate the land in the proper manner, but they do not always do it. Far from putting an obstacle in the way of using pit heaps for roadworks, we should make it obligatory that they be used. About two years ago, I believe, a committee was set up under the Ministries of Transport and Housing and Local Government to examine this very matter. Unfortunately, in the North-East, where we are particularly blessed—if that is the right word—with these unsightly blots on the landscape, a huge road programme is gradually coming to an end. For the past 2½ years or so, while we have been arguing about it, we could have been using the pit heaps for infill.
I thank the Minister for his attempt to help the shale manufacturers, but, unfortunately, it seems that the majesty of our law works in a mysterious way. In order to reduce the rate liability on one section, we must reduce it for all, so everybody who deals with tin, lead, clay, gravel—anything one cares to name—comes in. I can understand the chagrin of hon. Members on both sides who do not want to see more dereliction on their land and who are annoyed that it is now made cheaper to dig holes, to dig for clay or dig for dolomite, because we want to help the contractors who have been shifting pit heaps.
I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again. He wrote me a letter today which told me something about some of the matters which I raised with him in an interview two or three weeks ago. Even now, after a couple of hours

1293
to try to understand it, I can only say that, if he understands it, he must know Chinese better than I do. After just the first two paragraphs, I am right out of my depth, with all the phrases about planning permissions, chattels and the rest which he has set down at some length.
All I am interested in is getting the pit heaps removed. I am a bit disturbed about the way things went in the discussions leading up to this stage. I spent some time moving my own Government in the matter, and I finally got agreement from the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government that there would be a 50 per cent. reduction in the rating valuation for shale manufacturers under the formula which was to be presented. At that time, I did not appreciate that it would apply also to dolomite, gravel, lead and the rest. But there having been agreement by the present Minister to adopt that suggestion of 50 per cent., it is a bit late in the day, at the beginning of this year, suddenly to reduce it to 25 per cent. in the first year. The basic problem we are arguing is that of shale, although it has other connotations. No one can argue that local authorities will have a reduction in income in respect of that, because they have not had it. Shale manufacturers have been fighting the matter through the courts for the past two years. Therefore, there is no great urgency, particularly as regards shale, to have this one year's reneging on the undertaking given by the previous Minister.
I hope that when the Minister looks into the question he will try to sweep away the technical jargon of planning, chattels and so on. It must be difficult. But what we who are laymen, and not lawyers or valuation experts, want is to have the pit heaps of the North-East removed. If a rating problem is stopping this, or making it less economic to move them than to dig holes, it makes a nonsense of government if we cannot find a way to put the matter right.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. Dick Leonard: The Minister did not speak to us in Chinese tonight, but it was clear from his speech that the Order covers a number of complex questions. It is certain that it will have varying effects in different parts
1294
of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has spoken as a representative of the North-East. As a London Member, I am especially concerned with the effects of the Order within the G.L.C. area, and particularly in my own local government area of the London Borough of Havering.
The principal—perhaps the sole—type of undertaking affected in the Greater London area is the gravel pit. That is certainly true of my own borough. The points I wish to raise have been argued to me with great force by officials and elected representatives of all political parties of my own borough. I believe that they also substantially represent the views of the London Boroughs Association, which has independently puts its points to the Minister.
The London Borough of Havering and the Association have three fundamental objections to the Order. The first is to the substance of the Order, which will have the effect of depriving London boroughs of useful sources of revenue. The other two are to the manner in which it is proposed that the new policy should be put into effect.
Let me begin by outlining the objections of the London boroughs to the policy contained in the Order, the policy of partial derating of gravel pits. The London boroughs concede that other forms of mineral hereditaments may be wasting assets, and that for them a measure of derating is justified. But in their view the gravel pits in the London area are not in a comparable position, as they have valuable alternative uses once the gravel is worked out.
I quote from a letter sent by the London Boroughs Association to the Ministry on 13th November, 1970:
"In relation to gravel winning hereditaments in the London area the Association do not accept that the assets are of a wasting nature since the removal of the gravel creates tipping space which is valuable in its turn, and, in the process of profitable controlled tipping, the land can be made ready for further use or development. In effect, the gravel winning is part of a continuous process, and the Association feel that the sweeping compromise of a 50 per cent. reduction in rateable value is a completely unnecessary concession which will prejudice all the remaining ratepayers in the area.
The proposed measures will, if approved, have a markedly detrimental effect on the

1295
finances of some of the London Boroughs. Any increase in rate poundage will, the Association feel sure, be deeply resented by the public, for whom gravel winning is in any event unpopular in the life of the community because of the adverse effect on amenity that it causes."
In short, the London boroughs take the view that there is no case for a partial derating of gravel pits in their area, and that the inevitable consequence would be a heavier burden on other ratepayers, and in particular upon the domestic ratepayer.
In my borough, for example, the town clerk estimates that the loss in revenue as a result of this Order will be £39,000 in 1971–72 and £82,500 in 1972–73. I am informed on good authority that my borough is not one of those which will be compensated by the resources element in the rate support grant. I imagine that it is one of the seven authorities which the Minister mentioned would be affected to the tune of a rate of 1p in the £.
Whatever may be the justification for this Order in, say, coal-mining areas, it does not seem that the Minister has made out a case in terms of the G.L.C. area, where the problems are very different. As the case has not been established, it will be hard to reconcile boroughs like mine to a substantial loss in revenue.
Over and above this objection to including gravel pits in this partial de-rating, the London boroughs object strongly to the manner in which this is being done. There is, first, what seems to them to be the unseemly haste of the exercise. It should, they feel, have been deferred until the 1973 valuation, which would have been an opportunity for authorities which will lose revenues through this Order to recoup their losses on other types of rateable property which will be revalued upwards in that valuation.
Above all, however, the London boroughs object to the use of a Statutory Instrument for the purpose of introducing this new policy departure. They assert that the use of a Statutory Instrument to this effect goes flatly against the assurances given by the former Minister, now Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when the legislation was introduced originally. Speaking about what was then Clause 3 of the Rating and Valuation Bill of 1961,
1296
which was re-enacted as Section 35 of the General Rate Act, 1967—the authority under which this Instrument is introduced—he said:
"Here let me emphasise, what I said repeatedly in Standing Committee, that this Clause is not designed either to increase or diminish the overall liability to rates. That overall liability will be left substantially unchanged. The only question is whether a valuation can better be done by a formula than on the basis of the profits method. That applies throughout."
Later in the same speech the Minister said:
"I certainly reinforce what I said in Committee, first, that it is not intended that the application of an order under this Clause to any class of undertaking should be regarded as either a privilege or a punishment. I cannot guarantee that it would leave the rateable value of any individual hereditament unchanged, but the formula would not be acceptable to the Government if it made any substantial upward or downward change in the rateable value of a class of undertakings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1961; Vol. 640, c. 442–9.]
Having regard to these specific assurances, it is quite wrong for the present Minister to use a Statutory Instrument to make the express and substantial downward change in rateable values which is now proposed.
It cannot be questioned that, legally, this proposal is in order and falls within the authority given by Section 35. The Committee on Statutory Instruments has affirmed this to be so. However, morally there is surely an obligation, in view of the assurances given when the Act was passed, to introduce fresh primary legislation to give effect to this proposal, rather than to rely on a Statutory Instrument.
It seems that there must have been some doubts in the Ministry about the propriety of proceeding in this way, for in the Ministry's reply to the letter I quoted earlier from the London Boroughs Association, the Ministry said:
"Use of section 35.
We are satisfied that it is within the powers of the section to make an order on the lines proposed. Given that the Government has decided to change the basic assessment of mineral hereditaments, it seems sensible to give effect to the decision by means of an order under section 35, since that power is available, rather than by fresh primary legislation."
It added:
"But the general intention not to use section 35 so as to alter the total liability of an industry still stands."

1297
In other words, "We are going to cheat just this once and we promise never to do it again."
Is this an acceptable way for the Government to behave? In the whole spectrum of public policy this is a small area and no great loss of face would be involved if the Government had second thoughts about it, even at this late hour, and I ask the Minister whether he will withdraw the Order and reconsider whether this is the right way in which to set about it.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hardy: I have no wish to trespass on the problems presented by the gravel pits of the Greater London area, although I was extremely impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard). I was nearly won over to his argument until I remembered that a gravel pit is a hole and in South Yorkshire and the North-East generally we are presented with problems which are much more visible than the gravel pits which are the problem in the Essex area. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend about the exclusion of gravel pits.
I view the Order with mixed feelings. In so far as it helps the mining industry, which of course is dominant in the economy of my constituency, I view it favourably. But so far as it reduces the capacity of our local authorities in South Yorkshire, I am anxious about it.
I accept the point made by the Minister when he suggested that the rate support grant would carry a greater part of the loss, but he went on to say that the whole subject of local government finance would shortly be under careful scrutiny and perhaps considerably changed. If it is changed, it seems at least likely that there will be changes in the system of rate support, and this will mean that local authorities in the coalfields may find themselves in a difficult situation in a year or two.
I am surprised that the Minister should have suggested that there were only 171 local authorities which would suffer to the tune of 5 per cent. or more. I can think of some local authorities in South Yorkshire where the income from rates paid in respect of National Coal Board hereditaments represents a very large share of the authority's income. If in
1298
1972–73 or subsequently the rate support does not provide generously for any loss under the Order, those authorities may be placed at a considerable disadvantage.
I do not want to labour that any further, for the labyrinths of rating and valuation I prefer other hon. Members to follow. My especial interest in the Order is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier)—the colliery tip. I have a fair knowledge of colliery tips. I can see 10 or 11 from a window in my home. I admit that I have a splendid view, but it would be even more splendid if those tips were removed. One can encourage the Order in so far as it will encourage the removal of tips. Certainly the Labour Party in Yorkshire will be pleased with the Order so far as it goes, because we have been clamouring for a considerable time for a change in the rating of slag heaps, and I am sure that many of my colleagues in the Labour Party in Yorkshire will be delighted that the Government have followed the policy of the last Administration.
Mr. Bagier: The last Administration promised 50 per cent. which the present Government have cut to 25 per cent.
Mr. Hardy: I agree, and that is important. What will happen is that any person who considered the removal of a slag heap will probably now wait until he gets greater benefit than that offered in the Order, so that the Order may discourage prompt action on slag heap removal.
My hon. Friend mentioned using colliery waste for civil engineering infill projects. I am told by a colleague with a constituency near mine—I may not mention his name, because he has not given me permission—that a major roadworks was sited near a colliery slag heap which remained untouched while holes were dug and materials extracted a considerable distance away from the roadworks. The people who lived there said that it was anomalous. Some of them said that it was scandalous and I agree with them. It seems ludicrous for us to dig holes to fill holes elsewhere and to leave these ruinous and indecent heaps of colliery waste untouched.
I hope that the Minister will look again at this with a view to allowing a greater

1299
reduction, preferably complete de-rating, because it is necessary at this stage in our civilisation for us to get rid of these unfortunate and ugly monuments to an industrial revolution which has taken place. Certainly the scars of it should be removed now. I therefore ask the Minister to look at this carefully.
I have one further suggestion. It may be that derating or partial derating of the colliery slag heap removal activities may not allow the removal to go ahead at an adequate pace. I therefore suggest that as civil engineering projects are approved the Minister ought at least to consider, if not imposing planning conditions, at least issuing the strongest possible advice to local authorities and the public contractors to persuade them to use colliery slag material rather than dig holes and thus create further dereliction for the future.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Albert Booth: As has been pointed out this Order is made in flat contradiction of an assurance given by a Conservative Government Minister when legislation was introduced. That in no way makes the Order illegal, because the legislation gave the Minister powers to make an Order in these terms. However, it does cast very grave doubts on the wisdom of any Member of this House accepting any assurance from Ministers which might imply a limitation of powers going beyond the wording of legislation.
The wording of the Section 35(1) of the General Rate Act, 1967, states that the Secretary of State may by Order:
"make provision for determining the rateable value of hereditaments to which this section applies, or any class or description of such hereditaments specified in the Order, by such method as may be so specified."
There is no doubt that the subsection gives the Minister power to vary these rates enormously. He can increase them or reduce them and if the Minister who introduced the legislation had intended any limitation to apply he certainly should not have had the legislation written in terms as wide as this. Under Section 35(3) it is provided that the Order may make provision for determining rateable value by the application of different methods of valuation to different parts of the hereditament. This is of
1300
great importance in the light of the considerations raised tonight.
Clearly the Minister has the power to distinguish between one part of an hereditament and another and to apply a different formula and in effect a different valuation. It would be possible to deal with shale or slag heaps in one way and gravel pits in another. Or, where there was one operation by one owner or contractor on land, an operation which was in part extractive and in part an operation dealing with a bank surface, it would be possible to apply different rateable values or different methods of calculating the rateable value to the different processes. Therefore, if the Minister utilised the full scope of the Order, it would have been much more appropriate, if he had in mind the problem of shale heaps or slag heaps, to discriminate in favour of extraction while putting a proper rateable value on more profitable operations of mineral hereditaments.
The provision under which the Order is made requires the Secretary of State to consult authorities and persons carrying on the undertakings concerned. I am sure that the Minister did that. He is most meticulous and therefore he must be aware of the feelings of those operating in these areas and of the local authorities concerned. He must know that they would take different attitudes and views, depending on the area in which they were operating, about whether pit heaps should be removed or the profitable operation of a shale pit. Presumably the views of the local authorities will depend on whether they receive a resources grant which will offset any loss of rateable value which occurs under the Order.
I question the Minister on his obligations under subsection (5) of Section 35 of the General Rate Act, 1971, which requires him, after consulting the local authorities and persons carrying on the undertakings concerned, to investigate
"the effect of the operation of the order"
and lay before Parliament a report of the investigations and their results. This may give Parliament an opportunity to examine this matter very much more closely. When will the investigations take place? When will the report be available? When will it be laid before Parliament so that we can debate it?

1301
The report may be a means of obtaining some very valuable information on the question of how we should deal with the problem of pit heaps and slag banks.
Members who come from coal mining areas have rightly made the Minister well aware of the problems in their own areas. Therefore, I may be forgiven for raising a constituency point on this Order, namely, the problem of iron works slag banks. Some of my constituents, mainly those living in Schneider Road, Barrow-in-Furness, are prevented from seeing from their front windows a beautiful view of the estuary of the Duddon by an iron works slag bank. I cannot see how one distinguishes in principle in giving benefit through rateable value or any other scheme of administration between those who suffer from a coal pit heap hiding a view and those who suffer from an iron works slag bank, since if the iron works has any merit it is that it reduces the volume of waste compared with the pit. It is therefore necessary to look at the problem of the waste heap on a wider basis than can be done by dealing solely with it on the basis of mineral hereditaments.
We must expand the idea of the dereliction grant. This must be used, as it can be, much more sensitively and directly to deal with the problems of the slag bank and enable local authorities who are keen and willing to do so to go ahead with the solution of the problems in areas blighted by industrial mining works in a way which cannot be done by altering our rating system by an Order like this.
As I have said so much that is critical of the way in which the Government are dealing with this matter, I end by quoting one of the few statements by Conservative Ministers with which I concur and which I applaud, namely, that made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Contract Journal of 31st December, 1970. He said:
"Perhaps I might begin by attempting to define what I mean by a good environment. First, it is one free from pollution, free from intolerable noise, free from blighted and scarred landscapes, free from depressing streets and unfit houses."
I hope that next time we consider an Order dealing with mineral hereditaments it will he one which gives far greater priority to removing from our country blighted and scarred landscapes.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. John Silkin: It is impossible not to feel some degree of sympathy with the Minister, because what he is trying to do is to please everybody and, unfortunately, it would appear that he has pleased very few. It reminds me of the basis on which tea was served on the lower deck when I first joined the Navy, that as half the lower deck liked sugar in their tea and half did not like sugar in their tea, a half quantity of sugar was served with every cup of tea.
What we have here is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) who says, "Thank you very much for your partial derating of gravel workings, but we do not like this at all." On the other hand we have the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), and, if I take her intervention correctly, of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who feel that a great deal more should have been done about the spoil heaps of their regions.
There is a great deal of sense in both points of view. Gravel, as it happens. is a very profitable form of occupation, and it does seem a little strange, therefore, that it should be assisted at the expense of the domestic ratepayer who will have to pay more in any event because of the Government's rate support grant policy and who will now find himself paying even more to assist something which, as I have said, is profitable. On the other hand we have the question of the spoil heaps. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South dealt with this very fully. If I read the Order correctly it seems to me that we have a very curious anomaly here, namely, that there is an element of derating where a mine is being worked but, if I read this correctly, the moment the mine ceases to be worked then no question of derating applies to the removal of the spoil heap.
I think the Minister might perhaps give us his views on this, but that is the way I read it. If this is so, then no encouragement whatever is given to people to use the spoil heaps in other ways—for example, for infilling of roads, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. South pointed out, a useful way of diminishing an appalling eyesore. I

1303
believe I am right in saying that there are no fewer than 268 major spoil heaps in the North-East, blights on the landscape of every citizen of this country, for the fact that they occur in major form in that part of the country is as much the concern of someone living in the South as it is of someone living in the North-East: it is our joint heritage.
It seems to me very peculiar, because what we were given to understand was that various Departments which have come together under the Secretary of State for the Environment were brought together so that there could be an overall authority which would see that the environment itself, in all its forms and manifestations, would be protected and made better. Certainly we have found today that rating still retains its old power, that it does not seem to have very much to do with the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness quoted a very splendid statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I totally agree with it, but it would be rather pleasant to see it brought into effect, and brought into effect by the best possible means. It seems to me that while the hand is the hand of Esau, the voice appears to be the voice of Esau, too, and I have a feeling that that is going against biblical precedent.
What ought to be done? It seems to me that the problem in the North-East needs to be tackled urgently. It might be argued that the previous Administration did not do as much as they should have done. Well, we are all learning a great deal about it and there is a growing feeling in the country that the environment is of vital importance to our lives and the lives of our children, and it does not do any good to say that the previous Administration might have done more. This is a chance for the present Administration, and I am sorry to see whoever it may be losing the chance to do something.
How it is done is another matter. It may be that the rating method is the wrong method of doing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness hinted at the question of grants for derelict land. As I see it, the derelict land grant encourages a local authority to spread the overspill heap over acres
1304
of ground and thus sterilise the ground. Nothing will grow on it for a very long time, and nothing can be built on it. The simpler method of removing the shale or spoilheap and using it as infill in roads requires a method of assistance, and probably the grant system is the best way of doing it.
This is another illustration of change in rating procedure in advance of the Green Paper on local government reform. Once again, we are doing things by new penny numbers instead of looking at the whole problem as one.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Not even penny numbers.
Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is much more critical than I am.
I understand the Minister's dilemma. He should stand up and say that he is not prepared to be forced at breakneck speed to bring in Orders or Bills which change the basis of rating before we have had a real chance of looking at the whole problem and deciding whether there is a better way of financing local government.
First, therefore, we have one dissatisfied customer in my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) because the Minister is giving him too much, several dissatisfied hon. Members because the Minister is not giving enough and an archaic method of dealing with a problem which is crying out to be dealt with. As the Minister knows, neither I nor my hon. Friends intend to divide against the Order—we give him at least one cheer for trying—but perhaps he might take the Order away, consider it and come back with something better in the near future.
Mr. Bagier: I would hate my right hon. Friend to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT as having said something which, I am sure, he did not mean. He said, I think, that a pit heap which was within the working curtilage of a pit would be rated whereas one which was outside it would not. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not mean that. The direct opposite is the case. Where a heap is within the curtilage of a pit it is derated, whereas one which is outside the curtilage is rated.
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I said that—and I am surprised if I did—it was, of course, the

1305
wrong way round. I intended to say that where a mine was still being worked, it got the benefit of the derating but that when it had stopped working and, therefore, had become more of an eyesore, it was not derated. That was what I intended to say. So perhaps HANSARD can take note.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will deal with the last point at once. I am advised that shale heaps, spoil heaps, colliery tips and pit heaps are mines or quarries. Whether they are loose piles of shale and remain chattels, or have formed themselves into solid blocks of land, they are treated as mines in accordance with cases which have been decided. If there is removal of mineral from them, they get the benefit of derating.
Mr. John Silkin: I accept what the Minister is saying, but he must direct his attention to a spoil heap which is no longer worked, and I suggest that this is not derated.
Mr. Page: I am advised that it is. I am not dealing here with pits which are still part of a working mine. I am dealing with pits which are eligible for grant. Heaps which are part of a working mine are not eligible for grant. They are part of the mine and will receive the benefit of derating under the Order. In addition, those on which working has been completed and which may have become solidified as hills or be fairly loose shale are treated, I am advised, in accordance with decided cases as mines, because mineral is removed from them.
Mr. Bagier: I understand from correspondence that a working pit is rated on a cumulo basis, which includes everything inside that cumulo. If a pit heap is within that cumulo and is worked, it cannot be rated twice. A pit heap which is used for depositing slag within a working pit is not rated. Is the Minister saying differently?
Mr. Page: I am not sure that I understand the distinction which the hon. Gentleman makes. The heap he is describing is surely part and parcel of the working mine and, therefore, gets the benefit of the Order; it is part of a coal
1306
mine. It comes under the formula applicable to the National Coal Board and not to normal mining and quarrying, and to that extent it may differ. The slag heaps are not being worked by the National Coal Board, and to that extent they are rated just as heaps. They do not come under the formula of the National Coal Board.
I am reluctant to give a legal decision off the cuff, but I am advised that the heaps about which we are talking are treated as mineral workings and, therefore, as mines and will get the benefit of the Order. I sincerely hope I am right in the judgment I am delivering from the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) talked about the eyesore of borrow pits alongside roads and motorways, and objected, as we all do, to them being left in that state and not filled in or landscaped when they have served their purpose. They are rateable. It may be that the owner or occupier is not caught up with very quickly, but they are rateable. I propose to take action concerning the filling in of these pits to see that they are not left in the terrible state in which on occasion one sees them. We may need some new provisions or undertakings by those who work the borrow pits when they obtain planning permission, but that is outside the present Order.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he says that he is interested in getting these pit heaps removed. We are all eager to do that and good progress is being made.
I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) complained about spreading the heaps over the ground. I would invite him to go to Lancashire to see how quickly the grass grows on spread shale. I am speaking of the area from Preston southwards where I have been astonished to see shale spread around one year and grass growing on it the next. Vegetation appears very quickly on the spread slag. In many cases the areas have been landscaped as picnic areas, or quite substantial trees have been planted, or they have been planted as fields. There is more work to be done, and great progress is being made with the aid of the 85 per cent. grant. No grant has been refused.

1307
There is certainly no delay by reason of money not being available. This is an open-ended commitment to grant. It is not like the House saying "We will spend £100 million over the next 10 years on clearing slag heaps." It is completely open. If any local authority comes forward with a proposal to clear a slag heap, it will receive 85 per cent. grant of the cost. It is our job in government to encourage local authorities to get on with the job with the help of the grant.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) put the other side of the picture. He objected to the derating of gravel pits, and rightly pointed out that it is wrong to say that when a gravel pit has been worked one is left with a hole in the ground. That hole in the ground is very valuable as a dumping spot and may be valuable for amenity and recreational purposes. But when it gets to that stage it is fully rateable; it is rated as a tip and has a quite high rateable value from that point of view.
The hon. Gentleman then complained about the unseemly haste, as he put it, in which the Order had been introduced. Consultations have been under way on this matter for the last seven years, and I do not imagine that would be regarded as unseemly haste in introducing the Order. Therefore, Governments of both political persuasions have now carried out consultations to try to get the Order right.
Mr. Leonard: It may well be true that consultations have been going on for over seven years, but would the Minister deny that when the draft Order was sent out to local authorities for comments they were given precisely one week in which to send back their comments?
Mr. Page: That was a final draft which was pushed around, if I may so put it, for many months following a consultation document. Everybody concerned well knew what was in the draft, and it was only a matter of whether any mistake had been made in the arrangements which led finally to that draft, and those concerned were asked to consider it.
Mr. Leonard: With respect, this last draft Order by no means contains only
1308
accepted material. I believe that in respect of the decision to proceed in two stages—25 per cent. in the first year and 50 per cent. subsequently—the first firm indication that local authorities had was when they were asked to comment within a week.
Mr. Page: The hon. Member may be considering the matter from the point of view of an individual authority. The Government negotiate with the local authority associations, and it may be that the associations have not informed the individual authorities.
The hon. Member also referred to the undertakings given when the 1961 Bill was passing through the House, and when Mr. Henry Brooke—as he then was—stated that there was no intention to use Section 35 of the General Rate Act for the purpose of varying the level of rates.
The basis of the Order is agreed between the parties. We were confronted with the problem of either bringing a Bill or proceeding in the simple way by Statutory Instrument, as we had power to do by Section 35. It was right that it should be done in the simpler and more appropriate way, by Statutory Instrument. We were only following out what had been clearly stated to be the intention of the previous Government in this matter. On 15th May, 1970, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) said:
"I have decided that the basis of assessing mineral hereditaments to rates should be adjusted to take into account the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the taxation of mineral royalties. I am considering the detailed adjustments which might be appropriate, and in due course will be consulting the various interested organisations with a view to making an Order under Section 35(2) of the General Rate Act, 1967 to take effect from 1st April. 1971."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 398.]
The previous Government were contemplating doing this by Order. Although I do not normally accept the actions of the previous Government as good precedents, in this case there was nothing to object to.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) raised the question

1309
whether we should make some report to the House under Section 35(5). We shall do so in due course. That Section obliges the Government to make a report in the year following the coming into force of the second valuation lists, in the year 1973–74. I can give the House an assurance that there will be a report in accordance with Section 35(5) of the General Rate Act, 1967, during that year, following the next valuation list.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) referred to a case where a road had passed near a slagheap and where borrow pits were dug and the slagheap material was not used. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would give me the facts of that case. I should like to consider. That is the sort of thing where we hope that we can use influence in asking the local authority—if it is a local authority road—to use the slapheap material. I can assure the hon. Member that if the Department is responsible for the road I shall look into the matter and see why the material was not used.
Finally, I was a little surprised at the failure of the right hon. Member for Deptford to give credit to the advance which has been made in matters relating to the environment. There is always more that can be done, but more has been done and more has been started to be done for the environment in the last nine months than was ever done in the previous five years.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION (DOCKS AND HARBOURS)
11.30 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to provide for all statutory dock and harbour undertakings, subject to a few exceptions
1310
which I will mention, to be assessed for rates by a formula related to the gross receipts of the undertaking. As I said on the previous Order, the rateable value of a property is based on the rent at which it might be expected to let. Normally an assessment can be made on the evidence of rents actually passing on similar property. Sometimes properties, including those with which we are dealing in the Order, are never let, and in these cases the valuer has to estimate the rental value on the basis of some other evidence.
In the past statutory docks have been assessed on the profits basis—that is, by reference to the profits which they make. This method has for some time been producing rather unsatisfactory results for many undertakings. In particular, it tends to produce very low, or even nil, assessments in the case of the older undertakings, whereas with the newer undertakings there may be very high assessments because of recent heavy capital investment. That gives the two ends of the scale.
There are three ways in which the profits basis for rating is not satisfactory. First, in the case where the gross receipts are low it is necessary nevertheless to make a notional reduction in the calculation leading to a value for renewals. That notional provision in a number of cases produces a nil assessment. Second, in a case where fresh capital expenditure is incurred, whether on a new dock or on an existing one, the full loan charges involved, in so far as they are covered by receipts, will normally fall to be included in the gross receipts for profit purposes, but no deduction can be made in respect of these charges because they are expenses that would be incurred by the hypothetical landlord and not the hypothetical tenant. The effect is, first, that if a dock or part of it is replaced and a new debt incurred the rate burden rises greatly, even if the new hereditaments are practically the same, and, second, that enlargements of a dock will impose a disproportionately large increase of the rate burden.
The third unsatisfactory result of the profits basis is that where a port authority does not own the bed of the river or harbour, its income by way of tolls in gross and river dues is not included in the calculation of the assessments for profits

1311
basis, but where it owns the bed of the river or harbour its income is included in the calculation. So ports which have a substantial income from tolls in gross and river dues have unduly low assessments compared with others which are otherwise quite similar.
Consultations about the change of the formula from the profits basis to some other more satisfactory basis have been proceeding with statutory docks and harbours and with the local authorities for some time, under the Governments of both parties. I think I can say that as long ago as 1969 a wide measure of agreement in principle was reached on a formula whereby the undertaking's rateable value for any year would be a percentage of its gross receipts and not merely based on profits. So we are proceeding by means of this Order to apply a new formula based on the percentage of gross receipts.
There was, as it were, a pilot Order to this only last year. A year ago the House approved the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order, 1970, which applied a formula of this sort on the gross receipts basis to a limited class of dock undertakings. When I say "a class" it applied only to one—Port Talbot. In that case it was based on 7½ per cent. of the gross receipts.
This Order provides for the rateable value of the docks and harbours covered by the Order to be 4 per cent. of the gross receipts. That is excluding receipts in relation to cargo handling. Four per cent. is what we estimate will produce roughly the same total rateable value as at present for the ports which now have a positive assessment.
It may well be that further rates will be brought in by ports which now have a nil assessment and will in future be assessed to rates. But the main effect of the formula will be to distribute roughly the present total of rateable values.
As the new basis for rating is quite different from the old, it is not surprising that some of the changes will be quite large, and in both ways—quite a substantial loss in some cases to the local authorities and quite a gain in other cases.
In order to ease the transition, because there are these fairly substantial
1312
changes, for the port authorities faced with large increases in their assessments and any local authorities facing large losses of rateable value, Paragraph 8 of the Order provides for these large changes to be phased over a period of five years. We are aware that in 1973 there will be a revaluation, and I can say here and now that I shall review the formula percentage in time for the rating year 1973–74. If rateable values based on the normal rental value of properties increase very much, it will put our present formula for the docks entirely out of phase. So it will be necessary to review that percentage for the year 1973–74, but that does not mean that we shall alter the general basis of the formula embodied in the Order.
I have mentioned that the formula will not apply to all statutory dock or harbour undertakings. Two classes are excepted. The first class are the very small port, those which have receipts less than £1,500 per year. Most of those, incidentally, have nil assessments at present, and it is not worth the trouble of assessing them and obliging them to pay rates. The figures would be small, I think that it is a matter of de minimis, and the administration would not be worth while. The second class excepted are the undertakers dealing wholly or mainly in goods belonging to themselves or to their associated companies. Any assessments on these two classes will continue to be settled on the present basis.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) may wish to raise one or two other points, and, if I have the leave of the House to reply, I shall deal with them. There are, for instance, the reasons why we have included rents as part of the receipts, and why we have included investment income as part of the receipts. I shall not go into those matters in detail now. We shall be reviewing the formula as we go along. One can never expect to get any of these formulae right first time, though I think that only minor teething difficulties may arise. If any arise in respect of rents and investment income, we shall look at them carefully to see how matters work out.
11.42 p.m.
Mr. John Silkin: No one can fairly complain that the Minister

1313
leaves us short of informataion. As regards the method of dealing with docks and harbour valuation, we on this side are now, rather dazedly, with him and we accept totally what he says.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you were not present when I spoke on the previous Order, for you might otherwise have considered that I was about to give voice to some otiose repetition. My otiose repetition in this case is simply to say that I wish that the Minister would leave some small elements of rating changes to be dealt with in the local government finance Green Paper.
11.43 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Order is a compromise, and I suppose it is inevitable that a formula intended to find a common position for all ports should be riddled with anomalies. The most obvious anomaly arises from the exclusion of cargo handling charges from the total revenue on which the value is calculated. Although this avoids the difficulty that a number of port authorities are responsible for handling cargo and others are not, it produces the inevitable and thoroughly undesirable result that some of the biggest ports with vast hereditaments get away with a great deal less than they should. But that is not the matter which concerns me most, and it is not the reason why I find it necessary to express my objection to the Order.
I raise objection to the Order because I believe that it imposes an unfair and disproportionate burden on the board responsible for managing the greatest oil port in the country, the port of Milford Haven. I consider that the formula which has been produced is quite unsuited to the situation in Milford. I believe that there was inadequate consultation by the Docks and Harbours Association, which was largely responsible for this formula, with the Milford Haven Conservancy Board.
The arguments I advance represent no threat to the revenue of the local authorities in Pembrokeshire. Industry dependent on the Haven produces about 50 per cent. of the rates in the county, and that will continue whatever formula is applied to the premises of the Conservancy Board. The oil company jetties are excluded from the new formula.
1314
Their assessment is calculated on capital value, and produces a figure amounting to several hundreds of thousands of pounds. I believe that the rates arising from those jetties are greater than those of the whole of the Port of London.
What we are to have is a system under which the port is to be subjected to the highest possible assessment of two alternative system, and the oil companies are to pay twice, first for their jetties and second through the dues they pay to the Board.
But even if my criticism of the Order involves some small reduction in the rate revenue of Pembrokeshire, it is a case that should be put, because what the Government now propose is wrong in equity and imposes a fresh burden on an organisation the success of which is crucial to the future economic development and prosperity of the whole area. The Conservancy Board occupies only one small office, somewhat smaller in total volume than this Chamber, and has a boat harbour designed for the operation of its patrol and pilot launches. The total capital value of this property is about £200,000 and the present rateable value is £4,500, a fair figure in relation to the extent of the property and the burden the Board's activities impose on local authorities.
If the Order is approved, the rateable value after the end of the transitional period will be calculated at 4 per cent. of the gross receipts, which can be forecast for some years ahead, within a margin of error of about 10 per cent. This year they will be about £600,000. By 1974–75 they will be just over £1,000,000. The Board is not a profit-making organisation. Its charges are related solely to the service it provides, which include the considerable dredging operations which have opened Milford Haven to tankers of up to 275,000 tons.
On the basis of the income figures that I have quoted, taking account of the transitional relief and assuming no increase in the percentage figure of 4 per cent.—although my hon. Friend has told us that there may well be an increase in 1973—the Conservancy Board will see its assessment rise from £4,500 last year to £20,625 this year and about £40,000 by 1974–75. The transitional relief is negligible. Ports like Milford, with a

1315
rapidly rising income, do notably less well in this respect than ports with a static income. It must be recognised that other ports will suffer substantial increases. Swansea and Cardiff will go up from nil to £55,000 and £54,000 respectively, and Dover, previously assessed at £3,600, will face an increase of, I believe, over 1,600 per cent. But in the case of these ports, with their extensive premises and cargo-handling facilities, the increases must be related to existing assessments that are clearly ludicrous.
Under the new system Milford, with its one office and its tiny jetty, is to be assessed at or near the same rate as some of Britain's greatest cargo-handling ports. Any action the Board takes to extend or improve its present services will inevitably increase the burden of rates it will have to bear. If, for example, the Board should take over the tugs in the harbour, its assessment will go up, or, worse and more likely, if another major dredging scheme is undertaken, even if it is in the open sea outside territorial waters, the Board will face a heavy increase in rates.
The cost of any future dredging scheme is likely to run into many millions of £s, and the effect could, therefore, be penal, though no new hereditaments would be created. The dredging is actually improving the sea bed, which is Crown property, and for this improvement the Board receives Government grants and loans. Now the Government are, in effect, imposing a 4 per cent. tax on the interest payable on those loans and on the repayment of capital, although the expenditure is not in respect of a rateable hereditament.
The basic inequity of the whole scheme in this case is shown by the fact that if the Board decided to spend, say, £40 million to dredge for the 500,000-ton tankers which are now under construction, it would face a huge increase in rates. If, on the other hand, it were to build a £40 million container berth and seek to recover the whole finance by means of cargo handling charges, this immense structure, occupying a great area of land and making large demands
1316
on public services, would have no rating assessment whatever.
The Order seems not only inequitable but, in the circumstances, quite absurd, and I am not prepared to support anything that is either inequitable or absurd. I therefore urge the Minister to recognise the unique position of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board. It is the only Board left in this country which is concerned solely with navigational conservancy.
I hope the Minister will find it possible to produce, if necessary, a unique exemption. He has already indicated that two general categories receive exemption. I hope that he will do the same for this Board.
11.53 p.m.
Mr. John Sutcliffe: I intervene briefly because the Minister will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority about the effect of these proposals, particularly in relation to the rents formula.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the trouble he has taken in this matter and for enabling the chairman and managing director of the authority to make representations to him. I would be obliged if, having taken this trouble, he would state more clearly how he proposes to deal with the difficulties which he recognises the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority faces. The major cause of the anxiety being expressed by this authority lies in the fact that in 1973–74 there will be a huge increase in rates as a result of the rents accruing from development which are taking place in Tees-mouth.
Would the Minister explain in more detail how, if it is not possible for some port authorities to distinguish between true rents and service charges, along with other things that pass as rents, it will be possible to get over this problem by 1973? My authority will be in trouble unless there is some revision, though the Minister has said that he does not propose to review the formula. If that is the case, will he review the percentage? I hope he can give some reassurance on this point.
11.55 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I speak again by leave of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) mentioned the Tees and Hartle-pools Port Authority. The difficulty is that the authority receives a substantial amount in rents for various kinds of services, including, for example, dredging. It has been difficult to devise any formula to distinguish between what might be called true rent and payment for services. As I have previously informed my hon. Friend, we are still searching for a formula, and if we can devise some way in which to distinguish what might be called true rent, I shall be only too happy to consider an Amendment to the order. But at the moment what we are dealing with, and on the whole fairly, are gross receipts of port authorities, and we are taking a very small proportion of that, 4 per cent., as the basis of the assessments.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) goes back far enough in the history of the matter. The Milford Haven Conservancy is at present assessed to a figure of only £4,500, but that is because its receipts for profit basis purposes, the guide figure, do not include tolls in gross, and any system using gross receipts must bring in tolls in gross. The assessment will go up from £4,500 to £12,500, but this will be spread over the three transitional years, and again this is merely dealing with gross receipts.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is it not true that under the tolls in gross system, if the profit had no relation to the hereditament it could not be brought in?
Mr. Page: That is what I was saying. Tolls in gross were not brought in previously and so Milford Haven Conservancy was "getting away with it", if I may put it like that, with a cheap job. It is only because we are now basing on gross receipts and trying to make it common throughout all the ports that some have had to bring in tolls in gross. It depended on whether the bed of the river was owned. This is an anomaly which we have tried to smooth out. I will look into the points which my hon.
1318
Friends have raised and see whether I can give any assistance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION (DOCKS AND HARBOURS)

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to sheriff courts in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable by the Secretary of State in consequence of any provision of that Act;

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by that Act to be paid into that Fund.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

  WELSH NATIONAL OPERA COMPANY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for contributions towards the expenses of the Welsh National Opera Company, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable by way of rate support grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

MRS. LINDA DESRAMAULT (BABY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]
11.59 p.m.
Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I am glad that I have been successful in the Ballot for this debate and can publicly air the facts about this case. I am particularly pleased since the M.P. of the lady concerned is the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), a senior Minister who is, naturally, precluded from the privilege of an Adjournment debate. It would be monstrous if public exposure of this case in this House went by default.
The value of the British Press and television in shining a light into dark corners has been valuable. My own local papers, the Newcastle Journal, the Newcastle Chronicle, the Northern Echo and the Sunday Sun, have been towers of strength in conveying to the public the facts of the case. The editor of the Sunday Sun some weeks ago launched an appeal to get money to cover the legal costs to which this unfortunate mother might be put. He had less confidence than I had that the Government would accept their responsibilities because he has set this appeal in motion. I hope that my appeal tonight will not fall on stony ground and that the money which has so far been raised by the Sunday Sun can be donated to a children's charity. I have nothing but the highest regard for the media for insisting on bringing the Desramault baby case into the open.
In the leading article on 5th March The Guardian said under the headline of "The Anglo-French Baby":
"If an English court ruled that M. Desramault of Lens was harbouring gold bars that did not belong to him, Interpol would have the bars back in a trice. But, as he is only harbouring a baby there is nothing, apparently, that the law can do. That the law (or part of it) cares more for property than it does for people is a well-known disgrace. But the High Court's impotence in the case of the Desramault baby is only one of the many extraordinary and haphazard cruelties which have been inflicted on the baby and its mother."
I propose to develop those excellent sentiments. Never in my time in this
1320
House have I been called upon to deal with a more heart-rending case. I want to place on record my immense admiration for the manner in which Linda Desramault has borne her personal tragedy. She is without doubt a most courageous and able young woman, a credit indeed to her generation. She has had the good fortune to be ably supported by a good home and excellent parents.
The saga of the Desramault baby starts on 7th December last when the justices at West Castle Ward Petty Sessional Division of Northumberland, in the name of British justice, perpetrated on Mrs. Linda Desramault the most grotesque injustice that can be imposed on any mother; namely, they deprived her of her baby. I was in the first place drawn to this by compassion. My reasons for seeking this debate are twofold.
First, I want to ask the Government to take steps to create a position whereby it is unlikely that a similar situation could ever again arise. I am determined that if it is at all possible no other young woman should suffer the misery of Linda Desramault. Her mother, a gentle lady, Mrs. Halliday, tells me that when she goes to wake Linda in the morning to go to college her cheeks are wet with tears that she has shed in her sleep. From this it is possible to realise the great stress that this young woman has undergone as a direct result of this diabolical decision of the magistrates.
Therefore, would it not be advisable to send out a circular to all magistrates dealing with custody cases and, in particular, where a decision could involve the child being taken outside the jurisdiction of the British courts, to provide that the lay magistrates must always consult the clerk of the court, who is legally qualified. I stress "must". I know it is difficult for the Lord Chancellor to dictate to magistrates, but it is not any use sending out a circular unless there is an insistence on consultation. We all know that if the magistrates are pigheaded they will not consult the clerk, and the clerk cannot in any circumstances insist on consultation.
It might well be argued that had the solicitor of this young lady applied for a stay of execution the unhappy saga of events would never have taken place. This I know to be true from my personal discussion with the Lord Chancellor.

1321
However, had the magistrates consulted their clerk, as I suggest should be obligatory on them, it would surely have been the duty of the clerk that day to point out to the magistrates the question of the removal from jurisdiction pending appeal. Clearly the clerk, not having been consulted, did not have this opportunity.
Another point arises in broad principle. Should not a case in which legal aid is granted carry such aid to a final conclusion—that is, the obtaining of justice? If it is necessary to go to a foreign court, why should legal aid cease at the shores of the United Kingdom? I hope that the Solicitor-General will give consideration to this point.
I want to develop the facts in respect of the Desramault baby. I have written and spoken to the Lord Chancellor about this case. I wrote on 17th February inquiring whether the magistrates had been properly advised, and questioning their future. Although the Lord Chancellor has condemned the magistrates' decision, he said in reply to me that to remove them from the bench would be the worst possible precedent. I would not dissent from that view, particularly in a case in which the conscience of the individuals concerned should have some bearing.
I repeat that I am grateful to the Press for the public-spirited way in which it has exposed the shortcomings of the British judicial system, and I want to commend the Sun newspaper for its front page lead on Thursday, 25th February, headed "Get off the bench". I quote from it:
"There is only one more case that ought to be judged by magistrates Mrs. Dorothy Peile and Mr. Mitchell—their own. There is just one more decision they ought to make on the bench—to get off it and to stay off it".
I feel that I have a right, nay a duty, to say to the Lord Chancellor, through the Solicitor-General, that if he does not remove these two magistrates, surely they must never again have the opportunity to adjudicate in a custody case, for what confidence could any mother, or, for that matter, any father, have about getting a fair decision?
I want now to make some comments about the public's attitude towards court decisions, and this one in particular. By and large, I think it is fair to say—I do not think anyone here would disagree
1322
with me—that the public seem to regard magistrates as having the wisdom of Solomon. It must, of course, be borne in mind that almost every Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen have never seen the inside of a court. So people generally accept that magistrates reach their decisions on good reasons. It is not surprising, then, that Mrs. Desramault is suffering a secondary injustice from public innuendo. "Ah," they say," there is more to this than we know. The magistrates would never have given the baby to a father who had never even seen the child unless—unless there were some compelling reason." Then they say, "She must be an alcoholic, or a sex maniac, or a drug addict. Or there must be some equally awful compelling reason why the magistrates should have reached this decision."
The only way this secondary injustice can be removed would be by publication of the transcript of the magistrates' court hearing of 7th December last year. I would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this suggestion, unusual though it may be, as a distinct possibility in the interests of doing justice, and silencing wagging tongues.
I want now to quote from the transcript of the shorthand note in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Group A, when the Vice-Chancellor, Sir John Pennycuick, quoted the magistrates' judgment and their reasons. He said they stated in their judgment:
"We were impressed by the sincerity of the husband and were concerned by the instability of the wife."
With great respect, I would suggest that the countless thousands of people who watched the television programme "This Week" some 10 days ago will have formed a vastly different impression of sincerity and instability from that impression of those two magistrates on that dark day in December, and, if my post is anything to go by, few share the magistrates' views, for, remarkable though it may be, on this issue I have yet to receive an anti-Linda letter. I think the House would agree that that is contrary to the normal experience of an M.P., who is usually subject to a barrage of "anti" letters on any issue. The "pros" seldom ever bother to put pen to paper.

1323
I want to quote again from the appeal transcript:
"Through the Justices' clerk she"—
that is, through Mrs. Desramault's solicitor—
"stated that she wanted to appeal and further she asked for at least one week's grace."
The magistrates' clerk transmitted these messages, but the magistrates decided that the order must be drawn up forthwith in order that the father could fly back with Caroline the same afternoon. There was no formal application for a stay pending appeal. It has been said by counsel that such application might be implied by what was said to the clerk. I would submit to the House that that was a clear inference for counsel to make at the appeal. Surely our courts are not so hidebound that justice has to be adminstered to the letter, that there can be no spirit at all? I would have thought that when this young lady's solicitor said "I want a week's grace" it would have been reasonable to accept that as requesting a stay of execution which no magistrate could have refused. Or was it that the magistrates were so desperate to have their decision carried out and this child whisked away out of the country that they did not want to listen?
I now turn to the Prime Minister's sorry, shoddy part in this. When, on 28th February, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, some of my colleagues suggested that I was worse than mad to set up a perfect public relations exercise for a Tory Prime Minister. I cared not, because I hoped that the Prime Minister would guarantee to Mrs. Desramault all her costs from State funds. But what happened? The right hon. Gentleman went to Gosforth Park Hotel on Saturday, 13th March. He offered tea and sympathy to Linda, and that was it. It was nothing short of a squalid, indecent publicity stunt trading on the feelings of a grievously wronged young mother—hardly the actions of a man worthy of being Prime Minister of our nation.
It did not need the intervention of a Prime Minister to arrange for an aggrieved British subject to be seen by the British Embassy in Paris. Surely, the purpose of British embassies is to see to the needs of British subjects abroad who may be in distress. I know that there are people who do not believe that this is so
1324
and think that embassies are for junketing and flummery, but I do not accept that. The basic purpose of British embassies is to look after British citizens.
Let the Prime Minister now put things right and atone for his despicable conduct two weeks ago by taking notice of the Daily Mail leader of 25th February, from which I quote:
"But because the court foolishly allowed little Caroline to be taken out of the country, the authorities"—
that means the Government—
"are bleating: 'What can we do?' We'll tell them. They can pay all Mrs. Desramault's costs and give her the best international lawyer in Britain to see her through. The Government is not normally slow to throw our money about. Here is one case where it should 'spend, spend, spend'. There must be no cheeseparing when a mother's right to her child is at stake."
I commend the words of that leading article to the Prime Minister. I say earnestly to the Government that they should take heed and restore some confidence in Britain and in British justice.
I conclude by reiterating what I wrote to the Prime Minister on 28th February:
"I put it to you very seriously that compassion and humanity should take precedence over protocol in an endeavour to bring about justice for Mrs. Desramault."
It may well be that the Solicitor-General cannot answer all the questions that I have asked this evening, but I sincerely hope that I shall get a good, considered, written reply to the points that he may not feel inclined to answer tonight. Let compassion at this late stage at least come to the aid of Linda Desramault.
12.18 a.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The House has plainly been considering a case that is obviously extremely distressing and calls for sympathy from all sides of the House. Any of these tug-of-war cases are inevitably harrowing and when they have the international complications that this one involves, they are truly heartrending.
It is plainly right for the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) to have raised this case as he has, it is plainly right for him to have paid tribute to the extent to which the media have reported and commented upon the facts of this case, but, although I regret to say this, I suggest that it is unworthy

1325
of the hon. Member to the seriousness of this case and the reality of the difficulties in which all parties find themselves to have devoted so much of his presentation of the case to what developed into a crude political attack on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to have departed from a discussion of the issues involved without any appreciation of the complications that underlie them.
There are many questions and the hon. Member has left me 10 minutes of the 30 minutes available in which to answer them, so I shall not be able to deal with more than a few.
The hon. Member started by criticising the decision of the justices and the fact that no stay was granted. Those are two matters about which there is scope for comment and criticism, but again he does less than justice to the way in which cases of this kind are handled in our courts in presenting the outcome of this case in such extravagant language.
I do not stand here to uphold the decision of the justices, but nor do I think it does justice to them and their colleagues who deal with many thousands of cases of this kind to refer to "diabolical decisions" and the "perpetration of the most grotesque injustice" and to suggest that it was part of a conscious plan on the part of the magistrates' court to arrive at this decision. As I say, I do not uphold the decision, because the Vice-Chancellor on appeal and the Lord Chancellor by way of comment did not seek to uphold the decision, but it is right to remember that no suggestion has ever been made from beginning to end that the justices conducted the hearing unfairly or gave their decision without proper attention and consideration.
The justices heard the evidence. They heard both parents and both grandmothers being cross-examined for over five hours, and they retired for about half an hour. Their fault was that they exercised the statutory discretion vested in them to do what they thought was best for the welfare of the child in a manner which was mistaken, but there can be no doubt that the discretion was exercised in good faith. It would be wrong on any of the lines suggested by the hon. Member to conclude that justices who discharge that duty in good faith and reach a wrong conclusion lay
1326
themselves open to censure of the kind which he has aired in the House tonight.
Many of those who have been calling for the removal of these justices will surely realise—and I think the hon. Member appreciated this—that it would be disastrous for the Executive to interfere with those who carry out judicial functions in respect of a single mistake. One is entitled to remember that over 50,000 cases involving custody of children are handled in magistrates' courts each year, the vast majority of them without giving rise to criticism, despite the difficulty of them. If there were evidence of incapacity or impropriety it would be a different matter, but these justices have been criticised without their reasons, in the sense of the evidence, being disclosed. Parliament decided long ago that in domestic proceedings of this kind—and nobody questions the wisdom of this—it would not be right to publicise the evidence or matters underlying it.
In this case, as the hon. Member has pointed out, the Vice-Chancellor's report of the judgment has been fully reported. The justices gave their reasons, and they were repeated by the Vice-Chancellor. They said that they were impressed by the sincerity of the husband and concerned about the apparent instability of the wife. They went on to make it plain that they knew what they were doing, at least by their guide posts:
"We believe, wherever possible, custody of the child should be given to the mother. In this case, however, after hearing evidence, we came to the conclusion that our duty to regard the welfare of the child as paramount would he best discharged by granting custody of the child to its father."
That decision was overturned, no doubt rightly so, but it would be wrong to continue the pursuit of these justices in the way they have been pursued for one mistake which no doubt has been sufficiently commented upon.
It is equally unfortunate that no stay was granted, but even on that there is a conflict of evidence as to what led to the failure to grant such a stay. It is true that in the passage the hon. Member quoted it was said that the clerk was told by the wife's solicitors that she wanted to consider an appeal and wanted a week's grace. It was said that that was transmitted to the justices. That is not in accord with the version given by

1327
the justices' clerk as long ago as 4th January when he said that no such request was made and that he virtually suggested to the solicitor that she should ask for a stay and that the justices were still in attendance in anticipation of such a thing happening.
What is clear is that no application for a stay was made. What is more important, by way of confirmation of the reason for that, is that the wife's solicitor in a letter written on 7th December, the afternoon of the hearing, to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—whom I am glad to see here in her place for this important debate—made no suggestion that she had suggested any kind of application for a stay at all. That should be borne in mind. It is clear that had an application for a stay been made, the stay would no doubt have been granted and the unfortunate consequences would probably have been avoided.
The hon. Member mentioned the general rule about consultation of justices with the clerk. He knows that clerks do not normally retire with the justices so that it may be plain that the decision is that of the justices and not of the clerk, who might become unduly dominant. This has been an important principle. The suggestion that some special guidance should be given in respect of this kind of case is one that plainly could be looked at, but I felt it right to say what I have said so that someone should see that, for all that the decision was wrong, we are dealing not only with the very real human problem of Mrs. Desramault and her child but with people who have been conscientiously discharging a public duty for a number of years to the best of their ability. All this is small comfort when the child is in France. The child is the French child of a French father. The French courts are plainly entitled to exercise jurisdiction in France in respect of the child.
There is no provision for reciprocal enforcement of judgments in respect of custody proceedings. It would be difficult
1328
to produce such a situation mainly because of the different habits and views of family life taken in different countries. The view of a parent in France would be different from that taken in Germany, Switzerland, Italy or England. It is something to which one could give consideration in that some initiative might be taken in the context of international negotiations to try to produce the kind of convention recommended in The Guardian.
It was in those circumstances that the hon. Member sought the help and advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. So far from his involvement being, as was suggested, a squalid indecent publicity stunt, my right hon. Friend undertook to find out what help and advice could be made available to her. He undertook to give her and her lawyers all the advice as to the situation in France. He ascertained that as a French national Mrs. Desramault is entitled to apply for French legal aid. The Prime Minister arranged for her to receive advice and help in choosing a French lawyer in either Paris or Lille. As a result Mrs. Desramault and her lawyer attended on the Consul-General in Paris and were shown the range of lawyers from whom they might choose. They made their choice.
Mr. Bob Brown: Mrs. Desramault could have done this without the Prime Minister's interference.
The Solicitor-General: All this was done as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention. Other suggestions have been made to my right hon. Friend that representations should be made to the French Government, but the hon. Member will appreciate that in respect of a French citizen in France—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Wales Tourist Board
  Wales Tourist Board
  Housing Projects (Cost Increases)
  Housing Projects (Cost Increases)
  Rents
  Rents
  Rents
  Rents
  Tonsil and Adenoid Operations
  Tonsil and Adenoid Operations
  Oil (Price Increases)
  Oil (Price Increases)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Expressway, Colwyn Bay
  Expressway, Colwyn Bay
  Furnished Tenancies
  Furnished Tenancies
  Incomes
  Incomes
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Paediatricians
  Paediatricians
  Old Houses (Improvement Schemes)
  Old Houses (Improvement Schemes)
  Machynlleth (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Machynlleth (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Road Construction (Newport-Haverfordwest)
  Road Construction (Newport-Haverfordwest)
  County Hospital, Haverfordwest
  County Hospital, Haverfordwest
  Agricultural Price Review
  Agricultural Price Review
  House Building (Land)
  House Building (Land)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Indian Cotton Imports
  Indian Cotton Imports
  Bankruptcies and Redundancies
  Bankruptcies and Redundancies
  Bankruptcies and Redundancies
  Bankruptcies and Redundancies
  Advance Factories, Sunderland
  Advance Factories, Sunderland
  Consumer Credit (Crowther Committee's Report)
  Consumer Credit (Crowther Committee's Report)
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Timber Imports
  Timber Imports
  British Steel Corporation (Annual Report)
  British Steel Corporation (Annual Report)
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Director)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Director)
  New Airports
  New Airports
  Hotel Construction, North-East (Grant)
  Hotel Construction, North-East (Grant)
  Coal (Price)
  Coal (Price)
  Exports (Recording)
  Exports (Recording)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Investment Grants Office, Billingham
  Investment Grants Office, Billingham
  Vehicle and General Insurance Co.
  Vehicle and General Insurance Co.
  Machine Tool Expert Committee
  Machine Tool Expert Committee
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Man-made Fibres (Trading Practices)
  Man-made Fibres (Trading Practices)
  Development Areas (Employment)
  Development Areas (Employment)
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (Prosecutions)
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (Prosecutions)
  Protection of Depositors Act (Banking Companies)
  Protection of Depositors Act (Banking Companies)
  Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station
  Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station
  Industrial Investment (Wales)
  Industrial Investment (Wales)
  Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation
  Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Ocean Space
  Ocean Space
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Former Colonial Officers' Pensions and Aid Programme
  Former Colonial Officers' Pensions and Aid Programme
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Pakistan (Flood Disaster)
  Pakistan (Flood Disaster)
  Malta
  Malta
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ford Motor Company Dispute (Supplementary Benefits)
  Ford Motor Company Dispute (Supplementary Benefits)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Disabled Persons (Artificial Devices)
  Disabled Persons (Artificial Devices)
  Biomechanical Research and Development Unit
  Biomechanical Research and Development Unit
  Congenitally Deformed Children
  Congenitally Deformed Children
  Prosthetic Research and Development
  Prosthetic Research and Development
  Post Office Strike (Supplementary Benefits)
  Post Office Strike (Supplementary Benefits)
  Health Service Ombudsman
  Health Service Ombudsman
  Tobacco Smoking (Inter-Departmental Study)
  Tobacco Smoking (Inter-Departmental Study)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Male Birth-Control Pill
  Male Birth-Control Pill
  Commonwealth Doctors
  Commonwealth Doctors
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
EMPLOYMENT
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Textile Workers, Halifax
  Textile Workers, Halifax
  Self-employed Farm Workers (Training Grants)
  Self-employed Farm Workers (Training Grants)
  Fire Precaution (Inspections)
  Fire Precaution (Inspections)
  Skilled Craftsmen, Wales
  Skilled Craftsmen, Wales
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Open University Courses)
  Metropolitan Police (Open University Courses)
  Accused Persons (Legal Consultation Facilities)
  Accused Persons (Legal Consultation Facilities)
  Holloway Prison (Rebuilding)
  Holloway Prison (Rebuilding)
  Merseyside (Urban Aid Programme)
  Merseyside (Urban Aid Programme)
  Mr. Mohammed Alyas
  Mr. Mohammed Alyas
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Prison Facilities
  Prison Facilities
  Fire Regulations (Inspectors)
  Fire Regulations (Inspectors)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food and Drink (Contamination)
  Food and Drink (Contamination)
  Legal Aid (Middlesex)
  Legal Aid (Middlesex)
  Pigs (Guaranteed Prices)
  Pigs (Guaranteed Prices)
  Liquid Milk
  Liquid Milk
  Farming Costs
  Farming Costs
  Rabies (Waterhouse Committee's Report)
  Rabies (Waterhouse Committee's Report)
  Newlyn (Harbour Commissioners)
  Newlyn (Harbour Commissioners)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
DEFENCE
  Engineering Officers (Recruitment)
  Engineering Officers (Recruitment)
  Service Entrants (Qualifications)
  Service Entrants (Qualifications)
EDUCATION
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Community Centre and Village Hall Projects
  Community Centre and Village Hall Projects
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  General Certificate of Education
  General Certificate of Education
  G.C.E. and C.S.E.
  G.C.E. and C.S.E.
  Colleges and Departments of Education (Students)
  Colleges and Departments of Education (Students)
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Further Education Teachers
  Further Education Teachers
  School Managers and Governors (Appointment)
  School Managers and Governors (Appointment)
  Pupil-teacher Ratio (Bedfordshire)
  Pupil-teacher Ratio (Bedfordshire)
  Secondary Schools (Requirements)
  Secondary Schools (Requirements)
  School Building Costs, Inner London
  School Building Costs, Inner London
  Smoking (School Children and Young People)
  Smoking (School Children and Young People)
ENVIRONMENT
  Disabled Drivers (Petrol)
  Disabled Drivers (Petrol)
  Rail-Bus Services
  Rail-Bus Services
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Liverpool—Southport Road (Bootle)
  Liverpool—Southport Road (Bootle)
  Housing Land
  Housing Land
  Dee Crossing
  Dee Crossing
  Detergents
  Detergents
  Coventry (Review Development Plan)
  Coventry (Review Development Plan)
  Northern Economic Planning Council
  Northern Economic Planning Council
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Private Letter Carriers (Undelivered Mail)
  Private Letter Carriers (Undelivered Mail)
SCOTLAND
  Teachers and Pupils (Secondary Schools)
  Teachers and Pupils (Secondary Schools)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
  Investment Incentives
  Investment Incentives
  Alcoholic Drink and Tobacco (Tax)
  Alcoholic Drink and Tobacco (Tax)
  British Studs (Tax Concessions)
  British Studs (Tax Concessions)
  Wines and Spirits (Duty)
  Wines and Spirits (Duty)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Television Sets (Rental)
  Television Sets (Rental)

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

M.I.D.A. WORKING GROUP
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the MIDA working group held its first meeting, how often it will meet, and in what areas it will seek outside professional advice.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Interdepartmental MIDA Working Group was set up and held its first meeting in July, 1969. It last met just before the announcement concerning the more limited study. An inter-departmental sub-group of this Working Group is conducting the study and is to meet as and when necessary. It remains to be seen in what areas professional advice may be sought.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that Answer may I ask him whether he is aware that the Administration to which he provides a rich and welcome adornment was elected on a slogan of "Action, not words"? And is he aware that the letter which he wrote to me the other day, to the effect that some work has been done on this subject every day during the past two months, was somewhat ingenuous, if not misleading, in that in fact there is not a single whole-time civil servant engaged in this matter? Will he do something to hurry it up and give the project the serious and earnest attention that it demands?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's interest in this matter, but he will realise that the whole object of this limited study is to provide a quicker answer to the solution than would
1064
have been likely under the previous considered study. I can assure my noble friend that in fact a great deal of work is being gone into by the Group, and I would suggest that he should not regard the urgency with which the Government consider this matter as reflected by the number of meetings which the whole-time Working Group has held.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the study group will pick the brains and world-wide expertise of Sir William Halcrow and Partners, whom the previous committee declined to consult after they had presented their report in 1969?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is not the intention that individual contributions will necessarily be sought, but if submissions are made these will doubtless be taken into account. One certainly accepts the reference to Sir William Halcrow which my noble friend made.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask one further question? As to the seriousness with which the Government regard this matter, does not my noble friend agree that a tally of one meeting of the study group and one of the economic steering group within two months does not indicate any great urgency? Will my noble friend consult with his and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and ask him whether he will bring in our aid the earnestness which he brought to the study last April, when he begged the last Government to get on with it?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can only refer my noble friend to the fact that it is precisely because of this study that the Government are getting on with it, because they intend to have a reply a great deal earlier than would otherwise have been the case. I think we need to be careful not to get into a huge amount of detail as to how working groups, sub-groups and everyone else operate within a Ministry. But the fact is that the Working Group is a substantial body of people and it was considered more efficacious that the work should be done by a more limited and more convenient sub-committee. This is one of the ways in which my noble friend will be able to achieve the objective that he desires.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that work like this can be done by half-timers?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is not done by half-timers.

THE CONCORDE AIRCRAFT
2.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 are satisfied with the development and test flying of Concorde so far carried out, and when it is expected that the British prototype will be ready for application for a certificate of airworthiness.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the tests so far have been satisfactory. The target date for certification is now the third quarter of 1974.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 whether they can give an estimated date by which it will be necessary to decide on the quantity production of Concorde, if the options held by airline operators are to be converted to firm orders for complete aircraft for delivery in 1975.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation Supply will be meeting the French Minister responsible for Concorde shortly for a general review of the project, including the future production programme. Meanwhile, the manufacturers already have authority for the initial stages of the programme.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Britain's lead in this new field, as compared with the rest of the world is
1066
tremendous? If airlines are hesitant to give firm orders, could not Her Majesty's Government, in order that we do not lose our lead, consider the bold step of going into production now and, if necessary, leasing the aircraft to the airlines of the world, on remunerative terms to Her Majesty's Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. I entirely accept that, together with the French, we have a substantial lead in this field. I would say to my noble friend that we are not quite in a position, even if we were to agree with the French to do so, to take the action that he suggests. As I said in my Answer, the progress and tests are satisfactory, but there is still a certain amount of work to be done, together with an assessment of costs, and so on. These are all matters which my right honourable friend and his French colleagues will be taking into account when they meet in about three weeks' time.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask one more supplementary question? Will the Minister agree that indecision, postponement and abortive meetings are the very factors that must increase the cost and lengthen the time involved, and must, so far as possible, be avoided?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I quite agree that one wants to avoid indecision and increasing cost, but I hope my noble friend will accept from me that the Government do understand and take this point of view into account. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the results of the meeting with our French colleagues on April 22, but I will certainly undertake to pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
2.43 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. be making a Statement on the situation in East Pakistan. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Belstead on the Social Security Bill, and this again will be followed by another

1067
Statement, by my noble friend Lord Denham, on the Government's proposals for commercial radio.
I would also inform your Lordships that dinner is available this evening. In view of the number of speakers in this very important debate to-day, and the fact that we have no fewer than three Statements, I hope that your Lordships will try to confine your questions on the Statements to the minimum.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am a little surprised at the noble Earl's last remark. It is not our decision in this House to have three Statements of such importance, and I do not think I could undertake on behalf of my noble friends to shorten questions any more than we usually do.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should feel that my remarks were exceptional. I was merely suggesting that for the general convenience of the House there might be some advantage in confining remarks to as small an amount as possible, particularly in view of the fact that one of the Statements relates to a White Paper which noble Lords will not have had the chance to see.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we know exactly what the noble Earl wanted to do; it is perfectly understandable. But there are one or two rather controversial points, and I suspect that the Statement the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is going to make will be bad enough, even without our seeing the White Paper.

CEREALS (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) ORDER 1971
2.46 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order 1971, which was laid before the House on March 2, be approved. With permission, I would suggest that it might be convenient for noble Lords to discuss at the same time the next following draft Order—the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1971 which was laid before the House on the same date. My Lords, the Government have reviewed the price guarantee
1068
arrangements for cereals and the Orders now before your Lordships' House will give effect to the changes we feel are necessary. The Guarantee Payments Order places the deficiency payments to wheat and rye growers on a new basis and brings to an end the storage incentive arrangements which form part of the present Scheme. The Protection of Guarantees Order reduces the number of records and returns needed for the administration of the arrangements.
I will deal first with the basis of the payments to growers of wheat and rye. As noble Lords may be aware, the subsidy is at present paid on tonnage sold and the system includes a rising scale of storage incentives. The draft Guarantee Payments Order changes this by relating the payment to the acreage harvested—the method already in operation for the other cereals. What we are proposing, therefore, is a simplified Scheme dealing with all cereals in the same way. This system was, in fact, acceptable to the previous Administration and it is in line with this Government's philosophy of placing the onus for decision on the man concerned—in this case the grower. The existing Scheme to some extent frustrates this.
I should like to say a little about the savings made possible by these two changes. Your Lordships will realise that a sales scheme must involve administrative arrangements that are unnecessary if payments are related purely to acreage. There must be claim forms on which to quote the sale details, and we must require full records to be kept and to be available to us so that we can verify these sale details. And, of course, to ensure access to this information it is necessary for dealers in cereals to be specially registered with the Agricultural Departments. By contrast, the acreage Scheme proposal simply involves the grower in completing one form after he has finished sowing and a second after harvest. There is no need for records; no need for dealers in cereals to be registered.
The draft Protection of Guarantees Order therefore includes no provisions on these matters beyond a requirement that the records required to be kept by the existing Order are retained for two years from the end of the cereal year to which

1069
they relate, so that checks can be made on past claims. The change will, therefore, ease the present burden on merchants and cereal growers alike—and both sides have made it clear to us in the past that it really is a burden. But, not least, the change will make possible a very worthwhile saving of something like £250,000 by the Agricultural Departments, since the cost of the storage incentives is currently running at about one-third of the total cost of the Cereal Scheme. These Orders, then, make provision for the simplification of a complicated scheme and clear the way for considerable administrative savings. I commend them to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order 1971, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I simply want to say that we are in favour of simplification, and in view of the fact that there is such an enormous amount of business on the Order Paper to-day, I do not propose to say more than to thank the noble Lord for putting forward the explanation of these Orders so briefly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CEREALS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER 1971
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Order be approved.
Moved,—That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1971, be approved. —(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION IN ENGLAND
2.50 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Government Proposals for Reorganisation of Local Government in England (Cmnd. 4584). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am glad to be opening, on my noble friend's behalf, this debate on the White Paper which contains the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in England. I am glad not least since I
1070
recall the words which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, used when he opened a rather similar debate about a year or so ago—to be precise on March 3 last year at column 240—on the last Government's White Paper. He said then, and I hope his words apply now:
"This will, I think, be an historic debate. Local government cannot be reorganised every few years. In the nature of things, a debate on a Government White Paper to reform it can take place only once or twice in a century."
I am glad, therefore, to be opening this debate since if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was right about this, it means that this task will not fall upon my shoulders again until about AD 2071.
More seriously, my Lords, I am glad to be opening this debate because of the importance and complexity of this vast subject. Since the war no less than three comprehensive attempts have been made to tackle this formidable subject. There was the Local Government Boundary Commission in the 1940s; there was the Local Government Commission appointed under the 1958 Act; and, most recently, and most eminently, there was the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Redclitfe-Maud, which reported two years or so ago.
I am glad, too, since it is nice occasionally to get a word in edgeways for England. Your Lordships will recall that we debated the Government's White Paper Reform of Local Government in Scotland last week. And we shall very shortly be debating the consultative document on the reform of local government in Wales. It is pleasant to be able to add the centre piece, the English piece, to this triptych. Of course, many of the problems which confront those concerned with local government in England also face local authoriti3s in Scotland and Wales. But I need hardly remind your Lordships that these countries have their own special background and outlook. It is right, therefore, that local government in all three countries should be debated separately. Given, too, the accumulated experience and expertise on matters concerning local government which is to be found in this House—and this is evident, perhaps only too evident, from the long list of speakers in your Lordships' debate this afternoon—it is, I would suggest, only right that each of these three documents, the White Papers on local government in

1071
Scotland and England and the consultative document for Wales, should be debated first in this House of Parliament.
Given the number of speakers this afternoon, we shall no doubt hear a variety of points of view and, doubtless, some criticism from time to time of the Government's proposals. Greatly daring, however, I should like to suggest, on the basis of our debate last year, that beneath a wide variety of opinion there will be an underlying consensus on at least four points. In the first place, I would remind your Lordships that there was agreement last year on the need for our institutions of local government to be both vigorous and healthy. I think we shall probably agree on that proposition this year. Secondly, there was also agreement that these institutions would not retain their vigour and their health unless they were radically reformed. I venture to suggest, too, that we are probably agreed on that proposition this year. Thirdly, with that in mind, I think there was also a general view that we needed fewer and stronger units of local government. I would be surprised if we had departed from that viewpoint this year. Although I am not suggesting that our agreement ended there, there was a general view that whatever structure of local government we hit upon in the future it was one which should reflect not only the difference but also the essential inter-dependence of town and country in these islands; the need to look, wherever possible at town and country together and not in separate, watertight compartments. I should be surprised, too, if your Lordships this year have departed from what I understood to be a general consensus on that as well.
The weaknesses of our present system were brilliantly analysed in the Report of the Radcliffe-Maud Commission, and the Government's White Paper summarises the same defects which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his colleagues identified. I should like to quote an extract illustrating this from the White Paper—I thought admirably terse White Paper—before your Lordships this afternoon. These are the words from paragraph 6:
"The areas of many existing authorities are out-dated and no longer reflect the pattern of life and work in modern society. The division between counties and county boroughs has prolonged an artificial separation of big towns from their surrounding hinterlands for
1072
functions whose planning and administration need to embrace both town and country. There are too many authorities and many of them are too small in area and resources to support the operation of services to the standards which people nowadays have the right to expect. The present division of responsibilities between authorities is, in some fields, confusing and illogical."
It is small wonder that weaknesses in our local government structure exist. The system which we are debating this afternoon is, in basic essentials, that which was created by legislation as far back as the 1880s and 1890s. It is more a cause for congratulation to generations of local government members and officers that local government, this very creaky machine which we have inherited, has worked so well and has provided an expanding range of services of, overall, such reasonably high quality. Our aim, however—and it is an aim which is shared, rightly, across your Lordships' House—is to try to remove the present defects and to create the conditions within which democratic local government can flourish and develop more in the decades to come than it has flourished and developed in the recent past.
I am sure, my Lords, that you would not wish me to try to pass in review all the possible systems that have been suggested, which have been legion. To do so would leave the mistaken impression that we are everywhere in disagreement and disarray. There are, of course, differences of opinion, and differences of opinion sincerely held—and we shall doubtless hear those views expressed this afternoon. But there is, in fact, a great deal of common ground between all those who care deeply about the future of local government, and I have in my opening words, I hope, identified some of the areas on which there is basic agreement.
I would point out—and many of your Lordships are already perfectly clear about this—that in our White Paper we are not following at every step the recommendations of the Royal Commission over which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, presided. We shall, no doubt, be reminded of that later this afternoon, not only by the noble Lord but also by his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. But there are many points on which we find ourselves in basic agreement with the Commission's objectives. I should like, if I may—and I say this with all sincerity—here and

1073
now to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his Commission. Their Report, and the very considerable corpus of studies which they put in hand, form an enduring and memorable contribution to this subject. Without their guidance, without their applied and consistent industry, and without their enthusiasm, we should not now be on the last lap towards the reorganisation of local government in the three countries.
Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion—this is no secret—that the advantages of concentrating responsibility in the hands of one single authority are outweighed by the admitted disadvantages. We believe that it is preferable to accept a division between those functions which need wider areas of administration and those for which the responsibility can be exercised more locally. In so doing, my Lords, we believe that we can avoid the danger of basing the new system upon areas which are too small for some purposes but too big for others. We secure the advantage of being able to call upon local authorities which are really local.
I remember very well what my noble friend Lord Amory said in our debate just over a year ago on this point. These were his words:
"My experience of life is that most people find it easier to feel loyalty to small groups rather than to large ones."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/3/70; col. 275.]
On the other hand, my Lords—and here, of course, I am arguing for the two-tier system—by the two-tier system we avoid the danger of remoteness. As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor reminded us in that same debate, the decision-making apparatus of the unitary authorities, recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, in his historic Report, would to many have had the danger—to quote the pregnant words of my noble friend—of seeming "as remote as Tibet".
We are instead adopting a two-tier system with the new authority based upon the historic units of the counties and the boroughs and with genuine responsibilities exercised at each level. This last point is, to my mind, of supreme importance, because if "viable democracy" at the local level depends upon any one factor, it depends upon the
1074
ability to take decisions and action at a level at which those matters really touch the people concerned, and at which they are really meaningful to those most affected by them. Without such power a body becomes a mere talking shop and is likely to wither away, instead of being effective.
The Government's proposals are clearly set out in the White Paper before your Lordships this afternoon and, if only because that White Paper is brief and succinct, I do not believe it is necessary for me to go over all the details in introducing this discussion. I would merely remind your Lordships that we propose forty-four new counties outside Greater London based on the existing county pattern, so far as the needs of services make this practicable. All the counties will be responsible for the main planning functions and for highways and transport—functions which are interdependent and which must be considered over wide areas.
Six of the new metropolitan counties, if one wishes to them term so—the Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, SELNEC and the West Midlands—would have a special distribution of functions on the lines which Lord Redcliffe-Maud's Commission proposed for their three main metropolitan areas. In these six—and, in the Government's view, the conditions are not found elsewhere—all the metropolitan districts would be both populous and compact. With a few exceptions, these districts would have populations of same 250,000 people or more, and the district authorities would be responsible for education and the personal social services; but outside the six metropolitan areas these services would be county functions.
Both inside and outside the metropolitan counties, the new districts will be responsible for housing, for most of the planning control and for other services which can be dealt with at this level and which have a direct impact upon the local scene. I am of course aware that some of these proposed distributions of functions are necessarily contentious. It is quite impossible to produce a scheme for local government reform which is not necessarily contentious so far as these functions are concerned, let alone as regards the areas. I know, perhaps in particular that there are those who feel

1075
that housing, or at least house building, should be a function of the larger authorities. I would not wish to anticipate the debate which may to some extent focus on this matter this afternoon. But my noble friend Lord Sandford, in winding up, will I am sure be able to expand on the reasons why we feel it is right to place housing in the main with the smaller authorities.
The aspect of reorganisation which, perhaps inevitably attracts most attention—and it is indeed one of the most important aspects of all—is the definition of the new areas. On this your Lordships will have noted that the Government propose to establish a permanent Boundary Commission as part of the machinery for keeping both local government boundaries and electoral areas up to date. The constitution and working of this Commission will of course be discussed with the local authority associations, and I do not think that your Lordships will wish me to go into those details this afternoon. The intention, in any event, is to create an independent and impartial body whose proposals would command the same respect as those of the independent Boundary Commissions who review the constituencies on the basis of which another place is elected. I am sure that there will be agreement at least with that as an objective.
The intention is that the Boundary Commission would be brought informally into being during the passage of the Bill which will be introduced next Session to give effect to these proposals. The first task of the Commission will be to make recommendations for the new pattern of districts in the counties outside the metropolitan areas. But if we are to keep to the timetable which we have in mind, it will be necessary for the Commission to start work and to open consultations about the district pattern before the Bill actually becomes law.
There is one particular point here on areas and boundaries which I think concerns a great many people. The Government's proposals draw a much tighter boundary around the metropolitan areas than did the Royal Commission, and this tighter boundary conflicts—or so it is said—with the need to embrace both town and country within the same areas
1076
for land use and other planning matters, such as the planning of transport. I would argue that there is no real contradiction here. We do not, of course, deny that the influence of the great urban concentrations extends over very wide areas indeed. The prime example is Greater London, which influences the employment pattern, the communications and the shopping habits throughout most of the South-East in which so many of us live.
But it would be impossible to adopt the area of influence of Greater London as a local government area. The problems which are created must be considered and dealt with on a regional scale and through the machinery for regional, economic and land-use planning. The same, we hold, applies to the other great conurbations in other parts of the country. There, again, we do not deny their wide influence over their surrounding hinterland. What we say instead is that such areas would be too big for local government purposes, and that the problems they raise must be considered and solved in a regional context.
Here there is another danger against which we feel we should be wise to guard. That danger is that if one enlarges the boundaries of the metropolitan areas—as some, including the Commission, wish us to do—if one gives those great conurbations the elbow room which they themselves would like, then there is a very real danger of encouraging continuous and unrelenting urban development right up to the edges of their new boundaries. I know that this can be argued both ways. We shall doubtless hear the other side of the coin, and see it turned over, later in our debate this afternoon. But this is what the Government feel is the danger of extending the area of the metropolitan boundaries.
All this brings me to the regional level. I would remind your Lordships that the White Paper specifically endorses the view that there are matters affecting both central and local government which need to be considered on this regional scale. Some of your Lordships may wish to go along with the view that it is sensible to wait for the Report of the Commission on the Constitution under the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, before we attempt to reach conclusions about the nature of the permanent machinery at the regional or provincial level which we may require. I

1077
think that is understandable; in an ideal world, of course, it might be better to wait until we saw what Crowther had in mind. But, my Lords, time presses, and I would remind your Lordships of the fact which is made clear and explicit in the White Paper, that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has specifically told the Government that, so far as he can foresee at this stage, there is not likely to be anything in future in the Report of his Committee to warrant delay in local government reorganisation below the provincial level. It is for that reason that we have not waited for Crowther. I saw myself the logic of waiting for Crowther in our debate a year or so ago, but in view of the specific assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, I am perfectly happy that we should go ahead with reform below the regional and provincial level now, when we see our way clear.
It might be helpful at this stage if I very briefly summarised those areas of reorganisation on which the Government have reached firm conclusions—firm conclusions from which they are unlikely to be budged. It is important to know in this sort of matter where a Government is clear in its own mind and where there is plenty of room still for argument and discussion. On the firm side of the coin, the Government are absolutely clear that reorganisation should now proceed on a two-tier basis everywhere, the wider authorities operating within an area substantially based on the counties. This was implicit in the proposals we put before the electorate in May/June last year.
Secondly, the Government think that the special conditions which require a metropolitan-type structure exist at present only in the six areas named in the White Paper. Thirdly, the Government consider that the main responsibilities in the field of planning, highways and traffic must in all cases lie with the county councils and, outside the metropolitan areas, education and the Seebohm services, too. Inside the metropolitan counties, education and the social services—the Seebohm services, if I may so term them in shorthand—should be, in the Government's view, district functions. Fourthly, the Government do not propose to reopen the matter of London Government as part of the current exercise, either as regards the outer boundary or the distribution of functions between the
1078
Greater London Council and the London boroughs. Those of us who have masochistic memories of the debates in your Lordships' House in 1963 may welcome this particular decision. Finally, the Government have decided very firmly on the timetable which they feel to be absolutely essential in this matter.
That said, my Lords, I should like to make it equally clear that there are many matters still for discussion and consultation, and it is our hope that this discussion and this consultation will be really meaningful. I have already mentioned that consultations have begun with the existing authorities on the proposed areas for the counties and the metropolitan districts. At a later stage the Boundary Commission will be consulting about the pattern of districts elsewhere. As regards the functions, we recognise that as we move from a system which is only one level in the county boroughs to a universal two-tier system there are bound to be very considerable repercussions on individual existing authorities. It is, of course, impossible merely to tinker with the existing distribution of functions. If, as we hope, the new system is going to stand for a long time to come—and I would advance the hope that it should stand for not less than five decades—the new distribution of functions must be based not merely on expediency but on rational and defensible principles which will stand the test of time. Here we clearly need benefit of the first-hand experience of people in local government who know, better than anyone else, how services interact upon each other, how they can best be organised and what effect reorganisation will have on the most effective use of professional manpower.
My Lords, there are also a wide range of electoral matters on which consultations will be needed. That is why we shall shortly be consulting the local authority associations and the political Parties on the arrangements for the first elections, and we shall of course take account of their comments in reaching our decisions on those arrangements. We shall, in addition, need to have full consultations with the local authority associations and with the various staffing bodies on the many matters which affect the interests of local government officers. Your Lordships will doubtless have noted that the

1079
White Paper makes it clear that the Government have decided to set up a staff commission to advise on the arrangements for the recruitment and transfer of staff and necessary safeguards for staff interests. We attach great importance to this aspect of the matter, and I can give all local government staff an absolute assurance on behalf of the Government that their legitimate interests will be fully safeguarded. Reorganisation will not be at their expense.
Finally, my Lords, we shall be having separate consultations on financial matters. We hope to publish a Green Paper within the next two or three months, and that Green Paper will deal with all aspects of local government finance, including the possibilities of alternative sources of revenue, the future of the rating system, the financial relationships between central and local government and the arrangements for Government financial assistance by way of grant. In any event, we are satisfied, from what we know of the progress already made in the review of local government finance, that reorganisation can go forward without prejudicing possible changes in the financial field.
My Lords, let me, as I move towards the conclusion of my remarks, revert for a moment to the timetable. I think it is useful, that it should be quite clear to everybody taking part in this debate what sort of timetable the Government have in mind at the present moment. The Government are convinced that the changes should be made as soon as is reasonably practicable. Reorganisation has loomed over local authorities for too long and has created uncertainty which must be brought to an end. I say that, not only in the interests of efficient government, but also—and this is linked with efficient government—because I think that uncertainty has already been damaging, and continuing uncertainty would be vastly more damaging, for the morale of the staff concerned. We do not underestimate the magnitude or the complexity of the operation on which we are embarking, but consultations have already been undertaken and the intention is that the Bill should be introduced early next Session.
As I have said, we shall bring the Boundary Commission into existence as
1080
soon as the Bill has been read a second time. Of course, consultations on the new district pattern outside the metropolitan areas will need to be initiated, even while the Bill is before Parliament. There will be no question of the Commission's formulating their final recommendations until the Bill has become law and the pattern of new counties has been established. The district proposals will be debated in Parliament in time for the districts to be finalised by Ministerial Order by the end of 1972. The elections to the new authorities will be held in 1973, as soon as the electoral areas have been defined. The new county councils and metropolitan districts will be elected in the spring of 1973 and the other district councils in the autumn of 1973.
There will then be a period of overlap, after the new authorities have been elected, during which time they will need to appoint their Chief Officers, settle their internal organisation and complete their preparations. It is our view, my Lords, that the new authorities should take over their full responsibilities at the beginning of April, 1974, when the present authorities will go out of existence. We are thus faced with a formidable and vast operation, which we believe must be carried through with dispatch. I am sure that this is right, but it admittedly means a very tight timetable. We believe, however, that it must be tackled in that sort of time-scale, and we certainly believe that there is no reason whatsoever why we should not achieve our objective within the timetable I have just outlined to your Lordships.
My Lords, it would be inconceivable, I think, that proposals of the magnitude of those which I have just outlined would command unanimous approval. Nevertheless, the Government have been encouraged by the amount of support which these proposals have received, not least (and most generously, if I may say so, given the fact that they diverge in some important respects from those of his Commission) from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. Moreover, my Lords, even where we may agree to disagree about the structure which we are proposing, there is, I am convinced, if not unanimous agreement a very full measure of agreement that we must now proceed to action in this matter. It is time, in sum, for the buck of local government

1081
reform to stop passing. That is why we shall legislate in the next Session of Parliament, and that is why the new authorities, newly elected in 1973, are due to swing into full action in April, 1974.
My Lords, it is against this background that I commend the Government's proposals to your Lordships. I believe that they will give us the new framework which we need now in order to strengthen local government and to reinvigorate local democracy in this country. I bet eve, furthermore, that the new framework will have stretch, will have flexibility, and could be further expanded and developed during the remainder of this century. That, my Lords, is for the future. For the present, I suggest that now is the time for us to get cracking in this matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Government Proposals for Reorganisation of Local Government in England (Cmnd. 4584).—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I know that we all enjoyed the vigorous and healthy (to use his own words) and, indeed, very judicious speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl. I learned my local government first, as an undergraduate, from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and later, when, 25 years ago, my noble friend Lady Scrota and I joined the noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Cottesloe, on the old Hampstead Borough Council; and I hope I may say that I have always tried to be a good local government man. For many years, until I became a Minister, I was a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations—an office which I resumed when I ceased to be a Minister; and a few days ago I became President of the Association of Urban District Councils. So, after three and three-quarter years as their Minister, it is reassuring to know that I have not entirely forfeited the confidence of at least some of the key figures in the local government world. At this stage, may I say how much I regret the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, has informed me that, because of illness, he will not be able to take part in our debate to-day?
I believe very firmly with the noble Earl who has just sat down, that local
1082
government has a vital part to play in our democratic process. It is democracy at the grass roots, and I am certain that we need local government which is strong enough to counter excessive influence at the centre. I therefore welcome very much the promptness with which the Government have produced the White Paper, and the swiftness with which this debate has taken place. Like many experts in the field, I have some doubts about the feasibility of the time-table which the noble Earl has outlined to us, and I will return to that in a moment. But I am sure that speed is essential, for the two reasons that he gave to the House. First, we must end the appalling uncertainty in which local government staffs have worked for the last few years, and I very much welcome the assurance which the noble Earl gave to the House about the sense of security which local government officers can now feel. Secondly, we need speed because we have to stop local government grinding to a halt. Authorities which do not know whether they are going to be in existence in three years' time are not likely to go out of their way to incur heavy capital expenditure, or to exercise any great foresight in the framing of policy.
Because speed is so necessary, I do not think there is any point in reviving the old controversy about unitary authorities or two-tier local government. I will therefore confine myself to-day to quoting two of the most critical comments on the Government's proposals. Mr. Derek Senior, for example, engagingly commented to the Local Government Chronicle that it was all too easy to devise a two-tier structure that would be even worse than Maud, but that he never imagined that the outcome would be so much worse. He went on to describe it as
"a misbegotten freak—by electoral expediency out of administrative myopia".
The Economist, under the heading "Walker's lame duck reform for local government" said that, in certain key respects the proposals are "a disaster of political prejudice". It is clear, however, that unless there is a substantial change of heart on the part of the Government—and I confess that the noble Earl gave me very little encouragement in that direction this afternoon—we are going to

1083
have the set-up which he has decribed to your Lordships.
I therefore want to go straight to one aspect of the timetable. The Department of the Environment Circular 8/71, issued on February 16, asks local authorities to submit their comments on the boundaries shown on the map, or any alternative suggestions they wish to put forward, by the end of May. But, of course, the first part of May will be taken up by elections in many areas; then new committees will have to be set up and approved by the whole council; and then the comments or alternative proposals will have to be formulated. This may just be possible if political control remains the same, but it may be quite impossible if political control changes—even in one of a number of local authorities in an area. Therefore with full awareness of the need for speed, I ask the Government to give at least a little further time in this respect. To agree to this would, I think, be only fair and in the long run would probably be very rewarding. I am sure that that is what your Lordships would wish; and perhaps this could be included in the subjects upon which the Government have promised consultation.
I have said that I shall not go back over old ground, but before I comment on the Government's proposals I would express the appreciation that I think all of us feel towards the local authority associations for the thoughtful and constructive contributions that they have made to the reform of local government. Five or six years ago it would have been quite impossible to conceive of local authorities moving so swiftly towards reorganisation. I look forward very eagerly to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who has a quite remarkable capacity for making funeral speeches sound like christenings. No doubt he will welcome these proposals, just as he welcomed the proposals of the Labour Government. By the appointment of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission and the publication of the White Paper, the Labour Government produced what were, I think, important landmarks in the progress towards local government reform; and the present Government certainly took over when most of the ground had
1084
been cleared. Therefore, I find it surprising that they have not been able yet to tell us anything about finance.
When Mr. Wilson made a statement in another place on the Redcliffe-Maud Report, Mr. Heath raised the importance of finance in the context of local government reorganisation; and when another place debated the Labour Government's White Paper in Febraury, 1970, Mr. Walker raised the point again. And Mr. Chattaway, when he wound up, said that final decisions about the structure could not be taken until possible means of financing had been considered. My own view has always been that sizes and functions had to be decided first, and only then could we look at finance. Although the Government have rather belatedly come round to the same point of view, I welcome their conversion.
May I turn to the metropolitan counties, and first discuss the choice of those counties? The Government have dropped one of those that the Labour Government proposed—that in South Hampshire—and added two, in South Yorkshire and on Tyneside and Wearside. We have had, so far as I know, no real explanation of why the South Hampshire metropolitan area proposal has been dropped. I am sorry about it because very valuable joint planning work has been done by Southampton and Portsmouth and the Hampshire County Council. In a metropolitan county, the two county boroughs would have greater prestige and more powers than if they were county districts in the ordinary county. When I opened the extension to the Isle of Wight County Hall last year I got the distinct impression that they felt that to be part of a metropoltian area was the solution to their rather unique problem.
Tyneside and Wearside is admittedly a problem. I rejected the original proposal for a Tyneside county borough because it was not big enough. It swallowed up most of Northumberland's rateable value and left the county itself non-viable; but at the same time it perpetuated the division between town and country. I believe that the new proposal has some of the same defects; but at least it makes the Tyne a link rather than a frontier. The real problem, I am sure, is what to do with Northumberland. I feel confident myself that it will need special financial help. And

1085
if Newcastle and the conurbation round it are to be able to breathe, much more open countryside should be included in the area of the metropolitan county; but that would add further to the difficulties of Northumberland.
South Yorkshire is clearly an attractive candidate to be a metropolitan county—but not in the form that the White Paper suggests. I believe that the boundaries have been much too tightly drawn, in spite of everything that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said. It includes Barnsley and Doncaster, whose links with Sheffield are rather tenuous; but it leaves out two authorities which certainly look to Sheffield—Worksop, in Nottinghamshire, and Chesterfield, in Derbyshire. The difficulty is obvious; and that is why we ruled out a metropolitan county as the solution. If Chesterfield and Worksop and a few rural areas went in, the problems of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire would be very great indeed. It would have a domino effect, with repercussions over a wide area. But I have little liking for the pseudo-metropolitan county that the Government have produced.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Lord had to say about Northumberland and South Yorkshire. I was beginning to wonder what consideration he had ever given to the new proposals in regard to Durham. After all, Durham was the centre of the North East, apart from Newcastle, Northumberland or anywhere else. Now, Durham is to be hived off in many ways and will be left with nothing more than green fields.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I appreciate the point of my noble friend who speaks with great experience of local government in County Durham. I hope that he will have the opportunity of taking part in this debate; but of course the White Paper produced by the last Government would not have had the effect on the County Palatine to which he rightly drew our attention as being one of the consequences of the present proposals. I hope that he will forgive my not being diverted into these side channels because there are many speakers and I am afraid that my own speech is anyhow rather on the long side.
1086
I want to stress that the real tragedies are the metropolitan counties on Merseyside, around Manchester—and I hope that I never hear the noble Earl refer to SELNEC again—and in the West Midlands. In those three areas, for the past 20 years, planned development has been impeded and the tightness with which the new counties are drawn will do nothing to remove that impediment. It will enable Birmingham and Coventry to expand into the green area between them, with a resulting urban sprawl stretching about 40 miles from Coventry to Wolverhampton. Coventry, moreover, has very little in common with Birmingham. As Professor Peter Hall has pointed out, only 1 per cent. of Coventry's workers travel to Birmingham. Kidderminster, Red-ditch, Lichfield and Tamworth, on the other hand, have close links with Birmingham, but are left out of the proposals. This does not make sense. Merseyside and Manchester, too, are mutilated remains of the metropolitan areas suggested by Redcliffe-Maud and approved by the Labour Government. In my view, they should be extended well beyond, and not within, any existing Green Belt.
My Lords, before I leave the subject of metropolitan counties, I should like, as a Lancastrian, to make one suggestion to the Government, one which, I am afraid, I completely failed to persuade my own colleagues to accept. If there is a case—and I am sure that there is—for a West Yorkshire metropolitan county extending right up to the Lancashire border, there is an equally strong case for having a similar metropolitan county in the almost exactly similar area of Lancashire, West of the Pennines. Ideally, this would cover the three Redcliffe-Maud unitary areas based on Burnley, Blackburn and Preston; but Blackpool would probably have to be included, too. I will not elaborate on this, except to say that I believe that it would facilitate the development of the Central Lancashire New Town, and would enable a number of extremely good existing authorities to continue in a form bettter equipped to provide an efficient service. I hope that noble Lords on the other side will not close their minds to this proposition if it comes to them from any of the local authorities concerned.
I hope that before the debate is finished the noble Lord, Lord Sandford,

1087
will have explained rather more fully than the White Paper the Government's reasons for allocating the various functions between different types of authority. I will discuss the general position in a moment; but may I first express my anxieties about the functions in the metropolitan counties? There, plan-making will be isolated from housing, the personal social services and education. That could mean that social planning and physical planning were disastrously divided. We cannot, of course, assess the economic implications until the Government reveal their thinking about the financing of the new authorities. The Government, moreover, have not told us why they have reversed the Labour Government's decision that education should go to the metropolitan counties rather than to the metropolitan districts, a division of functions which the Government have endorsed in the rest of the country. Personally, I can see arguments both ways, and perhaps the minimum of cooperation would resolve the difficulties. It would be interesting to know why the Government think that Bradford and Coventry should remain as education authorities but Nottingham, Derby, Plymouth and Stoke should not.
So far as functions in general are concerned, your Lordships may well form the view that the Government have not really thought them through. It seems odd that over most of England planning and housing will not go together; and that housing, in spite of Seebohm, will be separated almost completely from the personal services. But the system can be made to work, especially if the county councils are given real powers to act as a long-stop, or even as a bowler, in the housing field. If, however, the main housing powers are going to the districts—and this is inevitable in a two-tier system—they should be accompanied by responsibility for building regulations which the White Paper surprisingly allocates to the counties. It is even more surprising when one remembers that in Scotland and Wales these building regulations are to go to the district councils. The planning proposals, too, may be inevitable, but the proposal that the counties and districts are to use the same officers could lead to the most frightful diffi
1088
culties; and I am sure that a good deal of further thought and consultation is needed.
Closely linked to housing and planning is the need for local authority advice centres. Lambeth has an excellent housing advice centre where advice is available on mortgages, on the possibility of moving to New Towns, on the chances of getting a council house, and on the availabiliity of improvement grants. Camden and the Consumer Association have an interesting pilot scheme in Kentish Town for advice on other consumer problems. I am sure that the pattern of the future is that these and similar activities—those of citizens' advice bureaux, and Members' of Parliament and councillors' surgeries, should be in the same building, under the auspices of the district council, if local government is to remain accessable and to rekindle public interest. I therefore believe, my Lords, that food and drugs and weights and measures which are now, it is proposed, to go to the counties should go to the districts as part of the consumer protection services.
Some of the differences in the treatment of England, Wales and Scotland are quite remarkable. I will not go through them all, but in Wales and Scotland clean air is a matter for the districts; in England it is a matter for the counties. That, I think, is very hard to defend. In the case of highways too, in England they are to be a purely county responsibility, while the Consultative Document for Wales admits in paragraph 15:
"Members of district councils will of course be concerned about the upkeep of roads, road improvements, new highway schemes and traffic management schemes not only because of their direct implications but also because of their links with matters for which district councils would be responsible, such as town centre re-development, development control and new housing schemes."
It is not without significance, I think, that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in its evidence to the Royal Commission, also recommended that districts should have responsibility for what it described as the
"provision and lighting of purely local roads; and the maintenance of roads other than trunk roads and motorways.…"
The proposals about libraries are equally surprising. In England responsibility for the libraries is to go to the

1089
county councils. In Scotland, where the language is broadly the same as in England and the people are not all that different, libraries are to be the responsibility of the district councils. I cannot reconcile these conflicting conclusions. I am certain, however, that the Government have turned a complete sommersault since they legislated after the Roberts Report; and the views they are expressing now conflict with those expressed then by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and Mr. Chataway. Moreover, I do not believe that size and efficiency, in this or any other sector of local government activity, are necessarily synonymous. A library is more than a book store and more than an outpost of the educational system. It is the centre of many local activities, and indeed a centre of social life in the community. I can find no good reason for putting libraries among the responsibilities of the education authorities.
Just one other function, my Lords, which I will mention quite briefly, commenting in passing that I suspect that the large number of concurrent powers set out in the White Paper simply paper over hasty and rather sloppy thinking. I can see no reason why a decision on sewerage should await the report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, although, clearly, sewage disposal must. Sewerage and local roads, at least, are closely linked, and should go to the districts. After all, we are discussing district councils responsible for populations of 75,000 to 100,000 and in some cases, like Bristol, for very much larger populations. As the Association of Municipal Corporations has put it in the context of the White Paper,
"the possibility of their being allocated more functions and the means of involving them in the local application of other functions that will have also to be exercised at county level need detailed examination before the present non-county borough and district councils are rushed by the county councils with indecent haste to agree a pattern of amalgamation for submission to a Boundary Commission which cannot be set up for many months."
There is finally, my Lords, the caveat which is entered by the Urban District Councils Association. It says:
"The new district councils will need to employ qualified staff, including engineers, architects, planners, public health inspectors, accountants and administrators. Unless they can practise their professional skill with full satisfaction they wilt not stay with district
1090
councils. The drift from the service is already being felt because of the uncertainty of the future. Replacement staff, who are often appointed at higher salaries, have less experience and are less well qualified. The result, inevitably, is that the standard of public service declines. Under reorganisation this movement can be reversed if full job satisfaction can be given."
My Lords, I believe that these proposals can be made to work, but they still need a great deal of thought, a great deal of consultation, and a great deal of clarification. I earnestly hope that the Government will find this debate helpful in preparing the necessary legislation, and in giving the country a soundly based democratic system of local government, able to stand up to central Government, and to give our people a service characterised not only by efficiency but also by humanity.

DISTURBANCES IN EAST PAKISTAN
3.49 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"The whole House will join me in regretting the loss of life in Pakistan, a fellow member of the Commonwealth, and in hoping for a restoration of normal conditions. As the House will appreciate, this is an internal matter, affecting relations between two parts of a sovereign country and I will not be expected to speculate on political matters which are the concern of the Pakistan Government. Her Majesty's Government are however watching the situation very closely and we remain in constant touch with the Pakistan authorities.
"A fortnight ago, on the advice of the Deputy High Commission in Dacca, some 200 United Kingdom and Commonwealth women and children were evacuated from East Pakistan. In the past few days of disturbances we have had no reports of any injury to members of the British Community in East Pakistan, who now number about 700. The British Council offices and library in Dacca were attacked in the course of

1091
operations on the night of March 25 in the area of the University; the damage cannot yet be properly assessed, but no member of the Council staff was hurt. There are no other reports of damage to British property, but as communications from East Pakistan have been restricted and communications between Dacca and other parts of the province disrupted, the House will appreciate that our information may not be complete."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement. We on this side of the House share with Her Majesty's Government their deep concern and sympathy with the Government and people of Pakistan in their hour of great difficulty. I am glad that the noble Marquess stresses that this is an internal matter. If I may, I would applaud the words of the Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Gandhi, when yesterday she called for restraint within her own country. I am glad that so far British subjects have not been involved, and I have complete confidence that Her Majesty's Government will ensure, if it is necessary to bring out our people, that steps will be taken.
May I make two points? First of all, we have no knowledge of the extent of damage, loss of life or effect upon the Pakistan community. However, I hope that if relief is called for Her Majesty's Government will be one of the first to offer relief to the people of East Pakistan. My second point I make with a degree of caution. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make it clear to the Government of Pakistan that it is very much in their own interests that knowledge and information should be made available to their friends within the Commonwealth, because I have a feeling that at the present moment some of our newspaper and radio reports could be well misunderstood in Pakistan and could well make things even more difficult there. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will in the most friendly way, put forward the suggestion to the Government of Pakistan that it is very much in their interests that information is made available.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I will certainly consider what he said. I entirely agree with him on his point about information, and I am quite certain that action will be taken in the way he suggests, as it will be if it becomes necessary to contribute anything in the form of international aid.
LORD BALOGH: Nevertheless, my Lords, I do not think that this occasion ought to pass without somebody in this House protesting against the destruction of democracy in East Pakistan.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT AND TRADE DISPUTES
3.54 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I will with permission repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in another place about the Social Security Bill which has been published to-day. The Statement is as follows:
"Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, like earlier legislation, provides that during trade disputes persons disqualified on that account for receiving unemployment benefit are not entitled to receive supplementary benefit for their own personal requirements though it is payable for their dependants and their rent. But for many years it has been customary to ignore the tax refunds and strike pay (and any other personal income) available to the people involved up to the level of the personal requirements of the strikers and others disqualified because of a trade dispute (currently £4·35) when calculating benefit for their dependants. The result is that the total household income is often brought up to the full supplementary benefit level.
"The Government believe that the principle embodied in the Act is an important one, generally accepted as fair by public opinion; and they do not think that the present practice, which is totally inconsistent with the principle, should continue. The Bill

1093
accordingly provides that the personal income of persons affected will be treated in exactly the same way as miscellaneous income is treated in other supplementary benefit claims. The effect will be that, in the great majority of cases, up to £1 only will be ignored instead of up to £4·35.
"When a trade dispute is over, Section 10 ceases to apply and the men, as well as their dependants, are eligible, for up to fifteen days, for supplementary benefit though during this period they are earning wages which will normally at the end of the second week be paid. Because these wages were being earned and advances (or 'subs') were given by many employers upon them, the need for supplementary benefit was in the past fairly limited. But in recent years, and particularly since a strike in 1969 after which employees succeeded in persuading their employer to withdraw an offer of subs, there has been increasing replacement of subs—which are repayable and come out of taxed income—by supplementary benefit which is neither repayable nor taxable. This has played a large part in the rapid increase in expenditure on benefit following strikes. In 1968 it was about £80,000 for large strikes alone. In 1969 and 1970, again for larger strikes only, the figure leapt to £670,000 and nearly £900,000 respectively. If all strikes were included, these figures would be higher still. This cannot be allowed to continue. The proper way of tiding workers over till their pay is due after return to work is by way of advances of earnings. The Bill therefore provides that supplementary benefit paid to men who have returned to work after a dispute, during which they were disqualified for supplementary benefit for themselves, shall be recoverable—though not at such a rate as to cause hardship—through the employer.
"Supplementary benefit paid to the families of strikers and others disqualified during strikes, and to strikers and their families after strikes, amounted in 1970 to £2½ million. The savings from the supplementary benefit changes I have referred to depend on the number and scale of disputes, but if the changes had been in force in
1094
1970, they would have saved about £1¼ million.
"The Bill further provides for a statutory deduction, in most cases of £2·05 (compared with 75p usually at present) from the supplementary benefit payable to those disqualified for unemployment benefit because they have left a job voluntarily or been dismissed for misconduct or refused to take a suitable job offered to them. This will save rafter more than £500,000 in supplementary benefit expenditure a year.
"My right honourable friend has not consulted the Supplementary Benefits Commission about the relevant provisions of the Bill although, as a matter of courtesy, they have been told of them.
"Turning to national insurance, the Bill implements the Government's intention, announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on October 27 last, to end the retrospective payment of benefit for the first three days of a spell of sickness, injury or unemployment. The net saving from this change is expected to be about £19 million in a full year.
"The Bill further provides for the abolition of social security local advisory committees. The committees now number 141, with 4,000 members, and in present circumstances sufficient useful work cannot be found to justify the demand they make on the time of so many busy members of the community. Abolition will save about £130,000 a year of public funds.
"I commend these proposals to the House, since they would last year, had they been in force, have saved half the cost to the taxpayer of supplementary benefit in this field—while protecting wives and children."
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the Statement that he has just made. I must say that the Government Chief Whip's request that comment on Statements should be brief comes strangely to me, having regard to the fact that we have now had a Statement which is nothing more nor less than a preview of a Second Reading speech to be made in another place on a Bill which is being

1095
formally introduced there to-day. This seems to me to be a Statement aimed not so much at Parliament as at the Tory Party outside and the Tory Press generally.
I am bound to say that the proposals are detailed. I do not regard this as the appropriate time to examine them in detail, and I do not propose to attempt to do so. But in the meantime I am bound to express shocked surprise that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have not been consulted. I understand also that even the Trades Union Congress have not been consulted about this Statement which has been made to-day, nor about the Bill which it precedes. That failure (if it is such) seems to me to be indicative of the sort of thing which has got the Government into trouble about the Industrial Relations Bill; namely, the failure to consult. This is a very highhanded way to treat something which is of vital importance to a vast number of people within this nation of ours, and I really must express my disquiet at the way in which it has been done.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, aware that the views expressed by my noble friend are pretty widely held in various parts of the country? This appears to be a case of the Government taking sides in a strike-breaking action, and I think it is deplorable. The Government are following, and will be accepted as following, a doctrinaire policy which is totally divorced from the realities of what is required for industrial peace.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, are noble Lords aware that Ruskin, in one statement in his great essay, Unto This Last, spoke about "the dignity of creative labour"? To remove the retrospective payment of the three waiting days of sickness or unemployment benefit (and I will only deal with that point) is an act of vengeance upon people, and undermines the whole fabric of social security. Finally, can we have an opportunity to try and discuss this matter calmly and cooly, without pejorative remarks, at some time in the future and not at this inopportune moment?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their remarks upon the Statement. In reply to the noble Lord,
1096
Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, perhaps it would be proper for me to revert to the words in the Statement which refer to the principle of the Act of 1966. It is the principle of that Act which this Statement is seeking to uphold, and we trust that it will not reflect upon children and wives. These are details which doubtless your Lordships will wish to discuss when the Bill comes to this House.
I fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, but perhaps it would be right for me to repeat that it is estimated that the non-contributory benefit side, without the three paid waiting days, will probably rise by £3 million under these proposals.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Trades Union Congress and the Board were not consulted?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this is a Parliamentary Bill. The Trades Union Congress and the Board (whose most distinguished Chairman sits in your Lordships' House) will have full Parliamentary opportunity to debate it as fully as they wish.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my noble friend's question, nor mine. I asked the simple question why they were not consulted. We know that they were not consulted. We should like to know why they were not consulted.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, because the Bill is going through Parliament.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I should have thought that consultation is not a necessary measure, but it would have been a useful measure. I think that this policy, which makes the Government appear at any rate vindictive, is not going to contribute to the sort of atmosphere in which we can discuss a reasonable economic policy: it will exacerbate the situation and will make for social strife. For the saving of a small amount of money, relatively speaking, to our national income of £42 billion, the Government are jeopardising the possibility of reaching a peaceful solution of our problems.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am not in a position to-day to say to noble

1097
Lords opposite that official consultation has taken place. What unofficial consultation has taken place, I do not know. I have no doubt that the Government would have been only too pleased to consult. There have been other occasions this year, and at the end of last year, when they would have been delighted to consult, but have not been able to do so.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, perhaps I may point out that it was the Non-Contributory Benefit Appropriation Accounts for 1968–69 and 1969–70 which noted:
"Personal income up to an amount greater than is permitted under the existing law is often disregarded in assessing benefit for a striker's dependants."
It is both with the desire to protect public money and, as I say, looking at the Act of 1966 that these proposals have been brought in.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, public money will be protected by keeping up production. Is not the noble Lord aware of the fact that this is the sort of policy which will force the Government into depressing production and income in this country? When he says that the wives and children are protected, is he not aware of the fact that this is one of the most hypocritical statements that I have ever heard? Obviously, the husband's money is also part of the family income.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder, then, why the 1966 Act was passed. I will also by way of answer send to the noble Lord details of the days lost in the last two years.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is such a nice man, has to make this Statement for the Government in the House to-day. I only wish that the Secretary of State were here, because this, I think, is a shocking example of the way in which this Government tend to treat bodies which ought properly to be consulted by the Government before they introduce legislation.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, with regard to the answer given to my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I think that what he said was not correct. I understood the noble Lord to say that the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commis
1098
sion had not been consulted but that he was a Member of this House and would have an opportunity, presumably, of speaking here. Am I not correct in assuming that if one is appointed by the Government to be Chairman of a nationalised industry one is prohibited from speaking in this House?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if I was in error on that point, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I think I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, whose remarks were pitched in the most generous way, that none the less I have no reservations whatever in making this Statement to-day. One cannot possibly have any reservations if one looks at the statistics of the last few years, which I have promised to send to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this country is still a democracy, and that the Government's proposals to-day will have overwhelming public support?

BROADCASTING: COMMERCIAL RADIO PROPOSALS
4.10 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is making in another place. It is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. I am presenting to-day a White Paper announcing the Government's proposals for establishing an alternative service of sound broadcasting. The Government propose a service of local radio to be transmitted on very high frequencies and on medium frequencies, and to be financed from the sale of advertising time. Up to 60 stations attaining coverage of about 65 per cent. of the population on V.H.F. can ultimately be provided. On medium frequencies the daytime coverage will reach about 70 per cent.: by night it will be about 25 per cent.
"The service will be entrusted to the Independent Television Authority, which will become the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The I.B.A.'s rights and duties in relation to its radio

1099
service will be similar to those of the present I.T.A. in relation to television. Rolling three-year contracts, renewable each year, are however proposed for the radio programme companies—a system that will combine strong powers of control for the Authority with prospects of greater security of tenure for the programme companies than can be obtained with fixed-term contracts.
"The Government's intention is that the stations should combine popular programming with a good service of local news and information. Another major objective of the new service will be to provide an alternative source of national and international news on radio. The White Paper identifies three ways in which this might be provided and will, I hope, promote discussion about the best means of securing a good central news service. Following detailed consultations with newspaper interests, the White Paper contains proposals which will entitle the press to participate in the companies awarded contracts.
"The White Paper also announces the Government's conclusion that the B.B.C.'s 20 station service of local radio should continue, and that in due course it should be transmitted not only on V.H.F.—as at present—but also on M.F. Thus it has proved possible to plan the new service alongside the existing services of the B.B.C., and I should like to thank the Corporation and its engineers for the assistance we have received from them in overcoming the frequency problems involved.
"The Government believe that competition will be as welcome in radio as it has been in television, and that our proposals will afford a significant extension of choice for the listener."
That is the end of the Statement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. The country has waited a very long time for the Government to produce this scheme. We on this side of the House are rather relieved at the small size of the mouse which the noble Lord has produced. We are thankful that the B.B.C. should at last have security of tenure for its twenty local
1100
radio stations, and that it should be getting the medium wave for which it has long asked.
There are one or two questions which it is very important that we should ask the noble Lord. The first relates to control of programme content. How will the Independent Broadcasting Authority control the programmes and—this is not mentioned at all—the engagement of local staff? Secondly, we notice that this service is to be paid for out of advertising money. Does the noble Lord consider that the scheme will create extra advertising money, or will it be redistribution of existing money? What effect does he consider that that will have on the ailing newspaper world and, in particular, on local newspapers? Thirdly—and this is the key question—has the noble Lord's right honourable friend made any agreement with the Musicians' Union and the copyright authorities about needle time? Without that he will obviously be pursuing a will-o'-the-wisp, but there is no mention of any such agreement in the Statement. Have the Government produced a viable scheme instead of one of their more grandiose ones, or have they produced a hotch-potch of compromise?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for the fact that the noble Baroness is not completely opposed to what she calls, in rather deflating terms, a mouse of a scheme. She asked me three questions: first, how will the control of local programme content be organised? This will be a matter for the I.B.A. to work out. Secondly, she asked me whether the advertising money would detract from the interests of local newspapers. When the noble Baroness reads the White Paper, she will see that local newspapers have certain rights that are laid down therein. For instance, any local newspaper with a significant circulation in an area which is covered by local radio will have the right to acquire an interest in that local radio service. Thirdly, the noble Baroness asked about needle time. This will be a matter for the local radio interests to take up with the various recording interests.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has been misled by the charm of my noble friend into thinking that this quite deplorable

1101
proposal is acceptable on this side of the House? Is he aware that, although it was an Election promise, many of us regard this as another sell-out for no good reason at all? Will he now tell us how the competition will be achieved? Is the B.B.C. to have similar stations? Is he aware that this cry of "competition" has always been misleading? What steps is he going to take to ensure that some of the profits from this service go into the Exchequer? This is in the public domain.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I was not misled by the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, in spite of the charm with which she made it, into thinking that she was particularly welcoming this proposal. She expressed a few utterances of relief that it was not less compatible to her beliefs than she thought it might have been. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said that this was a sell-out. I cannot accept that. It is going to be—
LORD SHACKLETON: A give away.
LORD DENHAM: No. The noble Lord has not yet had the advantage of reading the White Paper, and when he does he will see that all these points are taken care of very thoroughly. He may not be satisfied, but the points are gone into. I am not quite sure to what extent it is proper for me to quote from the White Paper, which will be available in the Printed Paper Office at any moment now. The noble Lord asked how competition was to be achieved. If I understood him correctly what he meant was: how were the 60 commercial stations going to be looked upon as competition for the 20 B.B.C. stations? Was that his point?
LORD SHACKLETON: One point.
LORD DENHAM: The noble Lord is not forgetting that the B.B.C. has its four main national programmes, and these certainly will provide competition.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that his noble friend Lord Belstead made a Statement in which clearly one section of the community is going to lose, and that the noble Lord himself has now made a Statement in which another section of the community is going to make a profit
1102
from a monopoly within their particular area?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I would stress that the community as a whole is going to gain from these proposals.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I refer to the noble Lord's reply to the question from my noble friend concerning needle time. I understood the noble Lord to say that this will have to be left to the particular stations that are set up to decide by means of negotiation. This is erroneous in the first place. The Government will find that these stations will be in great difficulty so far as this particular hurdle is concerned. In regard to the 60 stations that have been set up and the 20 that were set up under the B.B.C., what consideration had the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications given to the expanding or extending of local radio stations before the commercial lobby got at him in the other place in regard to the setting up of these commercial radio stations?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with regard to needle time, the independent radio interests will negotiate needle time in exactly the same way as the B.B.C. has negotiated it. One cannot expect an organisation to do this before it is set up. As to the expression the noble Lord, Lord Slater, used of my right honourable friend being "got at" by commercial interests, my reply is that my right honourable friend was not "got at" by commercial interests. He believes that this step is right for radio in the country as a whole, and that the B.B.C. is at the moment able to run 20 stations. Furthermore, he believes that it would not be possible for the B.B.C. to run more than 20 local stations without putting up the licence fee. Moreover, apart from competition, in which he firmly believes as do the whole of my Party, he strongly holds the view that the extra stations can be provided without putting up the licence fee and can provide a very good service for the community.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, regarding the Overseas Service of the B.B.C., may I ask my noble friend whether there will be no loss of broadcasting wavelengths in the medium and

1103
short wavebands? I am thinking particularly of the French language service of the B.B.C. I understand there is considerable disquiet within the B.B.C. because they may be losing some wavebands, particularly on the 371 metres wavelength. They do useful work in broadcasting to Europe and to Africa.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there will be some readjustment of wavelengths, but my understanding is that there will be no loss to overseas broadcasting.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, could the noble Lord be a little clearer about needle time? Since it is known that the Musicians' Union and other bodies are hostile to giving more needle time would it not have been better to start with that question, and find out if the whole thing could then proceed afterwards?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, local radio is going to be formulated to suit particular local interests. The recording interests on both sides will need to know a little more about what local radio is about before they can reach any agreement about percentage of time. Negotiation on percentage of needle time has been going on with the B.B.C. They have a certain percentage, and the same thing can be worked out for local radio; but it can be done very much better when the local radio organisation is set up and more is known about it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, could not a system be evolved by means of which vital and important Statements such as this would not interrupt an important debate? Can we find a formula to deal with this? I am sure we can if we try.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, a possible formula for this was suggested by my noble friend the Chief Whip, but it did not go down very well with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not a perverse use of language to describe the ending of the B.B.C. monopoly in the spoken word as the creation of a monopoly?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but it was the Government who chose to
1104
make the Statement; not the Opposition. I think that the noble Earl the Leader of the House also is conscious of the length of the debate. I would only say that I think he has this problem in mind, as I have. He might like to reassure my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek that this is a perpetual problem and we have not found an answer to it yet.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this matter is indeed a hardy perennial, but I should be very surprised if it is not under consideration by the small group of noble Lords who, at my request, are looking into the workings of your Lordships' House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION IN ENGLAND
4.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that some time ago the noble Earl the Leader of the House paid a delightful compliment to the members of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England; and I would on their behalf thank him most warmly for something that I know they will appreciate, particularly as perhaps it was more implicit than explicit in the White Paper that is before us to-day.
I should like to endorse what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said when he suggested what I might be going to say. I greatly welcome the Government proposals that are before us, particularly as the title on the outside of the White Paper—"Proposals for Reorganisation"—is a little misleading. As the draftsman got going he became more inspired by his theme, and by the last page these proposals for "reorganisation" are described as the most comprehensive plan for reform of local government in the century—as indeed they are. It is a real attempt to break through the deadlock of the last eighty years and I, for one, warmly welcome not only most of the content of the proposals but the timetable which has been proposed.
Here I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for many of the things he said, with most of which I agree. But I would at the same time sound a note of warning: if this process

1105
of consultation is to be carried too far, there is crave risk that the Government's bold plans to introduce legislation this autumn and have a new system working by 1974 will be disappointed. On that point of further consultation I am really against the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and in favour of the sturdy robust determination which the noble Earl showed for standing firm on most, but I hope not all, of the proposals and going through with them.
If I may now be personal, I must confess that I am completely unrepentant about the proposals which 10 of the 11 Royal Commissioners put forward unanimously in June, 1969. I do not want to upset any friends of the noble Earl who may be alienated if they think that a name which has become anathema to them—the name of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission—supports the Government's proposals. I do not want to alienate them from the Government; so let me make it quite clear that I do not think that the present Government's proposals are as good as those put forward by the Royal Commission; nor do I think them as good as those in the White Paper we had a year ago from what is now Her Majesty's Opposition.
I still think it would be better if we had a simpler pattern: if we had main authorities throughout the country—metropolitan areas in one place; counties, by all means, if you are bold enough to call them "counties", elsewhere—underpinned by local new-style town and city councils that would not only be the focus of local opinion but be able to take all sorts of action despite the constant misrepresentation of what the Royal Commission proposed for local councils. It would be best if we had that pattern, particularly if we could have the provincial councils as soon as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, and his Commission are ready with their proposals, complementing this pattern of main authorities, city councils and parishes.
However, the best must not be allowed to be the enemy of the good. It would be futile to ask the Government to do anything but introduce the best kind of two-tier system that they can. I think this is what the Government have set out to do, and the principles which they have announced in the White Paper are quite admirable. In many respects they
1106
echo the very words which we used in the Royal Commission Report—though that is not the only reason why I think them wise. For example, in paragraph 6 they say that we have been bedevilled in the past by the separation between county boroughs and counties, the big towns being separated from the hinterlands with which they ought to be associted if planning and other functions are to be administered in an effective way. And the Government have had the courage to propose the abolition of all existing county boroughs and county councils—good luck to them!
Then there is that excellent principle that services that are closely linked should be in the hands of one authority. This again is the principle on which we based our plan and what, more or less consistently, the Government proposed when they go on to apply the principles. Then there is the excellent principle that certain parts of the country have to be treated differently from others. We designated three. What is now Her Majesty's Opposition thought that there should be another two. The present proposals suggest one of those previously put forward and two more. So the Government now think that there should be six metropolitan counties and I, for one, would not demur at all, although that is going further than the Royal Commission went. The great thing about the metropolitan areas is that there it is possible to have two proper tiers, each large enough, and to give two separately elected councils full responsibility for a series of related functions. But in passing let me say that, when I last counted them, there were 11 of the proposed districts in the metropolitan areas which were under the 250,000 mark, several of them only a little, but seven quite substantially. That presumably is the sort of thing that is still worth considering further.
And outside the metropolitan areas many of the proposed new counties seem to me fine. Bristol, Bath, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset is almost (although not quite) one area that we proposed in the Royal Commission Report. Personally, I think it would be a good thing to have, as the Commission thought, a bit of West Wiltshire in, but doubtless some noble Lords would demur and I am not asking, at the moment, for

1107
any detailed change of that sort. Not only there but around Oxford, around Reading, in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Worcestershire and Wiltshire the right county areas are proposed. I think that the detail could be improved if at certain points they were shaved a little, but broadly speaking those are sensible areas which conform to the principles announced by the Government in the proposals.
But I must endorse most warmly what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, about the tight drawing of the metropolitan areas. We have not time this afternoon to go into that point in detail, but I am seriously disturbed that the worm which was in the bud of the 1888 legislation, the separation of county borough and county, which has grown to such a formidable snake since then, will be reborn in the new system: the worm of hostility between great urban areas too strictly confined within the proposed metropolitan boundaries and the surrounding country. Therefore I cannot praise or want to see put on the Statute Book as they are now either the metropolitan areas of Merseyside, Liverpool and the West Midlands or the adjoining counties, which I think, frankly, are still left too big and must be further shorn. I refer to Cheshire, for example, and to Lancashire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire.
I know that this is most unpalatable to many of your Lordships, but I must in honesty, as I go along with the proposals, tell your Lordships that I think the metropolitan areas are wrong at the moment and if they could be put right I should be much relieved—though from what the noble Earl has said it sounds to me as if only details could be changed. At least do not let us make them worse. It is bad enough that Cheshire should keep Warrington; but the siren voice of the Clerk to the Cheshire County Council may be asking that more of what is at the moment Cheshire should be kept within the Cheshire boundary, at the expense of those metropolitan areas to the North. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is shaking his head, and I am glad to see it. But we must not let the new counties claw back areas which—in
1108
Durham, for example—under the Government proposals are to be moved to a neighbouring authority. So I ask that some areas, particularly in the metropolitan regions, should be looked at again.
Another point on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, was right concerns the most serious problem of housing. I do not ask the Government—because it would be foolish of me—to go back on their determination to have a second tier, and if you have a second tier you must give them something worth while to do. Of course in the Royal Commission we found that the "crunch" came over the question of housing. If you are going to have second-tier district authorities they must have power to build, and I do not ask the Government to go back on that. But I do ask the Government most seriously to look again at what results, first of all in the metropolitan areas; and, instead of merely giving a reserve power to the metropolitan counties, to give them power to do housing if it is necessary.
Let them ask, and indeed instruct, the metropolitan county council to look at the whole housing needs of the metropolitan area and seek to determine priorities and decide where the needs for better housing should be met by new building, by redevelopment, by slum clearance, or by whatever it may be. There is a strategic job to be done in the housing field as part of the planning job (which is rightly given to the metropolitan county); but if there is any doubt about the metropolitan county having broad housing responsibilities, I think the whole plan will be in need of change much sooner than the noble Lord said he desired.
The same sort of problem recurs outside the metropolitan areas. Here by all means let the district be house-builders as well as managers of housing. But, for heaven's sake! do not let the county have only a reserve power to deal with problems "which transcend district boundaries". In any part of the country where housing is a serious problem, what problem does not transcend district boundaries? It seems to me that if the county council is to do its proper planning job (which of course not only is physical and land-use planning, but

1109
involves planning the various services entrusted to it, of which housing under the present proposals is not one) it must take account of housing needs, as well as the school needs and the Seebohm needs, in order that the family, with which we are particularly concerned when it is a troubled family, may not only have individual members looked after by the various welfare social services but very often, need for a house to be found for it so that the family is not broken up.
So I would ask the Government to think again about the way in which housing could be made a more integral part of what the metropolitan and the other county councils do, without going back on one of their main recommendations; namely, that there should be districts and that they should be housing authorities.
If those things were done I believe that these proposals would be much improved. Nevertheless, there are parts of the country (and Plymouth, Brighton and Peterborough come to mind) where one really cannot say that it is consistent to confess that it has been a great defect for the big town to be cut off from its hinterland and then to go on to say that the community of Plymouth—or of Brighton, or of Peterborough for that matter—must find itself henceforward part (in the case of Plymouth) of a county which stretches miles away to the North-East.
I do not myself want the Government to increase the number of main authorities, and I do not know, frankly, how they are to get round this problem of places like Plymouth. So, however different our original views or our present views may be from those which the Government now put forward, where there is, as in this case, a real problem within the general framework that the Government have laid down, we can only ask the citizens of Plymouth to believe that in future they can become a genuine part of a new community, consisting of the present Devonshire plus the county boroughs at present excluded from it.
I know that this is a harsh thing to suggest, and I doubt whether many of my friends in Plymouth would agree; but it seems to me that unless we can re-make the pattern, which at this stage
1110
we cannot, we must all, wherever we live, as an act of faith, accept the possibility that the new councils will not be simply the old county councils in a new guise taking over the county boroughs; those will genuinely have been abolished, and the new county, rising as a phœnix from the ashes of the old county and county boroughs, may be able to find itself a new community, which can be made more of a community as the years go on.
Finally, I would congratulate the Government on their courage in having taken decisions and gone bareheaded for a radical reform of local government that will last out the century. I ask them to have second thoughts on the points I have mentioned, because I think that an objective decision about main areas is at this stage absolutely crucial for the future of local government: we shall not have another chance of doing it, most of us hope, this side of the year 2000. And I sincerely hope that in answering the questions not yet answered in the White Paper they will be generous to local government, and put their faith in the possibility that these new authorities will be both democratic and efficient.
Will they, I ask, be allowed to have that general power to do, and pay for, things in the interest of the inhabitants of their area which we in the Royal Commission thought all the new authorities, including the parishes, should have? Will the parish, in which I believe and about which the White Paper towards the end makes polite remarks, be freed from this rather ludicrous anomaly of the limit of the farthing rate which is all it can spend in the interests of its own inhabitants? Will the councils of the future be as big as the great councils of to-day, or will the Government have some regard for what both the Management Committee on Local Government unanimously recommended and the Royal Commission endorsed—namely, that even the largest authorities should have a membership of not more than 70?
There is nothing mystical about the number 70. But will the Government remember that for the efficient working of a council and its committee system a lot depends on not having the rather ludicrous position that there must be a lot of committees and sub-committees,

1111
otherwise there will not be enough work for councillors? This means finally that one has to face the question of aldermen, and there has been this remarkably unanimous, completely objective, recommendation, both from the Royal Commission and from the Committee, that for all its great virtues and historic value the aldermanic bench should not be part of the new system.
Finally, let me say how greatly I hope that the almost ludicrously ambitious timetable the Leader of the House mentioned will prove to be practicable—that we get the legislation on the Statute Book in 1972, and that thereafter the electoral arrangements will be made, elections held, and the councils take over in April, 1974. Nothing will give me, and I believe all the members of the Commission (though I do not speak for them), more pleasure than to think that within a few years we shall have swept through the doldrums in which we have all been labouring over the last 25 years, and come out with something that preserves, not all the essentials but the best of the traditional local government system—something that gives us a chance of facing successfully these tremendous problems, of population, of motor car increase and of all the other factors which not only beset us to-day but will become increasingly grave as time goes on.
4.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I must start by redeclaring an interest in this matter, because I have the honour to be President of the County Councils Association. I would like to congratulate the Government on the celerity with which they have carried through their consultations and reached their decisions, and on the admirable brevity of the White Paper. I should like to congratulate, too, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on the lucidity and succinctness of his exposition this afternoon, qualities we have learned to expect from my noble friend.
We all enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and to the practical points he made from his very wide experience and great knowledge of local government. I agree with what he said about the consultations held with the members and staffs of local
1112
authority associations, and I am sure he will agree with me in saying that our members and staffs were proud to have been able to put their experience at the disposal of the Government. When the Bill comes along I think we shall have to ask the Post Office to set up a "hot line" between the Presidents of the five local authority associations. Perhaps we might discuss that together a little later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, was once again a delight to listen to. Like many of your Lordships, I admire his techniques tremendously, particularly the facility he has for not holding a wad of notes in his hand, as I have, and therefore being able to make those magnificent gestures which I find so persuasive. It is right, I am sure, that we should again on this occasion pay tribute to the work of the Royal Commission who performed their task under his skilful chairmanship. That most thorough, comprehensive investigation, most competently carried out, was an absolute prerequisite of the reforms that are now brought forward in this White Paper. I think many of us will have been particularly glad to hear from the noble Lord that, on the whole, he is not unhappy about these proposals. That is very good to hear.
In our debate a year ago I remember saying that if the unitary authorities had been regarded as main authorities I should have welcomed them wholeheartedly, and that if the work of the second-tier authorities was to be worthwhile it seemed desirable that they should be given some direct statutory responsibilities. I owned to being personally a two-tier man. In these respects the proposals of the present White Paper seem to me much better. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, is not happy about the allocation of housing responsibilities. No doubt that matter will be discussed when the Bill comes along. But I should have thought that these proposals on housing could be made practicable and workable.
One thing I am sure needs emphasis, and that is that the new counties are not simply the present county councils given a new lease of life. They are new bodies, with greater resources and with membership reinforced no doubt from the elected representatives drawn from the cities and

1113
the county boroughs within the area. They should therefore be far stronger bodies. I think it is important that the cities and county boroughs, who may feel a little sad at their apparent incorporation in the counties, should realise that they will be genuine new bodies in which their citizens will play very important roles indeed. The metropolitan counties, composed of areas built up or to be built up, are surely a sound concept.
The West Riding of Yorkshire seems, in principle, to merit some further consideration as having a tremendous lot of rural areas within the present proposed boundaries. Another area that I am sure deserves further consideration is that included in the present county of Somerset. There may be a good many other areas in the country that individually feel hardly served. The proposed new county centred on Bristol and Bath seems sensible, but the reasons for cutting Somerset—and Somerset is a vigorous local authority—from a population of, I think, 585,000 to 349,000, do not seem to have yet been given specifically by the Royal Commission or by the Government. I should have thought that those reasons would have to be very strong indeed to justify such a severe restriction to almost the smallest of the new counties. Therefore I would ask my noble friend, when he replies, to say that his right honourable friend will look again at some of these boundaries in detail, and particularly those between Somerset and new county authority to its North.
We are all eagerly waiting to learn more about the new districts. One can see no reason why they should not be thoroughly effective bodies for those services which are best carried out close to local electors and which have the greatest local interest. I should have thought they would be admirable for such purposes if the boundaries are well drawn. I hope that the boundaries will be drawn with far more attention to the local sense of community interest and loyalty than to uniformity of population; and I gather from the White Paper that that is the intention.
Those of your Lordships who live in country areas know how powerful local loyalties can be. I remember that about three decades or more ago, when I was on a local authority, we had to choose a site for a new school to serve two villages only four miles apart. We had
1114
the greatest difficulty in getting agreement as to where the new school should be sited. We could not understand the depth and strength of the disagreement until, at one meeting with the local managers, we heard one old farmer say to the other, "Why should we join with they? They be dirty Roundheads." That shows how long these things can last.
The other thing we are awaiting with anxious concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has mentioned, is the Green Paper on Finance, which is always a matter of critical importance. I entirely agree with him that the order is right: first the functions, and then finance. But in this case, in view of the promise of devolution of responsibilities, that is particularly so—indeed, it is difficult to forecast how successfully the new bodies will work until we know more about the financial resources they will command.
So much for structural reforms. These reforms will reduce the number of authorities answerable to the central Government in England from about 1,200 to about 370, and that must be a notable improvement. But of far more importance is whether a spirit of vigorous local democracy will activate these new bodies. Will they breathe a spirit of virile local democracy? This depends, I suppose, on two things: first, that the devolution of responsibility should be real and, secondly, whether elected representatives of the highest quality will be inspired to come forward to participate in this work.
I think one can feel reassured, with the emphasis in the White Paper, that the Government resolve is to decentralise and reduce the incidence of central control. If that happens, then one of the things that we shall have to accept—and I hope willingly—is a reduced level of uniformity: standards will differ pretty widely between one authority and another, and may seem to be higher in some cases than in others. However, that is what meaningful devolution of decisions means. When uniform standards conflict with local democratic choice, it is the latter which must prevail.
As regards the quality of the elected representatives, that depends again, I suppose, partly on the reality of the responsibilities devolved and partly on a realistic remuneration for the time spent.

1115
The amount of time involved for members at the new county level, at any rate, will be very considerable indeed, and very few people nowadays are in a position to give a substantial amount of time during their working lives without some financial recompense. The extent to which new sources of elected representatives will be tapped can be only a matter of speculation, but this is perhaps the most important single factor, and I personally am pretty optimistic. I hope indeed that in the future local government may afford a productive recruiting field for your Lordships' House.
So, my Lords, as always, it is the less tangible things that are most decisive for good or ill; the spirit more important than the structure. I remember that the headmaster of my old school was said to have exhorted the boys in these words, "Be pure in heart, or you will be thrashed". Well, the Government's paraphrase for that admonition to local authorities would be, "Practise local democracy, or your grant will be cut". My Lords, you cannot create a vigorous spirit of local democracy by legislation, but you can create the best conditions and best opportunities for it. One thing on which, I am sure, the success or failure of this great reform will turn is the extent to which it calls forth a vigorous and active spirit of local democracy. It is because I believe that the structure which has been outlined by the Government, with the help of the Royal Commission, is well designed to fit the conditions that lie ahead that I warmly support the proposals in the White Paper.
4.57 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I think I should adapt what I have to say this afternoon by following the noble Viscount who has just spoken in acknowledging the part which has been played by the local government associations in reaching the proposals which are set forth this afternoon in the White Paper. The noble Viscount, who is President of the County Councils Association, felt no embarrassment in doing that, and I, as a former President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, feel no embarrassment either. We are very grateful for the work that they have done. I think we all appreciate the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in the House this
1116
afternoon. We always regard him as one of the principal protagonists of local government.
This White Paper marks the end of a long and somewhat disturbing chapter in our municipal history. For twenty years local government has existed in an atmosphere of change, uncertainty, and procrastination. Successive Governments have declared their intention of reforming local government. There have been White Papers, other sorts of Papers, Boundary Commissions and all the machinery of bureaucracy, but nothing appears to have emerged from this long struggle to find an acceptable solution.
If my recollection is correct, the story began in 1946 with the "all-purpose" proposals made by Sir Malcolm Eve in his Report of that year. His proposals might well have formed a suitable basis for the reform of local government, but for some reason the Minister of the day smothered the Report or, at any rate, got rid of it and nothing more was heard of it or of Sir Malcolm Eve's proposals. Then my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor set up a Boundary Commission, but it was so slow in getting out its work that people got tired of it and that, too, was put away.
Then came the Royal Commission with the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, as Chairman. I think all of us welcomed the appointment of the Royal Commission and the appointment of its Chairman. We have welcomed Lord Redcliffe-Maud on several occasions since. This afternoon he gave us a most invigorating and encouraging speech to which I am sure all of us listened with the greatest attention. It is perhaps a little surprising to find Lord Redcliffe-Maud advocating a two-tier system. I always thought of him as the apostle of the unitary system, but I may have been mistaken.
Whether the local authorities will accept the new proposals or whether they will find some of them unacceptable, everybody concerned with local government will be grateful to the Minister who appears to have put an end to this protracted and uncertain dream. He has found a solution which will, I think, come to be acceptable—perhaps with modifications—to everybody. His success may be due to the fact that he has departed as little as possible from the existing pattern of local authorities. Local authority

1117
people are conservative in their ways, and the similarity to the existing set-up which these proposals bear may well have been one of the causes for their so ready acceptance. There are certain matters, to which I shall refer in a moment, where I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept certain modifications to his proposals. Nevertheless, he has succeeded in finding a base upon which a substantial measure of agreement may be founded. That in itself is no small achievement.
Let me turn to certain aspects of the White Paper regarding which there is not likely to be any substantial measure of agreement. The county boroughs will disappear altogether. That is a bold proposal. Everyone in local government has been brought up to believe that the unitary "all-purpose" authority, administering all local services within its area, is the most effective and efficient form of local government. That was one of the aspects of the Royal Commission's Report. As I said, it is a bold step. Whether or not it will succeed only the future will show. But I believe that in the new circumstances of these proposals, the county boroughs will eventually forget that they once enjoyed a very wide measure of autonomy. The Minister has made it plain that his insistence upon the two-tier system is a matter of Government policy, and for that reason he is not likely to give way on these proposals. In those circumstances, the local authorities feel that it would not be right that they should press the Minister to give way on a matter which is clearly one of major Government policy.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will explain that last sentence. Is he speaking on this occasion for the Association of Municipal Corporations?
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I do not speak for anybody. The views that I am now putting forward are probably views which are shared by the A.M.C., of which I was once a President. But I am not speaking as an advocate who has any special interest in the proposals that I am putting forward.
The loss of powers and functions which will pass from some of the county boroughs who are not included in the
1118
metropolitan districts is very severe and is perhaps very serious for them. I want to put to your Lordships this afternoon, and particularly to the Minister, the case of such places as Plymouth, Cardiff, Leeds and Nottingham, all of whom will lose services for which they have hitherto been responsible. It may well be that some of these authorities will be the centre of a district area very much greater than the area which appears to be envisaged in the White Paper. The White Paper speaks of districts with a minimum population of 40,000. Some of the districts which contain these great cities have a much greater population than that. They may well have populations of 75,000 or 100,000. These places have the populations and the necessary resources which enable them to conduct with full efficiency very many of the services that will be passing from them.
What I want to ask the Minister is this. If a county borough or a municipal borough has a population adequate to enable it to maintain the major services which would otherwise pass to the county, will the Minister consider in that individual case transferring a service to a new district—if the Minister likes to call it a new district—composed of the former borough and its hinterland? If the Minister would do that, I think it would go a long way to overcome the sense of soreness that some of these greater boroughs feel about their loss of powers. Services have been conducted with full efficiency for very many years by these authorities, and there is no reason why after the separation they should not be conducted with full efficiency in the future. I ask the Minister to look at the case of these big municipal areas to see whether something on those lines can be done.
I want now to turn to another matter. Much will depend upon the fixing of areas and boundaries and I regret that this is to be clone at a very early stage. I understand that it is intended to fix boundaries and areas at the stage of legislation. My Lords, the districts will not be fixed at that time but at a later date. They will be fixed by the Boundary Commission. As I say, much will depend on the fixing of the right areas and boundaries. Indeed, if the new order of things is to settle down, it is

1119
very important that the boundaries and areas should be carefully and sympathetically fixed. But the Boundary Commission are not to be brought in until a later stage. I would suggest to the Minister that the Boundary Commission ought to be introduced at a much earlier stage than is proposed in the White Paper. The Boundary Commission would be a suitable body to fix the new boundaries and areas of the new counties, and I hope that the Minister will consider whether the task of fixing the areas and boundaries of the new counties ought not to be assigned to the Boundary Commission as well as the task of fixing the boundaries of the new districts. I hope that the Minister will agree to consider this proposal which I believe may do much to ensure that the new authorities get off to a good start.
My Lords, the disappearance of the county boroughs is, I think, the major change proposed in the White Paper. After the county boroughs, the next major change seems to me to be the disappearance of the rural districts. There has never been a time in our local government history where there were not administrative units whose separate existence was based upon the rural character of their territory. It is true that many of the rural district councils today have become largely urban in their population and general character. Nevertheless, their status is still based upon their supposed rural character and now, as I understand the White Paper, they are to be merged in the new district councils which will consist of boroughs and the present urban district councils. This is an expression, as I understand it, of the Ministry's policy to end what the White Paper calls,
"the artificial separation of big towns from their surrounding hinterlands for functions whose planning and administration need to embrace both town and country."
I believe that the distinction between urban and rural units has ceased to have any reality, and I believe that the policy of combining urban and rural authorities is probably the right one. If the policy of combining these authorities is to be made acceptable it will, as I said, involve great care in the fixing of boundaries and areas.
1120
My Lords, I have one further point. I welcome, as I think everybody welcomes, the new proposals to reduce the number and scale of controls which central Government now exercises over local authorities. There have been many proposals to reduce these controls; Ministers have given pledges that they would be reduced, but nothing much has resulted; indeed, the number of controls seems actually to have increased. I hope that these promises, which are made in the White Paper and which the Minister has repeated, will prove more fruitful and that we shall be able to arrive at some solution which will ensure to the local authorities a greater measure of responsibility than they enjoy at present.
One last point—this may be a minor matter, but I attach importance to it. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, told us that the office of alderman is to go. I rather regret the passing of the alderman. I was an alderman myself once and I think it is a useful and valuable institution. But I am glad to know that the mayor may have his robe back. I believe that a little pageantry in municipal work is not a bad thing. The robe, I am quite sure, impresses on the mind of the wearer the honour and responsibility of the office which he holds and that office has been assumed for generations by worthy men from the earliest days of our local administration. For those reasons I hope that the mayor will still be allowed to have the robe. I wish that the Minister could recover for mayors the status of magistrate during their period of office which was taken from them by recent legislation—I thought quite unnecessarily.
My Lords, perhaps I may end on the note on which I began. I should like to express my appreciation of these proposals and my belief that they will be effective. May I also express my thanks to the Minister for having achieved what nobody else has achieved—a measure of agreement upon which those proposals can be based.
5.17 p.m.
BARONESS SHARP: My Lords, I should like to join with those noble Lords who have expressed a welcome for the White Paper, especially my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I, too, welcome these proposals, because I think

1121
they offer the promise of a genuinely radical reform of the local government structure and the creation of a network of relatively few and really big authorities to carry the main operational responsibilities.
I should also like to refer to the question of the two-tier system. Like my noble friend, I accept the Government's proposals for two tiers. I think the truth is that all of us who have struggled with the difficult question of how best to organise local government have really groped after a two-tier system. We have all believed that one must have big authorities for the major operational responsibilities, and that at the same time there must be a local representative body for the local issues and the many matters of local interest which to a great many people are perhaps the most important and the most interesting part of local government. We on the Commission went for the local councils. Our proposals were widely misrepresented, but apart from that there was, I think, a genuine disbelief in the country that in the rural districts the parish councils would be big enough to make an effective base. I accept that; although there are certainly problems associated with it. I am content to see a second tier of sensibly constructed district councils to be responsible for the local issues. There will be problems and overlap between district councils and county councils and there will be a price to be paid for a second tier; nevertheless I think it is the right way to go.
I also agree with the proposal for six metropolitan counties instead of the three which the Royal Commission proposed. Given the two-tier structure that is proposed across the country, I think that is perfectly sensible, although with other noble Lords I have great reservations about the boundaries of some of these counties.
My main criticism of the Government's proposals is that in some areas they simply do not apply their own criteria. Some of the areas suggested in the map which they attach to their proposals owe a great deal more to political pressures, I think, than to any idea of constructing a rational local government area. I think this applies only to some areas—at least it is acute only in some areas—and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord
1122
Redcliffe-Maud, said about the rightness of many of the areas proposed. But some of these areas simply will not do.
The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, referred to Plymouth. There has been a good deal of clamour and protest from some of the existing county borough councils against being joined with their counties, and a tendency to count heads and say, "If we are being joined with a county and the result will be that there will be a substantially larger population coming in from the county than coming in from the county borough, that will not do at all: we shall be submerged". I do not feel any sympathy for that point of view because I think that the thesis that town and country (or, if you like, county and county borough) should be joined together because they have a common interest, because they are interdependent, because their fates are inextricably interlocked, is right. But when we come to the proposal to put Plymouth, right down in the South-Western corner of Devon, in with the whole of the county, this is not part of the thesis. The Government themselves say that one of the criteria that they want to apply, and rightly propose to apply, is:
"Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shoping or local activities."
Elsewhere, they say that the areas—that is, areas for planning and transportation—must have,
"a sensible external independence and internal cohesion".
There is no internal cohesion between the area centred on Plymouth and the whole of the county of Devon; and I am stressing this particularly because I think this is one of the very important areas of the country.
In all my long years in the Ministry I watched the Plymouth City Council pull itself up after the blitz and really do an enormous amount towards creatting, in Plymouth, one of the strong growing points of the South-West. There really is an area that is based on Plymouth, that is related to Plymouth, and which makes a Plymouth County, which is not part and parcel of Devon; and if you throw Plymouth into Devon you arrest and cripple a great deal of the enormous efforts that have been made in that part of the country to pull up

1123
the City and to increase its strength and its economy.
I do not go with my noble friend Lord Redeliffe-Maud in saying that he hopes that the Government will not create more major areas. I know of no magic in the number of 44 for the major areas, and I am quite sure that one additional major area which really must be made is a county based on Plymouth, with a population, I would guess, of around 320,000 or 330,000. Incidentally, it is a piece of sentimental nonsense to say that the Tamar is still the western boundary of Plymouth, because it is not. Anybody who goes there knows perfectly well that Plymouth has spread across the Tamar; and in creating these new local government areas, however much one may want to stick to the historic county boundaries where one can, one really must not do that to the point of crippling a proper local government area, as the proposals in this particular area would do.
If I may give another example where it seems to me that politics have dictated what is proposed rather than local government, it is in the suggestion that Coventry should be part of the West Midlands metropolitan area. This, honestly, is nonsense. There is very little connection, in the sense of commuting, travel to work, and so forth, between Coventry and the West Midland conurbation; and Coventry, as you have only to look at your map to realise, is part and parcel of Warwickshire. Between Coventry and the West Midlands conurbation there is a very important, though very narrow and extremely vulnerable, green belt. The Government are devoted to the maintenance of green belts around the other metropolitan areas, but the green belt around Coventry, apparently, is of no importance. The reason for this odd proposal, I am told, is that the Coventry City Council, faced with the prospect of losing its county borough status, said, "At least we will be a metropolitan district and will retain the greater functions that metropolitan districts are to have, and not decline to an ordinary district". If you want an example of the hopelessness of trying to settle the reorganisation of local government according to the wishes of indivi
1124
dual local authorities, this is a perfect one.
One other example I should like to give, which I suspect will command a great deal less sympathy in your Lordships' House, is the proposal to retain almost unimpaired the county of Hampshire. If I may again refer to my years in the Ministry, I think that no county council in my experience was a better one than Hampshire; or did more to try to help in the whole problem of London's overspill; or was a more competent, efficient, progressive, far-ranging county council. Nobody, therefore, who has been concerned with local government could want to propose the break-up of Hampshire. But explosive growth has broken up Hampshire, and the local government pattern of the future simply has to recognise this. There really is no, or very little, connection, now between fast-growing Basingstoke in the North (which, together with Aldershot and the Blackwater Valley, is really far more part of Berkshire) and the huge growing complex of Southampton and Portsmouth in the South. You really do not provide a sensible local government structure, and in particular you do not provide one which complies with the criteria set out in the Government's own White Paper, if you try to retain the county of Hampshire intact.
I could mention other examples, but I will not take up more time. I should like to come on now to the metropolitan counties. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that it is very unfortunate that we have to contemplate that the boundaries of these metropolitan counties must be tied to the bricks and mortar. I realise very well—perhaps no one here realises more clearly than I—what are the pressures that produce this result. I have lived with the bitter, furious battles between the Manchester conurbation and Cheshire; between the Merseyside conurbation and Lancashire; between the West Midlands and Warwickshire and Worcestershire; and I can understand that it is perhaps too much to ask any Government of any complexion to create what would undoubtedly be right from the local government point of view—that is, areas around these metropolitan counties which properly include the country with the

1125
towns. It may be that we have to live with this, but do not let the Government (if this is a parliamentary expression) fool themselves. What they say here, admitting that none of these proposed metropolitan counties can contain the solution of all the planning problems of the conurbations, is:
"… where it is impossible to meet all housing and redevelopment needs within the county boundaries, the answer will lie in development well outside the metropolitan area, in accordance with a carefully worked out regional plan."
Who, my Lords, is going to implement that plan? Not the county councils, nor yet the district councils. This is what we have been trying these last 10 or 15 years. There have been carefully worked out regional plans, but they have not been acceptable to the outer county councils or to the outer district councils—quite understandably so.
If there is one thing that we have learned over the past years it is that it is useless to have planning powers in one authority and the powers to implement the plans in another. This gets you nowhere. All we can do is to hope—although I am not sure how firmly we can hope—that something will come out of the Crowther Commission; because if we cannot face the idea of a local government structure for these metropolitan counties which will include both the urban and the rural areas, and so enable them to solve their vast problems of redevelopment, of traffic, of transport for themselves, we may have to look for something in the shape of provincial councils to do the planning and also to have the powers to see that the plans are carried through. Otherwise in these parts of the country—and these are the places where the movement for radical local government reform was born—we shall find ourselves where we have been for these last 10 or 20 years: struggling with the eternal fight between the conurbations and the counties.
On another, less important, point, referring back to what I was saying about the Government's areas in some places not complying with their own criteria, even if you accept that the right boundaries of the conurbations are the bricks and mortar boundaries, the Government have not drawn such boundaries. For example it is nonsense to leave Bromsgrove out of the West Midlands, and
1126
more than nonsense when at the same time you put Coventry in. It is nonsense to leave Runcorn and Widnes out of Merseyside, or Warrington out of one or other of the North-Western conurbations. There are other parts of the country with problems of the same kind. It may be thought that these are minor instances; but all of them are examples of the failure of the Government, under political pressures, to carry out on their map the excellent criteria which they have set out in their White Paper.
But how does one get these areas broadly right? I do not think there are exact or precisely right areas; but we cart all recognise what are broadly the right areas within the Government criteria. My view is that there is no more hopeless way of trying to settle local government areas than for the Government to attach a map to a Bill, leaving both Houses of Parliament to have a good hack at it. As drawn now, such a Bill would go to the Houses of Parliament as something of a mess. What it would come out like, I shudder to think! It seems to me that the Government ought to use for these major areas the technique that they are proposing to use for the district boundaries—and that they would be well advised in their own interests to do so.
Accepting that they lay down the criteria; that they settle what conditions the areas are to comply with; that, if they must, they lay down that so far as possible the county boundaries are to be retained—wherever that can be done without violating their own criteria for what will make a sensible local government area; thereafter, the only sensible way to go about it, the only way that holds some promise for a stable future, is to have a small, totally objective Commission to say that, given these principles, these should be the areas. I am not suggesting that the resulting areas will be very different from what the Government have in their map. I think that they w ill be different at points; but I do not think that as a general view the map will look all that different. Moreover, I think that if this suggestion of a Commission were adopted, it would protect the Government from the pressures of their friends and would avert some of the odium that any Government, whatever areas they decide on, are going

1127
to incur. It would also give some confidence to all Parties in Parliament that, having had the arguments about principles, the areas were broadly in accordance with the principles they had approved. I think it would offer very much more prospect of stability.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that he hoped that we were settling the local government system for fifty years ahead. I think that we should be doing so; but that we shall only do so if we resolve to find a way of drawing the areas so that they can command confidence both in local government (however much the local authorities may kick about them) and in Parliament. It may be said that this will not do because it will take too long. I am not persuaded myself that to do things in this way need take much longer. It seems to me that once the White Paper has been debated in both Houses there would emerge—as there seems to have emerged in this House—pretty general agreement on the kind of reorganisation to be proposed, on the principles which are to govern it, and, broadly, on the number and size of areas it is hoped to achieve. It seems to me that it would then be possible, almost right away, to start the process of an objective examination of what the answers should be. But even if, at the end of the day, it is said that by doing it this way, by having a Commission, it will take six months longer (and if one says six months, it may be that that means 12 months, because elections must be held in April) I would think that a price well worth paying. For I am convinced—and I think that somebody has already said this—that what we do on the main areas is at this stage the absolutely key thing. All the rest—the districts, the boundaries, the distribution of functions, the finance, the relation to central Government, the electoral arrangements and so on—can follow; they can be adjusted. But the main areas will settle the shape and determine the fate of local government for decades ahead.
While there may be a permanent Commission to amend the main areas, they will not make radical changes soon after the Bill is passed. Indeed, any major amendment of the main areas for possibly many years ahead is a major operation to be avoided unless some
1128
revolutionary change somewhere makes a change necessary. This is my main thesis.
There are however, one or two things about the district councils that I should like to mention. I believe that in relation to the district councils there ought to be great flexibility in the functions and responsibilities taken on by different sorts of district councils. I am not here thinking simply in terms of size. I do not think that size is the most important issue. I think that the most important issue is the character of the area. It seems to me that if you think of Bath or Brighton, Leamington Spa, Warwick or Scarborough—you will see the kind of town I am talking about—such towns should be allowed to exercise considerably more responsibility under the headings of planning, preservation, amenities, local traffic, development and so on, than is necessary in the case of other towns. I think it is also different in the case of a county with one great city—for example, Oxfordshire or Norfolk. The situation there, I think, is very different from that of a county which has two or three, or perhaps more, large towns of different characters. I would hope that the simplest structures (the Oxford-Oxfordshirle type) or the new county/county borough authority would, in time, decide that it was sensible to operate very nearly as a single authority; because the interests of the city and the county were much the same, and jealousies and hostilities, or just differing ambitions, were not very evident there. But you have a very different situation where there is a seaside town—Southend, for example, on the edge of Essex, or other towns in a similar situation; or in the case of the two-headed or three-headed kind of county area. There I think it would be right to contemplate a good deal more responsibility being exercised by the larger districts.
I am not talking about the major functions that will be the responsibility of the county councils in every case; but about all the functions which are in the sphere of planning and traffic, of amenities, of development, housing improvement, preservation and so forth. In relation to this kind of function we ought to be prepared to contemplate different patterns in different counties. Maybe this

1129
will be said to be a great confusion; but after all, my Lords, counties and towns are and will be different from each other.
Circumstances in the counties and towns will differ from each other, and I believe that that ought to be reflected in the distribution of functions between districts and counties, and in different counties. I think that what this points to ultimately is county schemes, and this would be right. I would start off by laying down the divisions of functions in the new legislation; but I believe it would make sense to contemplate county schemes for adopting these—with the inevitable corollary that the Secretary of State should settle disputes where the counties and their districts cannot agree. So the division of functions—take the division of planning functions in particular counties—could be tailored to suit the needs or circumstances of particular counties, and, one would even hope, the wishes of the various authorities.
The last point I want to make is to reinforce, if I can, what was said about housing by my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I agree that if we have a second tier, district councils must be allowed to build houses, and should be allowed to manage them. Indeed, one of the advantages of a second tier is that you have a local authority, a truly local authority, which can take part in the management of houses. I know there is the problem that this will then be divorced from the welfare administration, and that will have to be got over by a real decentralisation of welfare administration by the counties. But the main point I want to make—or, rather, the point has been made, and I want to reinforce it—is that the assessment of housing requirements, the decisions where and how housing needs are to be met, must be a county responsibility.
This is so for two reasons. One, as has been said, is that it is very closely linked with planning; with the location of employment; with traffic and transport considerations; with the land that is to be released for housing. The other, and equally important, reason is that people who need houses very seldom nowadays, in this age of personal mobility, need them in this, that or the other district. They need them within an area. This is just as true in metropolitan counties as in others. In London, for instance, many
1130
people do not have to find a house in this, that or the other borough; though, apart from what help they can get from the Greater London Council, that is how they are stuck. I think we must avoid that situation; it is a cruel one for people who need houses.
If we are to get anywhere near dealing with the housing problem we must have the assessment of housing requirements and decisions about how to meet them, made by the larger and wider-scale authorities; and, further, the county councils must also have concurrent building powers with the districts in order to see that the housing needs are met. Once again, provided that the Government observe their own criterion, we shall be home and dry. The Government say that the counties will need powers to deal with the housing problems that transcend the boundaries of districts; and wherever the housing problem is acute it does transcend the boundaries of districts. So I do not anticipate that there will be much difficulty about this.
There are other things which could be said about the division of functions betweeen counties and districts, but there is only one to which I will refer. I know that this runs counter to what the Maud Commission said—and at the time I agreed with them—but I believe that in the metropolitan counties education should be the responsibility of the county council. I am certain that this would be in the interests of education. I believe we made a mistake in London when we made the education arrangements that were there made. I believe that we should have clone better to follow the recommendations in the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley—the Herbert Commission—in which it was suggested that responsibility for overall policy and finance should be with the Greater London Council, with responsibility for the management of the schools being with the borough councils.
The Department of Education and Science said then—and I do not doubt that they would say it to-day—that you cannot split education. But if you can split planning, you can split education; it is a lot easier. In any case, I think that the enormously important consideration is that in the great conurbations—Greater Manchester or Merseyside, or whatever it may be—it is very important

1131
that the standard of education in the poorer parts should be as high as in the wealthier parts; that the wealth of the wealthy parts should come to the help of the poorer parts; that the teacher service should be one for the whole conurbation. I believe that if one is thinking about the interests of education—and that is what one should be thinking of—one would be bound somehow to give overall responsibility for policy and financing to the county council.
My Lords, one could go on talking about local government for ever; I have been going on about it for the last twenty years, and perhaps to-day I should now conclude.
5.46 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the only interest I have to declare is that I am a member of the South-East Economic Planning Council. In a country in which we have, side by side, single-tier local government and two-tier local government it is inevitable that there should be conflict when we are considering reform. My ideas are much nearer to Maud than to the White Paper, but I believe that the time for this conflict has passed. I therefore looked at the White Paper in a positive way, trying to find out how far it satisfied certain principles. The two most important of those principles were, first, that the new areas of local government should be cohesive; and, secondly, that the new form of local government should foster rather than retard the democratic interests.
I was therefore delighted to read paragraphs 8 to 13. They are so important to my argument that I should like to quote from them. In paragraph 8 it states:
"Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition. Local boundaries, the allocation of responsibilities and the system as a whole should be understood and accepted as sensible by electors, by members and by officers. And, above all else, a genuine local democracy implies that decisions should be taken—and should be seen to be taken—as locally as possible."
This is reinforced in paragraph 13:
"The Government obviously must seek efficiency, but where the arguments are evenly balanced their judgment will be given in favour
1132
of responsibility being exercised at the more local level."
I was extremely disappointed when I looked at some of the proposals. In some of them it would appear that those principles have been almost entirely ignored.
I could give several examples of this, but I shall stick to the one of which I have detailed personal knowledge—that is, to the county of Hampshire. In the South of Hampshire we have the two largest county boroughs in the South-East outside the Greater London Council; namely, Portsmouth and Southampton. Each is the core of a cohesive area. In the case of Portsmouth, there is a population of 220,000 within very restricted boundaries, but the city is the core of a built-up area of 500,000 people. Similarly, Southampton is the core of an area of 400,000 people. In each of these areas there are links of employment, shopping and social activities. Yet each of these two local authorities, in terms of expenditure are going to lose 80 per cent. of their local government functions, which are going to be transferred to a small county town, Winchester, 30 miles away.
That means that the members of the most populous authorities will have to travel 30 miles for the day-to-day committee work of their authorities. That will not encourage interest in local government. Not only that, but it will gradually reduce the number of candidates available. Only retired people will be able to afford the time that is needed to be spent in committee and to travel 30 miles there and back. This affects not two or three representatives from isolated villages, but the representatives of large communities. I suggest that if we are going to apply the principles laid down in the introduction to this White Paper and are going to have two-level local government, then there will have to be much greater flexibility than is shown in the proposal. For example, if there is an urban area which is big enough in terms of population (and I accept the Government figure of 250,000 to one million), where the local authority has the experience and is competent to carry on the functions of a metropolitan borough without impairing the efficiency of the services of the rest of the county, why should it not do so? Surely we must have regard to the fact that cir

1133
cumstances throughout the country vary so much that at least that measure of flexibility is essential if we are going to get anything like the consensus of opinion favourable to the new proposals.
I should like, as a member of the South East Planning Council, to make a special plea for Hampshire. Hampshire has a population of 1·3 million, well above the 250,000 which has been set in the Government White Paper. It is developing fast. In the strategy of the South East Planning Council, it was priority No. 1 in development. It was proposed that this would be the fastest growing area in the South-East and it was estimated that Hampshire would have a population of 2 million by the year 2,000. And I should like to remind your Lordships that we are planning local government for the next fifty years. Following that strategy, the central Government, the South-East Planning Council and the Standing Conference of Planning Authorities joined together and appointed a joint study team, the Burns team. The team completed its work and more than confirmed the strategy for Hampshire visualised by the Planning Council. In the opinion of the joint study team, the development in South Hampshire should be even greater and faster than was proposed by the Planning Council.
It was in the light of that knowledge available that the Planning Council recommended to the last Administration that Hampshire should be a metropolitan area. That recommendation was accepted by the last Administration, but it has been rejected by this Administration. I would ask for reconsideration of that. I submit that there is a strong case. Within this metropolitan area, there would be four suitable metropolitan districts. The first would be the Isle of Wight. I think that everybody would agree that on geographical grounds there is a strong case for a good deal of independence in local government within an island of this size. The island has a population of 100,000 people and it would be a great step forward, because, if the Isle of Wight were a metropolitan district, it would mean only one local authority on the island, whereas there are seven local authorities there to-day. That would be a considerable advance with one step.
1134
On the mainland we have the greater Portsmouth with a population of 500,000, Southampton with a population of 400,000 and Winchester with 300,000. These three are well above the figure which the Government used in measuring the population required to get an adequate scale for efficiency. I would plead for reconsideration, because I believe that the proposals as they stand now will leave the people of Portsmouth and Southampton with a deep sense of grievance, of injustice. There are sixty-four members on Portsmouth City Council, four-fifths of whom belong to the Government Party. Regardless of Party, every individual member of the Portsmouth City Council rejects the present proposals. All experience shows, especially during the last 150 years, that a community which has a deep sense of injustice will continue to agitate until something is done. I plead that we should do this, not the long and grievous way, but the easier and more harmonious way.
This would not mean that the county boroughs in Southampton and Portsmouth would be getting their own way. They favoured Maud, which made them all-purpose authorities. I am pleading that there should be compromise, that in the county there should be metropolitan districts, in which the old county boroughs embraced have only sonic powers, only the powers of a metropolitan district, and that the powers which in other metropolitan areas go to the county should also go in their case to the county. That is the compromise. If we are going to settle this question with a consensus of opinion in favour of the proposals, I believe that we could do it in this way without sacrificing the principles of the two-tier and efficiency. I believe that with a little flexibility we can get that consensus, which will be necessary in the long run, because we must remember that it is people who count and that happy people do a far better job than those who have a sense of grievance.
6.0 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I think that at the outset I should re-declare an interest, inasmuch as I was for many years President of the Urban District Councils Association and since I gave up the presidency they have done me the honour of making me a life

1135
member. Though I do not speak on their behalf, in the few remarks I wish to make to your Lordships I do not think that I shall depart from the outlook they take on this matter. In my view, the White Paper is a basically sound framework for a strengthened two-tier system of local government, and therefore I welcome it. It is, I think, in accordance with our genius for adapting our institutions to meet the needs of changing times rather than tearing them up by the roots; and that genius has, by and large, given us through the ages steady progress without revolution.
My quarrel with the Redcliffe-Maud Report (I am sorry that both members of the Royal Commission who were here and have spoken have now left the Chamber, because I should have preferred to say this in their presence) was that I felt that it did not display that genius. It went in for tearing up rather than for adapting. It pleased me very much to-day that in their speeches they indicated that they now give a welcome to the proposals in the Government's White Paper as being a real step forward and an improvement in local government for the future. I am not cynic enough to say that their approval makes me look with suspicion at the Government's White Paper: I welcome their approval.
I have always been an advocate of retaining the two-tier set-up, for two reasons. One is to keep the maximum amount of local government really local and as near to the people as possible. "Bigger, and therefore better", has never been a slogan that I have embraced. The other point, which I think is equally important and is one of the humanities, is to give as many people as possible in all walks of life—not only those who have the time to do the job if they are retired—a chance to take part in the affairs which govern the day-to-day life of their community. They cannot do it if they have to travel great distances and cannot attend evening meetings in their own localities. I am prepared to sacrifice something of efficiency to preserve the humanities, which I think are most important in this field. But this does not mean that one is not prepared to strike a balance. By and large, I think the White Paper strikes that balance. But there are some functions that it is pro
1136
posed to withhold from the district level which need looking at again for the two reasons that I have given, and also to help to attract members and officers of the highest quality to serve at the district level.
Let me give one or two examples which illustrate my point. Take, first, building regulations—and this has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. In the White Paper control is allocated to county councils. In Wales and Scotland this function is allocated to the new district councils. Indeed, in paragraph 35 of the Scottish White Paper it says:
"Building control goes naturally with local planning."
Why is that not done in England? Surely it is not defensible for an applicant for an alteration to be made to his house, or to a factory, or something of that nature, which requires both building and planning regulations, to have to apply to two separate authorities, both dealing, as the Scottish White Paper itself says, with practically the same thing. It certainly is not an exercise in good public relations so far as local authorities are concerned, and that is a consideration which should have some weight.
As another example, take roads. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said that the Government's mind was made up about roads and that they had come to a decision which was unalterable. Nevertheless, I propose to put a point which I hope can be considered again. While motorways and trunk roads should be the function of county councils, surely the district tier should look after the side streets, bridle paths, local lighting, how one-way street planning is to be done in a small town, for instance, and even where pedestrian crossings are to go. These are all matters of intensely local interest. Despite what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said, I hope that there may be some devolution here in order that matters of that kind can come under, and be seen to come under, the control of the district council.
There are other instances which will be brought up in discussions which the Government are to have with the associations, but I think that the two illustrations I have given suffice to make the point that I wish to make. Here let me quote

1137
what is said in paragraph 13 of the White Paper. It says:
"In the Government's view, there will always be conflicts between those who argue for large-scale organisation on grounds of efficiency and those, on the other hand, who argue for control by a body close to the people for whom the service is designed."
This is the important point:
"The Government obviously must seek efficiency, but where the arguments are evenly balanced their judgment will be given in favour of responsibility being exercised at the more local level."
I hope that in the discussions which are to take place before legislation is framed Her Majesty's Government will bear that excellent intention very much in mind. It is, I think, one of the most important matters that as much local government as possible should be brought as close to the people as possible. The Government's own intention expressed there is, I think, excellent.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer—there are many more speeches to come, and many other points will be raised—so I conclude as I began by welcoming the White Paper as giving the guidelines of a sound two-tier system for the future of local government which I hope will last for many years. I also welcome the intention of the Government to keep the transition period as short as possible, though not, I hope, at the expense of undertaking real consultations in order to alter, perhaps, some of the functions as between the district and the county level.
6.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise to welcome the White Paper, but I must confess that I am not entirely clear what it is that I am welcoming. I say that because there is a great deal that remains to be worked out. I will not mention any of the details, but we have heard a good deal about them to-day, particularly in relation to finance and so on. Nevertheless, I think that two principles emerge from this White Paper which certainly make me feel (I would not dream of being dogmatic about this) that it is a better solution than that proposed by my noble, friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud. The first thing is that, instead of reducing the number of effective elected representatives from 30,000 to 6,000, the change is much less dramatic in reducing them from
1138
30,000 to perhaps 16,000 or 17,000—more or less half the number.
I know that my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud said that local councils did not understand his proposals. Well, I do not think we did. I do not know whether many people in local government thought that they would have a very effective form of elected councils. The great point about the Government's present suggestion is that the 17,000, or whatever it may be, will all have definite jobs and allocated functions. That would be a very good thing. I believe, like my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury, that it is the strength of the country to have quite a number of people who are engaged in some responsible work for the institutions of government. When the Redcliffe-Maud Paper was discussed, we in local government received rather a "bashing" from some of the senior civil servants—not from my noble friends Lord Redcliffe-Maud or Lady Sharp, but from others. We were told that we were trying to protect our petty kingdoms and only wanted to use a little petty authority. I thought at the time that that was rather a foolish generalisation which might be applied to people who attend this House, or stand for the House of Commons. It was something which was quite freely said. We no doubt have mixed motives, but as we in this country have a tradition dating back to Saxon times, there must be some merit in having a comparatively large number of people who bear some direct responsibility for local government.
The second major improvement I see is that the Government are going to try to put in definite terms the relationship between Whitehall and local authorities. I never have believed in the theory that is banded about, that local government is on its last legs because of the domination of Whitehall. I have thought that in many ways directions from Whitehall were inevitable, particularly having regard to the financial position of the country. In some cases more direction was desirable—particularly in major matters such as planning. Also, the kinds of controls that we all agreed were quite ridiculous could have been taken away without any legislation at all.
Now it seems that the intention of the Government is to define on what matters Whitehall will come in, and on what

1139
matters the local authority will have the final decision. That is an admirable intention. I do not think it will be particularly easy until the regional scheme is worked out, because until then we shall have to get our directions from the Departments. I only hope that, armed with the different strategies, such as the Strategy for the South-East, which is now being produced by the London Standing Conference, over which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford presides with such ability, that that advice and direction will be at least predictable.
My Lords, I have no more to say at this stage, because I am trying to confine my remarks to principles. This is a great step forward, but there is one question arising out of it to which I should like to know the answer. All the local authority associations have accepted this White Paper in principle, but until a short time ago there was one exception—the A.M.C. I do not know whether they have been encouraged by some remarks which Mr. Anthony Crosland made at one time. I thought he was talking in terms of making a great Party campaign about this. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, did not talk in those terms at all. I think my noble friend Lord Ilford indicated that he thought that the A.M.C. had accepted the principle.
I am only interested to this extent. In my county we have to negotiate with three county boroughs. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Amory said, and with what my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud said. It is important now to start this reorganisation off with a proper, good relationship. I am hoping that we shall be able to establish that. But I should not like to approach our three county boroughs and then be told to mind my own business because they were hoping to get big changes in the Bill. I do not know where we stand. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will be able to give us any further information on this matter. These negotiations have been intensely difficult, and it would be wonderful if we could start with a certain enthusiasm. I hope that noble Lords who are able to influence thinking will do their best to secure that position.
6.17 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords. I have been connected with the County Councils Association for some 25 years. During most of that time I have been concerned, either directly or indirectly, with local government reorganisation. We started off by calling it local government reform. We then became rather sensitive about the title "reform". We said there was nothing much wrong with local government, but that it wanted some reorganising. At the end of 25 years I am of the conclusion that local government reform or reorganisation—whichever title you like to apply to it—will have to be largely imposed.
My experience over those years is that, while we had all sorts of compromises, none was really satisfactory to everybody, and most were unsatisfactory, as compromises often are. Therefore any approach to this which comes down to the form of, "This is the pattern" frankly has my approval. Whether I approve of the pattern or not is another matter. The principle of a pattern has to be established and it will have to be imposed. It can be imposed with or without co-operation, but it will have to be followed. We have to look at these proposals to see how they will fit into the needs of local government.
One matter rather worries me and that is with regard to the boundaries of the counties, and the metropolitan counties. It seems to me that these are going to be enshrined in the Bill itself. To do this is very bold, because it is obvious that they will not be altered easily, and not for a very long time. It may be that some minor alterations may prove to be necessary and desirable. I hope, therefore, that there will be an escape clause by which some minor alteration—not dealing with the general principles—can be made, either between the metropolitan districts themselves, or between the counties, as may emerge when the matter of the organisation of the district councils is considered. I hope that there will be some provision by which the Minister will reserve to himself the right, either by Order in Council or some other means, to make some alteration without necessarily having to go for an amending Act. It would be unfortunate if things were so rigid that alterations could not be made without an amending Act. That

1141
is with regard to the boundaries of counties.
It was rather unfortunate that a particular population of 40,000 was mentioned with regard to district councils, when the obvious intention of the Government, if the numbers are to be anything like those proposed, is that the district councils shall be very much larger indeed. It should have been made quite clear that in the main they would be very much larger and, while there might be 40,000 or even, on some occasions, something a little less, by and large they would have to be a good deal larger. Because I know that even at the present time authorities which are just below the 40,000 mark are considering how they can adjust themselves to reach the figure of 40,000. This is going to be a fatal approach to this matter, and the Government should give a clear indication to the local authorities that for a population of 40,000 to stand up by itself there must be a very good case indeed.
I am not so much concerned with the size of an area; what I am concerned about is the deployment of the services. This is far more important to the public than the question of how many councillors they have to represent them. It is the service they want; and the service is to be provided, very largely, as a result of policy directions from the centre as it may be deployed by officials. Quite frankly, I find that the less interference there is by councillors in the deployment of service themselves, the better it is. I have a recollection of the old public assistance committee in Middlesex when we changed from a system using committees to using officers. We gave the officers a direction and they had fairly broad discretion, and while everybody complained about how difficult it was going to be, we found that we had far fewer complaints from the public when officials were dealing with the work than when members were dealing with it.
So I have no particular desire to see councillors there merely for the sake, particularly, of overlooking administration all the time. What is important is that councillors should govern an area from the point of view of provision of policy and it is their duty to ensure that policy is carried out. But, beyond that, the less they interfere the better. Therefore, this question of 40,000 population,
1142
or whatever the size is, is not to my mind a most important feature. The important factors are that the area ought to be viable, and that people ought to be able to obtain the services they need—they should not necessarily have to go to the town hall to get them, but should be able to get the services they want and in their own locality. This depends upon administration much more than upon the size of the area.
Again the question arises of dealing with services. It is unfortunate that a decision has been taken to take the health services away from local government. I recognise the difficulty that doctors have an implacable opposition to working under local authorities, and any Government would have to take note of that. They could not force doctors to work under local government. But this decision is a pity because the dividing lines between health services and welfare services are very narrowly drawn; in fact, in certain circumstances, they are almost indistinguishable. It seems to me a pity that one has to move over from one service to another.
Another disadvantage in this system, of course, is going to be in the school medical services. There there will be a health authority, and obviously the school medical services must be under the authority of the education authority. You cannot possibly take those services away from them; they will have the responsibility for the health of the children in their care. They will provide a contract, presumably, with the health service. It would be infinitely better if a measure of control were exercised by a single body, rather than by two separate bodies. However, this is a matter which can be made to work. In local government we can make anything work if we have to; we have done it in the past, and I suppose it will be possible to do it again, but I would draw attention to this.
Another factor that I note in the White Paper is the question of planning. I quite agree that local planning ought to be done at local level provided that it fits into an overall plan. It is obviously necessary and desirable that people living in a locality shall have some say in their purely local distribution of planning and the arrangement of

1143
it. But I am a little concerned about the question of the dual function of officers. I recollect this happening (and I am drawing on past experience again) in connection with the health services when they were all placed under the care of the counties and we established area health authorities within the county. We came up against the question of medical officers who had a local function and a county function. Quite frankly, we made it quite clear, and had it accepted, that the officer, although he had a local function, was mainly a county officer. We did this by insisting that 51 per cent. of his time should be devoted to the county, at all events on paper. We did not worry about what happened in detail, but on paper 51 per cent. had to be devoted to the county in order that the paying authority was the county. The important factor is the person who pays. This is who one looks to for one's instructions, and no man can serve two masters. We ought to establish clearly what the relationship is going to be.
I accept the idea that good planning officers who look 10 or 20 years ahead are very scarce indeed, and in so far as they can be used by the district council for its planning purposes and in the overall preparation of the plan for county purposes generally, this is probably desirable. But at any rate it will need some very careful working out, and it will be difficult to avoid some friction, at least in the early stages. A good deal of co-operation and of tact will be needed, if I may say so, on the part of the officers concerned for them to be able to satisfy both sets of people, but it is important that they shall be in the employment of only one authority.
Another point I want to discuss on the question of authority is the matter of education. It would have been desirable for the metropolitan counties to have become the education authorities. But it is difficult to go to a city such as Leeds and say that they are going to be only second tier so far as education is concerned. It is a question of politics and whether one could do it. Frankly, I should not want to be the first person to go along to Leeds, or many of the other
1144
large county boroughs who have had this responsibility for so long, and say, "You are going to be a second-class authority for education."
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: They are doing it at Plymouth, my Lords.
LORD PARGITER: Well, my Lords, judging by the pleas which have been made they may not necessarily do it there, because after all there is time for something to be done before the Bill is published. But with regard to these cases, it still seems to me that by and large a single pattern of education with the counties as the authorities responsible would have been highly desirable.
That brings me to a secondary point. I hope we shall not make the mistake we made in the 1944 Act, by reestablishing the Part III authorities in some other form, say in the form of divisional executives. I hope that at least the authority is going to be exercised directly by the county through its school governors and school managers. Under the 1944 Act school governors and managers were responsible to the county authority, and there was a cause of some friction between the divisional executives and the counties on this question of responsibility of school managers. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make it perfectly clear that this is going to be a direct responsibility between the county and the area within the school area. I am not saying that the district council shall not have some say in regard to the management of their schools; obviously, in my view, they ought to nominate the majority of the members who will form the school managers and school governors. But at least the question of responsibility ought to be clear and absolutely undivided. We have suffered too much in the past from a division of responsibility.
I have detained your Lordships long enough. There are many other noble Lords to speak. By and large, I accept the White Paper. Contrary to other expressions, I think it is as well for the metropolitan counties to be fairly tightly drawn. Here again I draw on my experience in Middlesex. Had the Green Belt around Middlesex been the responsibility of the councils within the County

1145
of Middlesex a great deal of green belt would not be there now. It is the fact that the county were able to hold the green belt which was important, and this may be the important factor why the boundaries need to be reasonably drawn with regard to the metropolitan areas. We must face the fact that the establishment of new centres of population is absolutely essential and desirable, and that it will have to be done; and it will have to be done within the framework of the counties. If the counties are to be given this responsibility, they must accept the responsibility so far as major housing is concerned, because if they do not, whether they like it or not, they will be faced with some provincial authority which will have to do the job for them. I hope the counties will do it for themselves.
My Lords, I believe that by and large these proposals will be broadly acceptable. I think there will be, and there ought to be, some adjustments and amendments. I hope that when the Boundary Commission get busy with regard to the districts they will think in terms of wide areas of responsibility. I hope also that room will be found for many of the purely local community matters that are not important in the general structure but are very important in the community to be dealt with. They may be undertaken by some body such as the parish councils—probably not as they exist to-day because they may need to be larger. But at least there is room for some local matters to be dealt with on the ground, and I hope that they will be taken care of, too.
6.30 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, in rising to lend my support to the White Paper I do not think I have to divulge an interest, for I am not a member of any of the local government associations; and although I was a member of the Somerset County Council for rather more than 20 years I am not a member now. I have lived all my life in Somerset and though of course I am not speaking this afternoon for Somerset (none of us is a delegate here) I confess that I am not speaking wholly without advice from those on whom the burden of local goverment in that county now falls.
1146
I know that this debate is concerned with general broad principles and that we should not go too much into the details. I greatly welcome the introductory speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and I very much liked what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, called the steady and robust determination with which he told us that we were now going to get down to a reform of local government and that the time for talking had ended. But I hope there can still be some flexibility in those firm conclusions that the noble Earl told us he had reached, because I confess that I was deeply impressed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and also by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I feel that in those two areas—that is to say, housing and education—it may be that not ail the wisdom has yet been wholly distilled into the White Paper.
In the short time that I wish to speak this evening I do not propose to get on to those points, because much bigger guns than I have already tired and are to fire later. But I should like to concentrate for a moment on one sentence in the White Paper, which comes at paragraph 59, in Chapter V, "Conclusion". It says just this:
"The boundaries must be accepted as sensible by people on the spot."
That conclusion, of course, refers back to paragraph 8, at page 6 of the White Paper, which says:
"Local boundaries, the allocation of responsibilities and the system as a whole should be understood and accepted as sensible by electors, by members and by officers. And, above all else, a genuine local democracy implies that decisions should be taken—and should be seen to be taken—as locally as possible."
This is no doubt why, in the fourth paragraph of Circular 8/71—the circular which set such a tight timetable that I suppose everybody has noticed long before I did this afternoon that we are asked to give in our answers by May, 1970. That really is a tight timetable, and I have no doubt that even the most loyal county councils would find themselves hard put to it to fall in with the wishes of the Government on that. It says:
"First among the matters on which consultations are needed is the new pattern of areas."
This is not just one of the things that can be taken in our stride. In the White

1147
Paper the instruction is that it is first among the matters on which consultation is needed. Therefore I do not apologise for the fact that this is the matter about which I should like to speak to-night in relation to the South-West of England.
My Lords, one of the principal objectives of the proposed reform is to establish local authorities which are—and I quote:
"large enough in size, population and resources to meet administrative needs, including the maintenance and development of a trained and expert local government service."
Despite this wholly admirable objective, the Government's proposals with regard to the County of Somerset (Area 25, as it is called) are to reduce the area of the present county from a million acres to 770,000 acres by detaching from it the whole of the great growing area, which is really the area indicated by a line from Weston-Super-Mare, on the Bristol Channel, right through to Frome—that is to say the whole of the region of, and North of, the Mendips.
I know that this was very much the boundary that was in the previous "holy writ" of the Redclitfe-Maud Report, as the noble Lord has himself reminded us to-day. But the effect of this loss of territory will be to leave the new Somerset (I suppose we have to talk about new pence and new counties), Area 25, with a population of less than 350,000. Its present population, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, told us, is 585,000, and the change will leave the county with a rateable value of £13 million, whereas the present figure is £22 million. In contrast, the new county based on Bristol and Bath (Area 26) will have a population of 933,000 and a rateable value of £42 million. On population figures at the moment, the present County of Somerset is the eighteenth largest major authority in England. The new county (No. 25) will be relegated to forty-second place out of forty-four. At the same time it will become the smallest instead of the largest county in the South-West.
I understand that the Somerset County Council do not disagree with the basic pattern of the new local authorities proposed in the White Paper, nor do they contest the establishment of a new county
1148
based on Bristol and Bath. However, they do maintain that an unnecessarily large part of the present County of Somerset is being incorporated into the new Area No. 26. They maintain that the Government's proposals in relation to Areas Nos. 25 and 26 create a state of (I think one could say) gross imbalance between two adjoining authorities. Also they say that an area with a population of only 349,000 and a rateable value as low as £13 million will have difficulty in maintaining in its area services of a standard to which the present ratepayers of Somerset are accustomed.
In Somerset we have just amalgamated our police force with the force for the City of Bath. Now it will be even smaller than it was before in our area. I find myself very much in agreement with the county council on this matter, and I feel that these legitimate and understandable apprehensions are worthy of serious consideration by the Minister. But, my Lords, I am informed that it has so far proved quite impossible to ascertain from the Department of the Environment any of the reasons that lie behind the decision to incorporate such a large part of the present county in a new area. Indeed when these proposals were put forward by the last Government, who proposed an area very much the same, the county council protested and asked questions of the Department on the extent of the territory to the North that they were to lose. That protest has been either ignored or overlooked in formulating the present proposals.
This is the point I wish to make. The Somerset County Council believe that they have a strong case for seeking a substantial amendment to the proposed boundary between Areas Nos. 25 and 26, but they are in some difficulty in developing such a case as the Government refuse to give reasons for the boundary they are proposing. That is precisely the point the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, made in his speech, and as he is President of the County Councils Association I was very glad to find him an ally on this point. I am very surprised that the Department are not being more cooperative. I should have thought that the Minister would be falling over backwards to avoid letting new Somerset, or Area No. 25 or whatever you like to call

1149
it, get the impression right from the start that it was going to be so small and unimportant that it was not even Worth answering its letters or consulting with it. That impression is just what one wants to avoid. The facts are pretty—I must be moderate; I was going to say "staggering", but they are pretty strong. The population is well under 400,000, with not a single old county borough in it. Yet the sort of rule of thumb is that the county authorities should have about 400,000 to 600,000 and at least one county borough.
We shall be sandwiched in between (with the noble Viscount sitting in front of me I hardly like to say "a swollen New Devon") Area No. 24, this great Devon, to the West, which will have a population of 896,000 and the great conurbation of Torbay as well as Exeter and Plymouth as urban centres within its territory, and, to the East, the new Bristol authority, with a population of 933,000 and the cities of Bristol and Bath, a cathedral, two universities, the lot. I beg the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he comes to reply, not to think that we are being jealous or small-minded here. I really think there is a case that the Minister should consider.
I fully see the difficulties. I am in no way saying that there should not be a great, strong Bristol area to the North. I have many interests in that area, and I am delighted to see that that is going to be a big, strong authority. But I do not know how we shall manage. We have, at the moment, on the proposals, old Somerset, too small and too weak, and we must have an immediate and fill explanation as to why this surprising suggestion is absolutely fixed in the Government's mind and there is to be no argument about it. Because they do not answer our letters. There is nothing so sad or so tiresome as a poor relation. Do not let us go and create a poor relation here. We in the West are getting a bit sensitive, They have taken the judges and the railway lines from Wells; they take away our developing territories and our Abbey, and we shall soon be left with very little. The balance sheet does not seem to balance: the loss of a quarter of a million acres, 136,000 people and £9 million of rateable value take a lot of swallowing. We are going to lose
1150
all that. So I beg the Minister at least to tell us why.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, perhaps I could intervene immediately and say that Somerset will have us nearly all in tears if they go on any longer. All they have to do is to read the circular and act in accordance with paragraph 9. They can put all the noble Earl's points. They will have to do it in 10 conies and with three sets of maps. I can assure the noble Earl that if they do that, their views will be taken fully into account.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, they have read the circular and were particularly interested in paragraph 9, and they wondered whether there was any catch in sub-paragraph (i), which says that they must get their views in by 1970. They find it difficult to formulate their views when they have not got the reasons why this peculiar thing is to happen.
6.45 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I rise to support Her Majesty's Government's White Paper of which I fully approve, because I think it is a great improvement on the Royal Commission's very good Report. It carries out the most important recommendation of the Royal Commission, that town and country should get together. If there is to be any reform at all, I think town and country must get together. That is why I was a little surprised when the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with her very great experience, pleaded that Plymouth should be another metropolitan area. If you do that, I think you will break away entirely from the idea of town and country getting together. We already have many protests, from the County Borough of Southend and, I understand, the City of Norwich and so on.
Where do you draw the line? The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said that town and country must get together. County boroughs will go; counties as we know them will go, and the new authorities will be formed. I think we have to be very careful not to start fragmenting more areas than we have done already. It is right that these great metropolitan areas should be arranged as they are, but if you go further I think

1151
it defeats the whole objective of getting town and country together.
I welcome the Government's introduction in the White Paper of the two-tier system. I have always strongly believed that housing is a very important local service and should be as near as possible to the people; and I did not like the idea in the Redcliffe-Maud proposals that housing should remain with the first tier authority, or the conurbations, as they were called. I welcome, too, the fact that local planning is to remain with the second tier. If that is so, I am sure that building controls, local roads and clean air should go with them. Previous speakers with much greater experience than I have—the noble Lords, Lord Greenwood and Lord Grimston—have said that they all go together; and they have recognised that in Scotland and Wales. If you have local planning, surely that has to deal with building controls, housing, local roads for new housing estates and so on. Strategic planning will always remain with the new counties, and if necessary they have powers over housing in their area; that is, if the local authority cannot deal with it or if a very big project goes to the area. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give further consideration to these ideas (as have Scotland and Wales, which I am sure is right) for building controls, local roads and clean air.
If I may, I want to talk for a moment or two on two other subjects; first, this vital question of finance. We debated this subject on March 9 last year (col. 651), and I do not want to repeat what I said then. I was disappointed then, and I am disappointed today, that we have not the Green Paper before us when discussing these White Papers. When the previous Government's White Paper came out we were told that a Green Paper would follow in two or three months' time. Then came the General Election, so nothing was done about it. Now we have this amended White Paper, which I like very much, but again we are told by the noble Earl the Leader of the House that the Green Paper will come out in two or three months' time.
If we are to have, as my noble Leader said, vigorous and healthy local government,
1152
and fewer and stronger units of local government, they must be more self-sufficient. Although I know that rates will remain the main source of income, if direction from Whitehall is to be controlled, the authorities must have some other form of local finance. Nobody has yet been able to find any other form of local finance to supplement the rating system. I reminded your Lordships last year that central Government paid 55 per cent. of the total cost of running local government, which amounted to £5,359 million. That is 30 per cent. of the total public expenditure of the country of £19,595 million which is, of course, a very large sum of money. If the authorities are to be more self-sufficient—and we are told by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maude, that they must be—I think they must have some other local taxation. If they do not, then however big they are (whether they are the size of Essex to-day with over 1 million population, or my own county, West Suffolk, with 150,000), there will still be a great deal of interference, and rightly so, from the centre, because if central Government are putting up 55 per cent. of the total cost of local government they must interfere. We are told that they hope not to have to interfere too much in the future. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will speed up this Green Paper and let us see what can be done, if anything—although I am a little dubious.
We might have had local motor taxation, which is now all paid over to the central Government. Although local authorities are agents and collect the money, this will not be possible because a centralised system of collection is being set up at Swansea and the Government are going to do all that work themselves. So that is out. If there is any other form of local taxation that can be collected to make the local authorities more self-sufficient, I should very much like to hear of it.
We are not told in the White Paper—there are just two paragraphs on finance—who is to be the collector of the rates in the future. As your Lordships well know, the counties precept on the urbans and boroughs and rurals for their part, and then the urbans and rurals and boroughs have to add on their part. But they are the rate collectors, and they

1153
issue the rate demands. In future, are these new districts to demand the rates, and the proposed new counties to precept on them? Or is it that the new counties will settle the rate themselves and they will be the rating authority? I do not know whether we can be told about that. I cannot find it anywhere in the White Paper at all, and I should like to know.
I must declare an interest—I should have declared it earlier—in that I am vice-president of the Urban District Councils Association, and I am a past member of nine years' experience of West Suffolk County Council. But I am not on the council now. West Suffolk, and I think East Suffolk, feel very strongly on this point, and I must put it forward to Her Majesty's Government. It will be in area No. 32 that the two Suffolks will get together. I believe that they have had preliminary talks and are fairly happy about getting together, and also the county borough of Ipswich. However, under the scheme they are to have large parts of their county chopped off. The whole of the Lowestoft and Beccles area is to go into Norfolk; and New-market, where I live, and Haverhill and parts of the rural district of Clare are to be chopped off and will go into the new proposed county of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, Huntingdon and Peterborough, which is area No. 30. They feel that they will not be a very big unit anyway, with perhaps half a million or 550,000 people, and if they have quite substantial parts of their area chopped off, they will no longer be a viable unit.
If it is thought that those areas must be chopped off, they feel that they should be given an area the other side of the haven ports, the area of Harwich and Colchester. I believe that some people in that area are not disinclined to go in with the new Suffolk. However, this was hotly opposed when the Royal Commission's Report came out. The Royal Commission's Report said that both sides of the haven ports were to go into Suffolk, but that was hotly opposed by Essex who would lose part of their area, and who said that the river was a natural boundary. Therefore, in the new proposals of Her Majesty's Government that has not taken place. We are rather like Somerset. As the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has just told us, we are
1154
going to have large bits chopped off and we shall not be a viable unit, which we should like to be. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give this 'very serious consideration before any finality is arrived at.
6.57 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, I feel I owe an apology to the House in that I was unable to be here to hear the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Unfortunately, I had to attend a meeting on a certain new currency system which delayed me that long. I have only the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that it was robust, which I should have expected it to be. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, had perhaps the last word in what I have heard in this debate when he said that the best should not drive out the good. I think that previous schemes put forward for the reform of local government have been better, but nevertheless I would give a welcome to this one because I feel that it comes early in the life of the Parliament and that it can be implemented during the lifetime of this Parliament, and that it will go a long way to meet most people's ideas and demands in a reform that is now very many years overdue.
If one reads this White Paper carefully it really is a Magna Carta for local government. I would refer particularly to paragraphs 5, 8 and 46, where all the emphasis is en the power to be given to local councils really to decide and to take the initiative (paragraph 5), without being subject to unnecessary regulations by central Government controls, financial or other (paragraph 8) and finally, in paragraph 46:
"Reorganisation offers the occasion for a searching review of existing constraints."
What more can local government ask than that? I think all those of your Lordships who have been engaged in local government will agree that in the past the frustrations and difficulties have usually come at Whitehall level, and usually through financial reasons, and to see some loosening up of this situation is indeed encouraging.
Quite clearly, a local authority must work within the financial boundaries set for local government by the nation as a whole. It would be impossible for the Government of the day, any Government,

1155
to allow local expenditure to run away with a larger share of the economy than appeared to be wise or desirable. There was a danger of this happening at one time when local authorities first started lending money in a big way to owner-occupiers for house purchase. This was so popular a scheme and it escalated so fast that it tended to upset the whole balance of budgeting, and so restraint had to be applied. Now local government is sensible about that sort of thing.
I know, too, that local government will always be aware that it must be publicly accountable. But I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate: when the Government talk about removing all possible constraints, what are their ideas about district audit?—one of the most repressive and negative controls that exists anywhere in the State. I think local government would welcome a scheme of audit that was positive in its approach, that helped, that encouraged and that showed the way ahead, but not in the entirely repressive and negative nature of district audit as it now exists. So what steps do the Government propose to take, in order to try to drag district audit screaming into the last years of the twentieth century?
I should now like to say a word about functions. If she were still here, I should have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who said that if you could divide the functions of planning you could also divide the functions of education. I could not really agree that in an ideal world you could divide the functions of planning. We have had this division under the London Government Act for seven years, and what one must have if functions are to be divided is very close definition indeed. There are so many lawyers in this House that it might be thought that definition was easy, but I should like to show by way of an example how the lawyers failed in the London Government Act 1963, under which planning powers were split between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs.
I think I can illustrate this most easily by giving your Lordships an example of an area of London which you all know—the area of Euston Station. Euston Station, because it is a point that disgorges so many people into London
1156
every day, is a matter of planning control as defined for the Greater London Council. But as soon as you move out of the concourse of Euston Station on to the pavement outside, you are under the planning jurisdiction of the London Borough of Camden, and it will be their responsibility to see that the new hotel and the new office block which are proposed to go as they did before, more or less on each side of Euston Station, are built. So that you have moved from the area of the G.L.C. into the London Borough of Camden, and as you walk towards the Euston Road you stay within the jurisdiction of the London Borough of Camden until you get to within 130 ft. of the Euston Road. That is no very great distance, but the Euston Road is a Metropolitan route and that, again, becomes the responsibility of the Greater London Council.
Your Lordships can see that planning under those terms of definition, which can be repeated all over the county, is virtually impossible. It leads only to delay and frustration. I had personally to intervene in the affairs of Euston Station, together with the head of British Rail, to ensure that the station received the planning consent that it had to have so that the new electric line, which is of such an enormous advantage to our transport system, could be opened as early as it was. Proper definition is something that we really must have.
Most of the other points which I wanted to bring to your Lordships' notice have been covered, and at this time of the evening one wants to be mercifully short. But I wish to make one more point, which is that under the Government's proposals there will be a Staff Commission set up. Then I should like to underline very emphatically that in these reorganisations nobody suffers as much as the staff, particularly the top staff, of all the authorities involved. Some people will win out along the line and become the chief officers of the new enlarged authorities. Some people, probably at a very awkward age, will fall by the wayside. It is possible to meet this in terms of monetary compensation, and I would ask that that be done very generously. But monetary compensation is not the whole answer to a career that is brought to a sudden halt in what may be midstream, or three parts of the way through one's working life. I would ask the

1157
Government to look with very great care indeed at this aspect of the work of reorganisation of local government.
With those few words—I hope they were a few words—may I say that I should have thought we could welcome what is proposed as a solution to a long outstanding problem, and I hope that the new authorities can be arranged and established and got going. I was alarmed by one sentence at the beginning of the White Paper, which said that the reorganisation of government in London was completed. Of course the reorganisation of government in London is not completed. When the Act was passed in 1963, my own comment was that it would take 15 years before local government got back to its original state of efficiency, of co-operation, of working together, of understanding its powers and of getting to know all the people involved, not only in one's own authority, but in all those authorities with which one has to deal. Eight of those 15 years have gone and I am sure that, so far, I have not been proved wrong. So let us not think of this as a hurried operation in anything but the legislative sense. Working it out on the ground in all the areas is indeed a long-term job, which will require the devoted work of hundreds, maybe thousands, of men and women up and down the country.
7.9 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make a small contribution to the debate at this stage, the need for reform—or, in other words, bringing up to date the scheme of local government—needs no further emphasis. Times have changed and we must change with them; and, as we all know, time never forgives his absence from the counsels to which he is not called.
Perhaps I may begin by congratulating the Government on the courage and candour with which their proposals have been presented, on their willingness to listen to and discuss criticism on points of detail, as well as on their invitation to collaboration in making effective the principles which I think have universal acceptance. I personally share the general admiration of the thought and experience which has been condensed in these proposals; the desire for friendly discussion of some of the problems involved, and the absence of any dictatorial or omni-
1158
scient detachment which is rather the temptation of Government to adopt in a matter about which they feel strongly. My Lords, the overall intention comprises a general devolution of power from the central Government and the effective transfer of responsibility and power from central to local authorities. I will now offer a few instances of doubt about the efficacy of the proposals to achieve the stated objects.
The White Paper states that the district councils are intended to be genuine authorities with responsibilities and powers sufficient to make service with them a reality for members and officers. My Lords, outside the metropolitan areas, the distribution of powers seems inadequate for this purpose. The county boroughs and larger non-county boroughs are to give up all responsibility for education and the social services; for highways and traffic management; for building regulations—and, it would seem, much of their present consumer protection services—in return for a share (and in most cases a minority share) in the administration of areas larger than those proposed by the Royal Commission after three years of study and research.
Thus, to keep education as an Undivided whole, all primary and secondary schools will be administered at the level of the new county council, and libraries will be vested there, too. Traffic regulation orders will be made miles away from the place where they apply. The many voluntary organisations at present working in the towns and cities will have to forge new links, if they are prepared to do so, with a distant administration. Any independence of a city or borough council in development control could well be inhibited by its having to share, as is said may be the case, its planning staff with a distant administration. Moreover, as has been said several times this evening, until the Green Paper on finance is published there is apparently to be silence on the rating function and on the important matter of capital expenditure. In this uncertainty there must remain serious doubts about the statement that the Government do not see the relationship between the two forms of operational authorities as implying that some authorities are answerable to others. Current experience shows how much independence relies on resources, and on the power of

1159
the authorities to determine their own priorities. The new districts appear heavily vulnerable in both respects.
In relation to cities and boroughs, the Association of Municipal Corporations believes that there is a fundamental misconception. It is simply not the case that the division of functions proposed between the new county councils and the new district councils will leave the cities and towns in control of essentially local matters, and give them an effective share in the administration of other services over wider areas than at present. In the continuing uncertainty on finance there must be serious doubts as to the independence of the proposed district councils, and the present functions which county boroughs and boroughs are expected to lose will indeed represent a marked diminution in the strength of town government.
The willingness of city and county borough elected members to continue to serve in a local government pattern of this nature must be in jeopardy, and an extended use of divisional administration will provide no satisfactory solution. What is likely to result from placing responsibility for so many services with local and personal implications on county authorities of the size proposed in this paper is the substitution of bureaucracy for democracy; and the representation of the cities and towns on the new county councils will, except in a few instances, be inadequate unless the determination of county electoral divisions is fair to the urban population.
My Lords, responsibility for highways and traffic management, building control and the determination of broad planning policies, including the making of structure and local plans, will be exercised at county level everywhere, together with the administration of education, the provision of libraries and the deployment of social services (divorced from housing) outside the metropolitan areas. Strategic planning of these subjects at county level may in some cases be sensible; but (to take one example only) the determination at county headquarters, perhaps 20 or 30 miles away, of the one-way traffic systems of a large city does not seem to make sense.
1160
A proud feature of county borough and borough administration over the centuries has been the democratic oversight by elected representatives of the services provided for those communities. County administration, even of the present style, has led to decisions being taken by county councillors who are not well enough acquainted with the areas affected by their decisions. It is the fear of the Association of Municipal Corporations, for instance, that the present scheme, if not altered in some respects, would lead to a considerable worsening of that situation. The larger district councils should be entitled to continue to exercise as of right more of the functions that they have so successfully discharged over many years.
My Lords, I should like to add a few comments on the point of view of county councils, which is naturally somewhat different from that of municipal corporations. There are two forms of operational authorities—those administering services calling for wide areas of administration and those for services best dealt with by local authorities more closely in touch with local conditions. As the County Councils Association has put it:
"… the end product will be a reformed and strengthened local government system providing authorities of adequate size and at the same time sustaining local democracy."
In practice this is exactly where differences of opinion arise. For instance, the Association of Rural and Urban District Councils regrets the intended transfer from local government of the personal health services, and the County Councils Association is concerned about the proposal to distribute the administration of the education services among the district councils in the areas of the metropolitan counties. Can it seriously be stated as a general truth that all such services as planning, education, highways and the social services ought to be dealt with by a main county authority on the plea that they are the best people to administer them over a wide area?
My Lords, we all want and talk about efficiency, but in the sphere of local government the distribution of real power is an essential ingredient of the responsible efficiency which can be achieved only by a suitable allocation of functions. One can appreciate how much

1161
more attractive to the metropolitan districts is the allocation of functions proposed for them than the allocation proposed for the districts outside of the metropolitan areas. The Government's proposals for the areas and boundaries of the new counties suggest that the cities and towns therein that will be district authorities of the future will not in fact be able to play a very influential role in the decisions of the county authorities of the future unless steps are taken to ensure that they are not overshadowed by rural interests. Representation on the new counties is the key issue in this respect, and the danger facing the urban areas is the rural weighting which has generally been applied since 1933. Changed methods of communication make weighting of this nature no longer necessary, and it must not be forgotten that the urgent problems of the moment, and the major continuing problems of the future, are urban problems, affecting, as they do, 80 per cent. of the population.
It is of importance that the legislation introducing the new structure of local government should at least provide for the establishment of the new authorities—that is to say, the new counties and metropolitan districts—on the basis of sound and sensible areas and boundaries. The allocation of functions can always be adjusted at a later date, but the areas and boundaries of the main authorities that are fixed at the start of a new system are likely to remain for a very long time. It appears that the Government contemplate settling those areas and boundaries in the legislation, and the new Local Government Boundary Commission which is proposed will confine its activities to the determination of the areas of the new district authorities within the new counties. It is a little odd that the formal machinery of such a body should be used to deal with a matter which, although of importance, will be secondary to the determination of the authorities which, outside the metropolitan areas, seem likely to have responsibility for the major local government functions.
A number of individual authorities will wish to propose the establishment of additional counties, or even of additional metropolitan areas. This possibility will not, however, be open to a number of
1162
cities and towns which have a long tradition of good, sound, all-purpose local government. By express intent they will retain their identities as districts, and they will be represented on the new county councils. While they themselves remain fearful of the extent of their representation at county level, they are extremely concerned that they should have an adequacy of functions as districts.
It has now been made clear by Ministers that the reference in the White Paper to a population of 40,000 for the districts is misleading, and that by amalgamations of existing authorities it is intended to produce new units with populations of 75,000 to 100,000. Such units, as well also as the bigger towns and cities which will continue to exist as districts, are quite capable of exercising more responsibility than is proposed for them in the Appendix to the White Paper. The possibility of their being allocated more functions and the means of involving them in the local application of other functions will also have to be exercised at county level, and this needs detailed examination before the present non-county borough and district councils are rushed by the county councils to agree a pattern of amalgamation for submission to a Boundary Commission which cannot be set up for several months.
The Association of Municipal Corporations fully accepts that in a number of services and functions the broad strategy must be a county responsibility, but local application of the broad strategy is essentially a matter for local accountability, and it is the district councils that will be locally accountable far more than the counties of the future. The separation of such a function as building control, for instance, from development control is hard to understand. The major services are bound to be administered on a divisionalised basis in divisions which more often than not will coincide with city or town districts. Again, therefore, the accountability argument applies, and a worthwhile function for the district councils should be worked out. Not only is this of importance if suitable people are to be persuaded to serve as members of the district councils of the future; it is also significant in terms of the staff that the districts will be able to employ

1163
in order to discharge other duties and responsibilities.
My Lords, I have sketched only some of the problems which have to be solved by a working amalgam of national interests, local interests, administrative and financial power, competent staff and all else that is comprised in the word "efficiency". With the constructive and sympathetic attitude of Government and all the associations connected with local government, there is no reason to despair of a generally acceptable solution to these problems. With a job worth doing, the means to do it and the right and authority to do it, we shall attract the men and women who want to be part of a team and not the mere servants of a system. So, my Lords, as a final reflection of the constructive spirit in which Government and all associations concerned approach their job, may I quote the lines:
"'Tis not in mortals to command success
But we'll do more, Sempronius,
We'll deserve it."
7.29 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is not in your Lordships' House, I take it that I am in order to move up one in the list of speakers and take his place. I have two interests to declare. First of all, as with the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, and one or two other Members of your Lordships' House. I am a member of the County Councils Association. I am also a county alderman—likely, I gather, to be made extinct fairly soon, which I do not like at all.
My Lords, it is difficult not to be parochial in any discussion or debate on local government reorganisation. It was only last week that I heard it stated at a meeting of the C.C.A. that obviously each county knows what it needs and it should be left to them to fight their own battles on the proposed boundary changes, since many county councils are not at all pleased with the Boundary Commission proposals for their areas and themselves know best how to put their case to the Secretary of State. This does not imply that I do not welcome the proposals as a whole and accept the need for some local government reform, which is now somewhat overdue. The Secretary of State for the Environment has
1164
said, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House has confirmed, that he hoped that the new legislation would reach the Statute Book as soon as possible and that the new local authorities would be elected in 1973 and would take over their new functions in the spring of 1974, with invited comments from individual local authorities to be received by the end of May. I look upon that as most important; and it is also important that we have sound financial working units with fairly substantial rateable values and that any financial changes must be brought into effect at the same time as reorganisation.
However, my main concern is with Buckinghamshire and the proposed boundary changes so far as they affect that county. Under these changes, Buckinghamshire will lose the whole of the southern part of the county; that is to say, Slough and the two Etons, Eton urban and Eton rural districts, will go to Berkshire. Our population in Buckinghamshire would fall from 585,000 to 413,000. The new county of Berkshire is shown with a population of 719,000, and if it did not receive Slough and the two Etons it would be reduced to 547,000, comparing favourably with the new Buckinghamshire at 585,000. I have already said that we welcome and approve the main principle for local government reorganisation, but the Buckinghamshire County Council view with the utmost dismay the detailed boundary proposals tearing away from us the borough of Slough and the Eton urban and rural districts.
I am in no doubt that this proposal will seriously weaken the county as an administrative unit and completely destroy its unity and integrity. Her Majesty's Government have stated in the White Paper:
"Where possible existing county boundaries will be retained in order to keep the maximum existing loyalties and to minimise the administrative problems."
How therefore, my Lords, can this severance be justified? With a stroke of the official pen, Buckinghamshire would be reduced to the fifth smallest county in the country, with a population of 413,000, whereas, if left alone, as it is to-day, the population would bear parity with the altered Berkshire which includes Reading. This indeed makes a nonsense

1165
of the attempt by the Secretary of State to keep the existing county boundaries. The Maud Report—and I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, earlier this afternoon; I had the pleasure of listening to him (he will not remember it) when he opened our college at Wheatley some years ago—made much of the alleged links between the South of Buckinghamshire and Berkshire/Reading. This Government seem to have accepted that these links exist; the Buckinghamshire County Council does not.
The Slough and Eton areas are affected by London since Buckinghamshire is one of the ring of Home Counties bordering on Greater London. There is no sense of looking towards Reading. Any links with East Berkshire that arise are largely because part of the East Berkshire population travel to work in Slough with relatively little movement in the opposite direction. If you get on a train in Slough and it is going to Reading, you may well have a compartment to yourself; but if you are going to London you can have your feet stepped on as you search for a seat. The Thames has been the logical, and excellent, boundary between Buckinghamshire and Berkshire for centuries. To substitute this for a boundary following the line of the London to Oxford A.40 through the middle of an urban area, splitting up roots and loyalties of people with common interests, is thoroughly clumsy legislation.
All the existing services in the county would be seriously affected by the proposed reduction in area and population. To mention only one, the excellent education service, with which I am very well acquainted, would be impoverished and partially disorganised. A population of over half a million is certainly advisable if adequate supporting services are to be maintained in the education field. Buckinghamshire is facing the future development of the new town of Milton Keynes, not to speak of the possible selection of Cublington as the site for an airport three or four times the size of Heathrow. The resources required to support the development of Milton Keynes alone are not only financial but include the kind of specialist staff which only a substantial county could support.
1166
I can foresee great difficulty in recruiting and keeping staff of the requisite calibre if the county is reduced in size. It may be argued that the growth of Milton Keynes would soon make up the deficiency in population and resources. It is, however, in the early years of planning and executing a project of this magnitude, especially when coupled with the continual expansion of the rest of the county, that there is the maximum need for resources of money and expertise. Buckinghamshire County Council, with the loss of the South of the county, will no longer form a viable unit or a viable system of local government.
I can only hope that the Department of the Environment will at the end of the consultations realise that local government can only be strengthened by amending their original proposals in the White Paper where they run contrary to all logic and reason. I only regret that the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, does not place much value on the traditional set up of the aldermanic bench. I have fought many local government elections and have served for many years as a municipal reformer on the L.C.C. under the brilliant leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, knowing the joys of victory and one pang of defeat, until I was elected as alderman some years ago in Buckinghamshire. Now, not having to worry about the continunity of my local authority work being broken up by an election every three years, I think that the six-year breathing space is more than welcome. Frankly, I cannot see the necessity for breaking down this local government tradition.
7.37 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I follow the noble Earl. At this position in the "batting list" I shall try not to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, but I want to make two or three points. It has been such an excellent debate, one which I have enjoyed listening to, one participated in by so many who know so much, that it would be remiss of me to bore your Lordships by reiterating points that have already been made. Consequently, if my speech is short it is not because I did not do my homework. I am probably one of the few who have read all that has been written by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and all the subsidiary

1167
literature. The walls of my study are hung with about 60 charts I have compiled. But all that work is now apparently useless.
I remember representatives of the local council knocking at my door and saying to me fraternally, "We are raising £40,000 to fight the change in local government, and behind us we have Lord Gainsborough, the president. Lord Gainsborough says that Whitehall has been planning to get rid of local councils for a long time and has made no bones about it. We are looked upon as a nuisance because we prevent the people in Whitehall from doing what they want to do. They cannot get their schemes done." I do not quite agree with what Lord Gainsborough says, for that would be unfair to Whitehall. But I should like to know what is to be done with the £40,000 that the rural district councils have collected.
The nub of the problem we are discussing to-day is brought out in an article in a New Society Pamphlet by Professor Bryan Keith-Lucas, Professor of Political Science, University of Kent at Canterbury. He writes:
"What matters most to the ordinary member of the public is not the exact pattern of the larger authorities, but whether the new system will allow him to have a say in the shape of his own environment—the planning of his town or village, the nature of the school to which his children go, and the working of local health and welfare services. So in many ways the most significant and important part of the Maud report is not what it recommends at the top of the pyramid of government, but what it proposes at the bottom."
I think that that goes for this second White Paper. I will make no comparisons between the White Paper of 1970 or that of 1971: that would be invidious.
I sincerely believe that it is the wish of the Government to get the pattern of local government definitely changed because of the failure of local government to-day to match the patterns of life and work in modern England. It makes it impossible in some cases for further planning. Nevertheless, I find—and it does not always come from troglodytes like the Labour Party or the Labour councillors—that local patriotism transcends all political frontiers. If you had been with me in a village pub up in the Peak District, or in Staffordshire, talking
1168
about rural politics, when, like Tam o'Shanter's inn, the tobacco was reeking and the house shaking with pots of ale, you would have heard very cultured accents and the beautiful country accents, Labour supporters and Conservatives, joining together in denouncing the loss of the control which they had exercised over the area for many years. Sometimes I am surprised about this, and I have to smile, because many of the Conservatives who become rampant about anything which is being done regarding local government in their area have impressed on me the need for us to get into the Common Market. It does not matter that last week on the Continent people were clubbing each other with dead chickens; that 100,000 farmers walked in Brussels and someone cut someone else's throat.
My Lords, in local government there is a complete crossing of political frontiers because, traditionally, the Britisher knows that local government is older than the Parliamentary system; it is bred in the flesh, the blood and the bones of our people. Consequently, whatever changes we make we must not do what I think Maud does and what this White Paper does: it is shoving the local voter into a Procrustean bed. We are making him fit the bed. If he is too small he has got to stretch until he fits; if he is too big, we shall hunk a chunk off him. This "Procrustean policy" is found in much of these Reports.
In some cases we are getting too big altogether. I am a "Sudaten Welshman", having lived in North Staffordshire for several years, and if I may I shall say something about Wales and about the local government Report in respect of that country at the right time. The city of Stoke-on-Trent bewails the fact that it will disappear into an area designated as No. 14. Burton-upon-Trent and Stoke-on-Trent come in and now have a population of 925,000 and a rateable value of over £34 million. I worry because the Staffordshire Education Committee and the Stoke-on-Trent Education Committee have done a good job of work over the years. Before we smite down these metropolitan areas we should do what is promised in Circular 8/71. There it promises:
"In view of the comprehensive changes which will take effect in 1974, the Secretary

1169
of State will not be prepared, save in most exceptional circumstances, to consider further proposals under the Local Government Act 1933 for the modification of existing county, borough or district boundaries."
The civil servant who signed that describes himself as, "I am, Sir, your obedient servant"—I like that euphemism which appears at the bottom of letters from Whitehall.
That is what we are told in the Circular. We are told that this White Paper is a consultative document, so we should have from the Minister some guarantee that consultation will be apparent; otherwise, this is not the way for a Conservative Government to win friends and influence people. I am afraid that there may well be a General Election before April Fool's Day, 1974. In case there is, I hope the Government will go ahead with this matter rapidly. But, cutting out all the jocularity, may I say that the pattern of life in modern society is not in keeping with the old system of local government.
My Lords, I have spoken for longer than five minutes for which I apologise, but this is pretty well my last sentence. Those who have studied anthropology will know that the physique of human beings is governed by the areas in which they live. The people who live in the mountainous areas have thick thighs and barrel chests; those who live in the plains have long legs. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talk about the River Thames being a natural frontier. Anyone who goes over that must be damn silly; it has been a natural frontier for local government for centuries. Consequently, these things must be taken into account. A man is concerned with his home and environment. There is nothing wrong with local patriotism; in fact it is that which gives him his love for the nation. I hope that the Government will be successful and will make good the local government changes. But I sincerely hope that the Green Paper on Finance will come quickly. I had intended to say a lot about finance, but many people who have spoken have said most of what I could have said. I will leave it at that, my Lords, in the hope that we shall be given some assurance about the constructive purpose of the Government when discussions are held with the local authorities.
7.46 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am sure you will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that on normal occasions it is against our custom to continue, in a long debate like this, to repeat arguments which have already been advanced on a number of occasions. But I think that this debate is an exception because if there is, as a result of this debate, a consensus of opinion and points of view expressed by those of your Lordships who have spoken from both sides of the House and from the Cross Benches, surely that is the most effective way to influence the ultimate decisions of the Government. I therefore follow the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, and those arguments put, if I may say so, mostly expertly and wisely by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It seemed to me that, with her great experience of administration and of dealing with local authorities, she brought to the attention of your Lordships forcefully and eloquently the two major issues with which we, and in turn the Government, are faced: the problems of boundaries and powers.
Although I am not quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I hope I have the sense of her remarks when I say that she argued that if we could get the boundaries right, so that the map of British local government for the next 50 years will, from the beginning, command the confidence of Parliament and the people, much of the rest will follow automatically. Secondly, the noble Baroness advised that we should be flexible and imaginative in the allocation of powers as between what I still call the unitary authorities—the counties—on the one hand, and the districts on the other. Then she suggested that we should not let finance rule unchallenged; that we should tailor the plan to meet the reasonable aspirations and known capacities of the various areas. That seems to me to sum up the approach that we and the Government should be making to this whole question of local government reform. I think this is the theme, the argument which has run like a thread through nearly all the speeches which we have heard in this debate.

1171
Like other Members of your Lordships' House I must declare an interest which, though small, is from my point of view proudly held. I hold the office of High Steward of Colchester, although in this debate I speak entirely for myself. In what I have to say, I am concerned with what many of us who live in that pleasant part of England between Denham Vale and the river Stour and the North Sea and, particularly, in the ancient town of Colchester, feel to be right for our future government. Others, as did the noble Earl, Lord Howe, must speak for their own part of the country. If a debate on local government cannot be concerned with local points of view surely it loses much of its impact.
I hope that I may put my case simply, because to us the issue is simple. In the normal way we should like to be a unitary authority on our own account, but we realise that geography prevents that from happening; and that we must choose between Chelmsford, the pleasant county capital of Essex, 22 miles to our West, or Ipswich, the capital of East Suffolk, 18 miles to our North
Before I address myself to arguments on that particular field of the Report, let me present the plea that any future pattern of local government may be sufficiently flexible as to allow the variations of character, resources and long descended traditions in various parts of England to be fully reflected. Good government, as so many of those who have taken part in this debate have stressed, is not simply a matter of finance or of population statistics and, least of all, of tidy administrative convenience. It is not a process of making small units into big units, of mergers, or takeovers, or amalgamation.
Even in the industrial organisations of to-day, I think, we are beginning to realise that size and access to financial resources are not a sure recipe for efficiency and commercial success. So, in public administration size and rateable value do not guarantee that the individual citizen will enjoy a fuller life or better amenities. What matters is that he should feel as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek said, part of a local authority area, feel a patriotism towards those who administer it, a confidence in their ability to look after and understand his interests
1172
so that he can feel a sense of identification with the area and possess easy access to those who make decisions affecting his interests and welfare.
The White Paper in various parts stresses all this. But it seems to me that in carrying out its principles in some respects it fails. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned Southend. It seems to me strange that the well-administered and powerful county borough of Southend should suddenly find itself shorn of its powers and administered from Chelmsford. Again, why should rural Essex and the vigorous town of Colchester—at any rate vigorous enough to raise more money to build a modern theatre than Bristol, and able to have a team to put Leeds out of the Cup—lose control of many functions which at present it exercises with a reasonable degree of efficiency and with regard to the interests of the inhabitants of the town? The list of these functions is a formidable one. We should lose to Chelmsford education, highways, transport, traffic control, libraries, control of new building, weights and measures, food and drugs, clean air, refuse disposal, welfare, personal health services and planning, for which the county council would have supervisory powers.
When I say "Chelmsford" I do not mean the county town, against which we have no animus, but the proposed county council dominated by the weight of population of the urban, industrialised South-West Essex—Dagenham, Thurrock and Grays.
The White Paper at page 6 says:
"The Government are equally determined to return power to those people who should exercise decisions locally."
That is local government to be exercised by people locally. We feel, rightly or wrongly, that if the plan as outlined in the White Paper is carried out we shall have less chance of looking after our interests locally, of exercising the normal powers of a local democracy, than we have even at this time. We accept fully that local government in this country requires reform and that reform is overdue, but if we are going to reform let us make certain that however important haste and speed may be in carrying decisions into effect, enough time is given to understand and to take account of local ideas and susceptibilities.

1173
No doubt the idea of having a superior tier of government, a unitary authority, is one which is generally accepted, but such areas should be based on zones which have financial and administrative viability and some sense of historic and traditional cohesion. It seems to me a curious thing about the proposals which the Government have put forward, that whereas in the Redcliffe-Maud Report—although I should like to say that I have read it all from cover to cover, I can at any rate say that I have read those passages which concern my own part of the world—the number of unitary authorities proposed is 61, in the present White Paper, excluding the metropolitan areas, the number is just over half—38. One of the principal arguments used against the Redcliffe-Maud Report was that the number of unitary authorities was insufficient for the needs of the country as a whole.
If local government is to be local, then the centre and seat of government must be within a reasonable distance of the people who are being administered by it, and must be administered by people who understand the needs of every locality. From the impression I have on reading the documents that have been made available I think that, although these principles are accepted, the execution of them leaves, at present, much to be desired. We in Colchester realise that, while we hope that the division of powers will leave our own council with a reasonable authority over the people and a reasonable chance of serving them in various ways, of maintaining their welfare and their good administration, we are unlikely ourselves to be a unitary authority. But we feel we should have some say and consideration in deciding the area and centre from which we should be administered.
Although I have not read the whole of the Report I have, as I have said, studied parts of it where it pays special attention to our part of East Anglia. It says—and I quote from page 277:
"The boundary between Essex and Suffolk follows the River Stour. Most of the Stour valley is an area of great natural beauty. It includes the 'Constable country', lying in both Essex and Suffolk. Planning must reconcile preservation of the valley's beauty with the pressures on it as a site for residential development, as a source of water supply and a place for recreation.
"Downstream the Stour estuary joins the Orwell to form Orwell Haven, where the three Haven ports' of Harwich (now in Essex)
1174
Felixstowe and Ipswich are growing in importance. Allocation of land for new port development and new industries has to be co-ordinated with the improvement of road and rail access and with the use of the Haven for recreational purposes.
"There are, therefore, a number of important, related planning problems which should be considered as a whole by a single authority responsible for Ipswich, Felixstowe, Colchester, Harwich and the Stour valley; and we decided to include them all in the same local government unit."
I know that there are differences of opinion with regard to that proposal. I also know that there is considerable weight of opinion in my own part of the world which would like to see established as one of the county authorities what we would call South East Anglia. We believe that there is affinity between all the areas that it would comprise. We believe that we could provide good administration for all the people that are contained in it, and we are quite certain that this part of England, given the opportunity of looking after its own interests in the coherent sphere of planning (which is outlined in that extract which I read from the Report), would be able to provide a progressive centre, not only for local government but also for the future of what is to us, at any rate, a most important part of the country.
8.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House, I start by declaring an interest, in so far as I have been a member of the East Suffolk County Council for, I think, 37 years—it may well be 40. I had not intended to mention that, because I was not going to deal with the White Paper from the point of view of the relationships between the various authorities. However, having heard the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, I feel bound to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to Appendix B of Circular 871, where he will see that Area No. 31 has a population of 715,000, which is artificially boosted up by removing from the North-East part of East Suffolk, Lowestoft and a number of other local authorities, reducing Suffolk itself to a population of 423,000, whereas the noble Lord who has just sat down has said that Area No. 38 has a population of 1,300,000. To have those three populations cheek by jowl, when it would be perfectly easy to do what the noble Lord

1175
has suggested, seems to me to be fantastically stupid.
I do not mean to deal with local government boundaries or anything like that. What to me is much more important is the services which they administer, and in particular the services which deal with the arts, sciences and the like. I want first to deal with museums, because the Government have given both the counties and the districts concurrent powers in museums. However, I think they should remember that a good museum is not just a collection of items to do with the arts and the sciences, but should be the cultural and intellectual centre of the area which it serves. For historical reasons museums have always been provided by urban authorities, because counties have not been museum authorities until recently. The best of these museums have gone well out into the hinterland governed by their county councils to deal with such things as archaeological investigations, contact with people who have pictures, books, silver, china and so on which can be shown in exhibitions, geological and natural history investigations and the like. Yet throughout the country museums are all isolated on their little islands in the municipalities within this great hinterland which the best of them serve. As long ago as 1960 the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries was asked to investigate these provincial museums and they suggested much closer integration between them. Now, ten years later, with local government reform we have the chance to carry out this integration.
In the discussions which followed the publication of the Maud Report the two bodies most vitally concerned with all museums in the country—provincial museums, municipal museums, central museums and university museums—the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Museums Association both came down quite unequivocally in favour of the museum authority being the larger authority which was responsible for education. I agree that the Government have very sensibly given the recurrent powers to the districts, because even parish musuems have their place in the picture of museums, and they ought to be widely extended. However, that must not be allowed to fragment
1176
the main structure of the museum service, because it is essential that the major central museum in a county should be the responsibility of the county the whole of which it serves, and should be supported by the rate of the entire county.
Those museums will of course at present be the responsibility of a larger or a smaller town, many of which will be districts in their own right. I think we have heard too much this afternoon (the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and other noble Lords referred to it) about the fact that, having set up a second tier, we have to give them something to do. We have to look at the services and see how they can be best administered. Every one of us knows, I think, that the major museum in a county must be a county responsibility, and the Bill when it comes must provide for that.
Unless I misunderstood him, the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, went so far as to suggest that libraries might become a second-tier authority function. I do not know whether he thought a great deal before he wrote that down in his notes of what he was going to say. If he was referring merely to lending libraries and bookstalls, it would of course be perfectly feasible. A good inter-library lending arrangement, provided it is efficiently managed, can deal with that quite adequately. But I very much doubt whether the noble Lord has ever had to use three small reference libraries within a relatively small area, each one of them covering the same area. It is absolutely clear that the reference library, if it is to be of any use, must be sufficiently large to have under one roof all that the student of that particular area is going to require. I do not see how you can divorce your reference library from your lending library, although we are going to do it in the National Library. If the Bill provided for that, I should not be dissatisfied. It is essential, however, that the reference library should be run by a body sufficiently large to be able to have, for instance, the catalogue of books of the British Museum, which you really cannot expect the smaller libraries to have.
When one goes on to other comparable services, like records, again some of us have had to go to three small record

1177
offices covering virtually the same geographical area, and a couple of ecclesiatical ones in the Bishoprics that happen to overlap it as well. Noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench may say, or noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite had they been in power would have said: "We must give these chaps in the second-tier authorities something to do. Let them have museums, record offices and libraries." If that is done, those services will be ruined and the Government will incur the odium of every scholar in the country. I hope that they will look at this subject most seriously.
8.9 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest of interest to the speech that has just been delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I was particularly interested in what he said about museums, and for this reason: that one cannot travel about the country, spending an evening with local folk, without their almost immediately describing some local building which has an historical background. They are proud of it, and as one listens one becomes tremendously interested. I think it is very likely indeed, particularly as working days may grow shorter and opportunities for interests in leisure increase, especially if this can be linked with education in a locality, that there will grow up in that way a concern about local history, local contributions to developments, even local things which could so well be housed in the kind of museums to which the noble Earl has referred. I appreciate his speech because it was a speech which approached this subject from a new angle.
I propose to deal with a particular problem, but perhaps I may first make this comment. I find it difficult to think of a Report which has been so comprehensive, so constructive and so imaginative as the Redcliffe-Maud Report. Its scope is immense. I do not propose to discuss the principles which are in that Report, for that has already been done so fully in the debate. But I feel compelled to say one other thing; and it is a very unusual thing for me to say. I admire the courage with which Her Majesty's Government propose to legislate in this matter, because any re-drawing of the pattern of local government is almost bound to bring about resentments which could make the Government proposing
1178
them unpopular. I think it is only fair to this Government, as it was to the last, to say that in this respect.
In some ways this debate has reminded me of another place, in that so many of those who have been speaking have spoken almost for their own constituencies. They have spoken for county council areas in which they have a particular interest or experience. I am not sure that the debate has been any the worse for teat fact. We have had the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, speaking about Somerset; the noble Lord, Lord Alport, speaking about Colchester and South-East Essex, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, speaking about Buckinghamshire. In the long run it is only as a result of this kind of reaction, while legislation is still being considered, that it will be possible to come to a correct decision.
I want to follow the example of others who have spoken about areas of which they have a particular knowledge. In another place I represented the constituency of Eton and Slough—a rather contradictory partnership; Eton, with its college; Slough, with its great industrial estate. I had knowledge of it then, and I have tried to keen in touch with its affairs since. I want to follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the plea that some reconsideration should be given to that area in the new boundaries which are to be drawn for Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. It is very significant that not only the great industrial town of Slough, but the Eton. Urban District Council, embracing the College and the High Street, and the Eton rural area, are absolutely united in opposing the proposal that that area should be transferred from Buckinghamshire to Berkshire.
The argument in favour of the proposal is not very clearly stated, but it appears to be that Slough and Eton look to the West, to Reading, and therefore to Berkshire. No one who knows that area would say that the population looks in that way. The exact opposite is the truth. The people of that area look East to London, rather than West to Reading. They look East to London because Heathrow is quite near, and the number of the staff at Heathrow who live in Slough is very considerable. They look East to London rather than West to

1179
Reading because they have two Greater London Council estates, the Langley Estate and the Britwell Estate. Even if one goes outside Slough to the Eton rural area one finds that the population is largely a commuter population to London. The whole attitude of that area is to look East rather than West. I suggest that when we are looking at the problem of Greater London, and of the Home Counties around Greater London, that kind of association is absolutely necessary if you are going to deal with problems of housing, communication and transport which are involved.
Under these proposals Buckinghamshire is almost the only Home County which would be reduced in its population resources; the others are nearly all either left intact or actually enlarged. I have no hesitation at all in saying that the population of that area would desire to remain in Buckinghamshire, rather than to be transferred to Berkshire. That is from the point of view of Slough and Eton, and the population there is now, I suppose, about 80,000 people—a very considerable population.
I also want to put the view of the county council. Slough and Eton are as necessary to Buckinghamshire County Council as the county is desired by the people of Eton and Slough. If the area of which I am speaking is transferred to Berkshire, the population of the Bucks. County Council will be reduced by 80.000; it will become the fifth smallest county area in the whole of our country. The argument put forward is that in the future it will have the New Town of Milton Keynes, with a population of 145,000. But that will not be until 1981. I want to emphasise as strongly as I can the argument which has been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the very fact that this large New Town is to be established in the County of Buckinghamshire requires—not in 1981 but now—financial resources, expert staff, specialists and the ability to maintain them, because the task of this great project of this New Town is going to demand those resources and the technical skill of a staff. Neither the resources nor the technical skill of the staff will be available if the Buckinghamshire County Council as it is now is cut down in size.
1180
The last point I am going to make, my Lords, is this. When I was the Member of Parliament for this area I was tremendously impressed by the educational services of the county council. I do not know any other town in this country which had such beautiful, well-planned new schools as Slough had, largely because it was a quickly developed area. The county has been giving incalculably fine service in the whole educational sphere. Many of us in that area would much regret to see that association ended. There is a good deal of tolerance in the way in which Her Majesty's Government have met this Report. I hope that they are still going to leave their mind open; I hope they are still going to consider these matters as questions of consultation. When they look at the boundaries of Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, I hope they will pay attention to the mind of the people of the area about which I have been speaking and to the interests for the development of that area as a whole.
8.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, it is no part of my business to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his observations about South Bucks or East Berks. I seem to recollect that Eton at least had no particular objection to being associated with Windsor across the River. But I must, on the other hand, associate myself warmly with him when he says how much he admires the courage of Her Majesty's Government in bringing in this Bill—courage I hope as well as firmness—because surely the time has come to put an end to the uncertainty which has reigned over local government for at least a generation, and to reach a state of affairs where the powers of obstruction, which are very considerable in local government matters, are no longer able to prevent the reform which is much overdue.
I am sorry that I was not able to be in the House at the start of this debate and to hear the high-level speeches of those who spoke early on the speakers' list. Now I am saying a word or two as one who has been a member of his own County Council of Shropshire for nearly twenty years. During that time I have been a member of most of the committees, study groups, working

1181
parties and what-not which during the whole of those twenty years have studied the reorganisation of the county and, as often as not, gone back to square one at the end. I am speaking for myself because our county council committee do not consider this matter until next week and therefore I cannot speak except personally. But Shropshire was almost the only county council to carry through the reorganisation of county districts under the 1958 Act. This makes me wonder a little why there is no reference in the present White Paper to the proposals which were put forward by a previous Conservative Government from 1956 to 1958. They were not nearly so far-reaching as the present proposals, but I am sure they were on sound lines—at any rate, we thought so in Shropshire—the sound lines being to make the smaller towns, not self-contained units but centres of areas which included the surrounding country. I will come back to that point in a moment.
Whether we should have done so much in Shropshire after the 1958 Act if we had known two things—first, that most of the other counties were going to funk the exercise; and, secondly, that the Labour Government were going to squash it—is a matter of question. But I myself am quite certain not only that we were right in doing what we did under the 1958 Act but also, though we did not know it, that it paved the way for the work we shall have to do under these proposals if they become law. The smaller towns were far too small to carry on as independent units. Their size was quite fortuitous. The towns on the hills depended for their boundaries on the needs of fortification; the towns in the plains depended on the size of the monkish domains. Now the smaller towns, as centres of their present rural districts, are, I am sure, finding that their importance is far greater, and of course the increased size of the districts warrants the employment of local government officers on reasonably attractive salaries. For this reason, if for no other, one should welcome any scheme such as this scheme which represents the extension of this thinking—the thinking of the county town, not a municipal borough or, worse still, a county borough within a ring fence, but as the centre in its
1182
county or, as it is going to be called, of its area. That I think is the line which the County Councils' Association take, now expressed by my noble friend Lord Amory.
At the same time, I am bound to say this about Shropshire, or Area 16, if that is what it has to be called. Since it has been virtually left alone; and since, as I say, we have already broken the back of the county district organisation; and since the danger of having a separate local government exist for Telford New Town is removed, like other traumatic experiences which we should have suffered had certain parts of the Maud Report been operated—with all those things, we have no reason to complain—we can hardly bite the hand that has fed us and other people must do the complaining. We in Shropshire are in a more fortunate position than my noble friend Lord Waldegrave in Somerset because, whereas I understand they have no New Towns in the area which will be the future Somerset, we have Telford New Town with its expansion factor which will give us a good deal bigger population than the one in the Appendix to the local government circular. So much for my own county.
May I now for a moment touch on one or two wider points. First of all, coming from the Welsh Border I must take my noble friends in front of me to task for their apparent failure, if not cowardice, in failing to tackle the age-old nonsenses along that Border. If my noble friends in front of me are prepared to stand up to the thunder from places such as Southend-on-Sea, surely they need not be deterred by the squawks they will hear from Aberystwyth and Bangor and other places which would not be concerned with the reorganisation of the Welsh Border. Let me take my noble friend Lord Jellicoe to Llanymynech and show him the pub with one door—
EARL JELLECOE: Where, my Lords?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: To Llanymynech, and show him the pub with one door in Wales and the other door in England—not that that matters so much since Montgomery went "wet" on Sundays. I make that point and perhaps I will come back to it at a later stage if the opportunity occurs, as I did on the 1958 Bill.

1183
May I now come to something which is even more important; that is, paragraph 6 of the White Paper, where it says:
"The division between counties and county boroughs has prolonged an artificial separation of big towns from their surrounding hinterlands for functions whose planning and administration need to embrace both town and country."
A truer word was never spoken, because the passage I have just quoted, if one takes it at its face value, I think means that we can no longer continue to think of town and country as being properly organised in separate local government areas, and I hope very much that that is the intention behind the wording in the circular. If so, it is high time, because it will put an end to a great deal of folk lore and emotional handling of the subject of the country versus the town, much of which dates from before the First World War and the time when Mr. Lloyd George was talking about "Three acres and a cow" and stuff like that.
Certainly none of the proposals in the circular, if properly handled, will impede the efforts which are being made by people like the Council for the Protection of Rural England to protect the natural beauty of this country, or the efforts which were made last year, Conservation Year, to preserve our wild life. Personally, I think that all those efforts will be more easily carried on under these new proposals than they would be if we were to continue some of the present arrangements for the artificial separation of town and country. If you look at the 1909 Act which established the Development Commission, you will see this artificial separation of thinking between the town and the country of dividing the resources, and that certainly will make no sense if we have a pattern like the man which was circulated with the White Paper, showing the towns as centres of the countryside.
If in due course of time these proposals become law, as I hope they will, there will be a great deal to be done, not only by Her Majesty's Ministers and Government Departments and local government officers, but by all the voluntary societies who work with local government in various directions and whose boundaries, by and large, follow the boun-
1184
daries of local government as they are to-day.
There was an article last Friday in The Times by the County Clerk of Cheshire, who mentioned this point of the effect on the unofficial bodies of the alterations in county boundaries. Of course these cannot begin until the Bill becomes law, but I am quite sure that we shall never realise the full benefits of this reorganisation unless the voluntary bodies apply themselves to the task of settling into the new boundaries and the new conditions under which a great many of them will have to work. There are so many of them. County regiments are things of the past, but a great deal needs to be done to make sure that the organisation of the Territorial Army Voluntary Reserve is right in the metropolitan areas, which at the moment it is not. Then there are the Fire and the Police services. I am not suggesting for a moment that any of the police reorganisations which have recently been made should be broken up—certainly in our own case of West Mercia I think it should not—but I am suggesting that no more amalgamations should be planned, either of Police or Fire services, until this pattern has been worked out.
Last, but not least, I wonder whether the news of this White Paper will penetrate to the authorities who manage the affairs of the Church of England, because it will be very difficult for that Church to continue its ministry with the success with which that ministry should be continued unless some attempt is made to adapt the administrative boundaries of the Church to these new administrative boundaries, once they become law. I do not like to think of the effect in certain cathedral closes—there are no Bishops here tonight—and I like still less to think of the effect on various ecclesiastical lawyers who will be advising the ecclesiastical authorities. But, never mind, that will have to come, and I hope that the thinking in those quarters will start and will run on parallel lines to the thinking in Ministries in Whitehall and in local government circles.
I am quite sure that the plan which is now put forward is based on sound principles. Nobody can expect that everybody will be very pleased. Everybody will not be very pleased. But at least I am convinced that these pro

1185
posals will stand the test of time and that after so many years of uncertainty and frustration, people in local government will be able to go ahead with the feeling that they have at least a clear generation before them to attend to their own affairs, with success.
8.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, like everyone here I have been doing a lot of homework and looking up what we all said in the debate on this subject almost exactly a year ago. There are several important changes in the White Paper now before us from the proposals of the previous Government, and I should first like to say how very much I feel that these changes are moving in the right direction. I think we all welcome the timetable which has been put before the country and has been so well explained by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I am quite certain that this timetable will be acceptable and possible, even if many detailed negotiations remain to be carried out. There can be no doubt that further delay and uncertainly would be disadvantageous to local government generally, and perhaps particularly to the staff who work in it, who have lived under the threat and uncertainty of reorganisation for so very long. Indeed, my Lords, on Tyneside, the area from which I come, as I said last year, we have had the threat of local government reorganisation since about 1928.
I have no complaint whatever with the timetable and I am delighted that the Government have decided to introduce it in this firm way. There is the possible but detailed exception that the date of November 1973 for the district council elections may be running things a little tight, giving not very long before those concerned are in a position to take over on the appointed day in April 1974. I accept that this is a detail.
One must be particularly gratified to note that the Government have taken my advice and that of many other people as well, in agreeing that there should be a two-tier system in local government throughout England. We have it in Scotland and in Wales, and I do not see why England should be left out. There is no doubt in my mind that this is generally desired and that the principle will be widely welcomed throughout the
1186
country as a result of this White Paper. There are, of course, quite a number of what Mr. Peter Walker has referred to as "Puddlecombes", who will object to anything we do, and I have no doubt that several of them will press their objections to the limit; but of the various possibilities which are open to us in England I am quite certain that the present structure is absolutely right in principle, and in every way it is the essential compromise for which we are looking between efficiency and democracy.
It would be wrong not to mention, however briefly, that this White Paper leaves the county of Northumberland (I am at the moment Chairman of the council) in a serious situation, because it would become much the smallest in population. The population will be 100,000 less than in Shropshire, to which the noble Viscount has just referred, and the county will be so much smaller than any other that I think the situation could be disastrous. In this matter I am delighted to find an ally in the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, even if his solutions are not acceptable to us, or even to his Socialist friends in the North of England. We have lost two New Towns in Tyneside. To go further into this matter at this time would not be right, but I have mentioned it only because by my silence I might be thought to agree in toto with the proposals, which I do not.
We have here the problem of the boundaries of the metropolitan areas. Briefly, the argument has been as to whether the boundary should be tightly drawn, as this Government wish, or loosely drawn (if that is the expression) as the previous Government wished. Wherever you draw a boundary, it is bound to be wrong for someone who will be left on the wrong side. I would say that, give or take a little, in drawing the metropolitan boundaries reasonably tightly the Government have done the right thing. We have to accept that all major planning is going to overlap these metropolitan boundaries. "Where there's a will, there's a way". and I believe planning will transcend these boundaries and will provide effective solutions to problems which cannot be solved within the boundaries of one area. I am impressed by how strongly people who live in green belts feel about the

1187
undesirability of entering a metropolitan area, and I hope (this is really what I want more than anything else to say) that the Government will listen. I believe the Government's stated willingness to listen to objections, to possible changes, as suggested in the White Paper, is something very valuable indeed. I do not think we had this from the last Government; I do not know why. I feel certain that this is extremely valuable and is something on which local authorities will be putting up their own objections, making reasonable cases with reasonable arguments. I hope that the Government will be prepared to be honest about this, and will change their minds about certain boundaries in order that certain things should be done, particularly where public opinion, even in the smaller authorities—who can feel as strongly as the larger ones—has a case to make. The Government must listen, and I am certain the White Paper indicates that they will.
We have already referred to the Green Paper on Finance; I am delighted to hear that this is likely to be ready in the next two or three months. I had thought that we might pass a Bill this year. This could be referred to as Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. Perhaps we can have this Paper published before legislation; I hope this will be done.
Another important distinction I wish briefly to refer to between this White Paper and that of the previous Government is that the new metropolitan areas, which are different in character and number from the other ones, should not have responsibility for education, but that this responsibility should go to the metropolitan district councils. We are all aware that the evidence submitted to Lord Redcliffe-Maud's Commission from the Department of Education and Science and from experts generally was that education authorities should not concern themselves with populations of less than 500,000 people. While it is the view of the educational experts, a view which is respected, I think it is going a little too far to say that education authorities below a certain figure, even far below the 500.000 mark, can never be as efficient as the larger ones. I do not think this argument holds water.
Again, this conflict between democracy and efficiency is evident, in that although
1188
a larger authority may be more efficient it by no means follows that it will cost less to administer, nor that it is in any sense more human. Indeed, such evidence as I possess leads me to suppose that an education authority can become too large and too remote, and can become too busy to see the problems of individual families. Such matters are very important in people's personal lives, as all of us in local government will have experienced.
The contrary argument, that the smaller authorities are unable to provide the special facilities and specialist services which are necessary in modern education, is, I realise, a very strong one. But I do not see why these special services and so forth cannot be provided over a much wider area by some sort of sharing or participating arrangement between neighbouring authorities. For example, in my own authority we employ a peripatetic ping-pong teacher, and I feel certain that his essential and valuable services could be made available to adjacent authorities, if they so desired, on a cost-sharing basis. And what we can do for ping-pong, I think we can do also for more essential services—as indeed we do for teaching-training at this moment.
To keep education authorities within reasonable bounds is therefore a good thing. I welcome the White Paper's decision on this matter, and I am certain that it will be much easier to effect a changeover in large cities within metropolitan areas if they are able to keep their own existing education authorities, which they have cherished for so long and looked after so well and managed to operate with what I believe to be, in most cases, real efficiency.
I want to refer to one final matter; that is, the question of aldermen. I am aware that there is a large body of opinion which feels that aldermen have had their day; that they are an anachronism and should be abolished. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has referred to-day to this view. I am not quite sure whether in his distinguished career he has been a councillor, nor whether he has been an alderman; and in this he may be as prejudiced as I am. I believe that in local government we are very much in need of people of experience to provide continuity. Some of them—most of them—are very busy in other fields. A great many valuable people will not be able to

1189
afford the time and expense required to fight elections every three years, and they will leave local government just at the time when their experience could be most valuable. So to keep experienced people throughout the upheaval of reorganisation will be particularly valuable to local government and, I would add, to the country. A hard-working councillor can spend almost as much time on his constituents as a Member of Parliament does, but without the Member of Parliament's secretarial help, and without his salary or his very long Recesses. Therefore, again I think this is a case where, although people cannot undertake indefinitely to remain on the council, their services can be retained in an aldermanic system for a limited period of time in a limited way.
The difficulty is that aldermanic vacancies and elections have sometimes been used for political manœuvreing. There is no doubt that bolstering-up of majorities, and so forth, has gone on. But, my Lords, it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater, even if in some cases the bathwater was particularly dirty. I suggest, however, that an alderman should have done, say, at least three years' service on the council, particularly the council of which he is made alderman, and furthermore that the proportion of aldermen on any one council should be greatly reduced: from, say, one to three, as it now is to one to four or five of the total number of councilors. I believe that this would be a valuable step, and I hope the Government will not decide too hastily, or without careful thought, on the abolition of the alder-manic system.
In closing, I wholeheartedly welcome this White Paper and the prospects of action. It is going to be a big upheaval—perhaps the biggest ever contemplated; but I think it will work. It will cost money and take time to implement, and will involve much hard work from all those concerned in it. But once this rebirth is completed, those of us who may still be concerned in it will ask only to be left alone to perfect the system and get on with the job. I hope that I am the last Back Bench Peer who ever has to speak on a White Paper on local government reform.
8.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg the indulgence of your
1190
Lordships in intervening at this late hour, particularly since I have not put my name down. However, I do so encouraged as a number of noble Lords have not spoken, but more particularly following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I have no connection at all with local government, but I did not feel that I could allow this particular debate to pass without adding support to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said. As noble Lords will know, I have lived and spent most of my working life in Southampton, and I feel that here is a city—a town a few years ago, now having achieved city status—which does deserve the special consideration which the noble Lord outlined in his speech.
The city is self-supporting; it has a population of 214,000 people; it has an effect upon over 400,000 people; it is diverse in its work and its leisure, having, as it were, the New Forest as an amenity, the docks and the passenger port as a large part of its business, and having the University and the new medical school as a nucleus of its educational and training work. With these attributes, to my way of thinking, there is little doubt that the city should, and could, achieve metropolitan status within a county, as the noble Lord suggests. I should be encouraged if I could feel that Her Majesty's Government would give this matter further consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, suggested, and I endorse his suggestion.
8.52 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I never cease to wonder at the wealth of knowledge and experience that this House can command. We have had the charm and skill of the noble Earl the Leader of the House in opening this debate; the value of the lengthy Ministerial experience of my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale; the brilliance of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud; the wit and knowledge of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, whom it is always a delight to hear. We have had the quite exceptional experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, whom we missed from our debate last year but are glad to see this afternoon.
My Lords, I could go on, did time permit. I cannot think of any single speech to-day that I have listened to that was not

1191
worth while. It is no wonder that the sale of our Hansard exceeds that of another place: for these outstanding contributions that are made in practically all debates that we have in this House are so well worth while and, I think, so much better than the debates in another place. I have, with other noble Lords, to declare that I am a vice-president of a local authority association, the Association of Urban District Councils. I often wonder why we bother to say this; there are so many of us who happen to hold this sort of office. However, we all speak for ourselves and not for any associations—at least this is what we should be doing.
If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is to wind up, can find any real unanimity emerging from this debate, he is a better man than I am. Of course there has been agreement about what I may call the clinchds of seeking vigorous local government; the need for the maximum local democracy and democratic control; that local government should be, and be seen to be, local in character and in fact. The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Leek and Lord Alport, and others, have rightly reminded us that local government is for the people; and how right they are!
We have always to remember, it seems to me, that what we do here ought to be for the people. A predecessor of the present right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells was once visiting Glastonbury, the place where I was born. In a little church very near to Glastonbury he found that they were removing the old benches, the old pews. He remonstrated with the churchwarden and said, '"You ought not to be removing these benches bearing the marks of the adze, which have been hallowed by time in your little church". The churchwarden looked up at him and said, "That's all very well for you, sir; you haven't got to sit in them." We ought to remember all the time that local government is for the people who have to "sit in 'em"; in other words, who are to be affected.
Even though there has not been unanimity of view expressed, I feel bound to say that there appears to be a pretty general acceptance that two-tier local government is about right for this country. On the reform of local government as a whole, I started with a very strong prejudice for two-tier government.
1192
I was nearly weaned from it by the cogency of argument in the Royal Commission's Report and the brilliance of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, in last year's debate. However, on further reflection, I have come round to the firm opinion that it would be preferable for this country to cling to two-tier government. After all, we understand it, and the vast majority at present engaged in local government, no matter in what capacity, have worked it.
So far as I personally am concerned, I find it difficult to do other than to accept, in the main, the principal proposals contained in the White Paper. I have some reservations on the allocation of functions as between the county authorities and the districts, but I will say straight away that I very much welcome the statement in the White Paper to the effect that the functions to be allotted to the two main sorts of authorities are such that it will not be a question of some authorities being answerable to others. This statement I like very much. But I must say that I find it a little difficult to see how those words are to be matched up to the holding of what are called "concurrent powers" by county councils and district councils. Concurrent powers are allocated in such matters as environmental health; the acquisition of land for planning purposes, and development and redevelopment. I find this a little difficult. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell us how the Government visualise that concurrent powers will work, without one authority being to some extent answerable to the other. If he can do this, I shall be very much obliged, but I cannot see that it can be done quite as the White Paper visualises, and that one authority will not to some extent be answerable to the other.
In this matter of the allocation of functions, I rather think that those noble Lords are right who have questioned the wisdom of taking building regulation administration out of the hands of the district councils. I think that this should definitely reside with the authority which is nearest to the ground, and this is where the district council happens to be. When making, say, an alteration to a house, people ought not to be asked to go to the district council in connection with

1193
the planning, as they will have to do, and then go to the county council offices (perhaps many miles away) for the building regulation approval. I hope that the Government will look at this point again.
Still on functions, I should have thought that, although there is some pressure being exerted to allocate food and drugs supervision to the district councils (and despite anything which my noble friend Lord Greenwood has said on this matter), it is right that this type of thing should be allocated to an authority which is big enough to employ the staff that will do the work of sampling and analysis which surely must be done by a large authority. In this connection we have to remember that although 40,000 population is suggested as the minimum for district councils, the number may well be smaller in thinly populated areas. I welcome the fact that the districts are to be genuine authorities, with responsibilities and powers sufficient to make service with them a reality for both members and officers.
I disliked very much the idea contained both in the White Paper of the Labour Government and in the Royal Commission's Report, of local councils having only a duty to represent the wishes of the inhabitants, a right to be consulted, and powers which are not in keeping with really purposeful local control of local affairs or satisfactory to the type of officer or councillor that we need in local government. I believe that in this respect the White Paper that we are discussing is far superior to that of the Government which I supported. I completely agree with the acceptance by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, of the Government's clear intention that the artificial separation of town and country for local government purposes should end.
Nevertheless, this is going to raise some difficulties, as some noble Lords who have spoken here this afternoon made clear. There is always the little fear existing that the country will attempt to dominate the town, or perhaps the greater fear that the town will dominate the country, in matters such as this. This is inevitable, but I hope that we shall overcome it, because I hate the thought of a nice urban area within a narrow boundary, and outside it the vast countryside which looks to that urban area
1194
for its services and yet is cut off for local government purposes. That is quite wrong. I cannot pretend to a detailed knowledge of the metropolitan areas, so I shall not comment except to say that I think that both my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, are right in saying that some of the proposals are much too tightly drawn. They deserve the serious consideration mentioned by those noble Lords and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, to whom I listened, as I always do on local government matters, with very great attention, talked of the age-old nonsense of the Welsh/English Border. He scorned his Government for failing to tackle this matter. My Lords, I do not blame the Government. I would remind the noble Viscount that good Shropshire men have lost their lives in the past as a result of messing about with that Border, and I feel sure that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is the last one to embark upon something which would endanger his life. If it did not endanger his life, it would certainly cause him to find himself in very great difficulties. The noble Earl must be careful. He should not be pushed on by the noble Viscount who sits behind him.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, can I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, does not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in attributing courage to the Government in dealing with this matter?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we will leave it at that. But the noble Earl must take my advice.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is attributing discretion rather than valour to me personally. I must say that I entirely agree with him.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, that is exactly what I was doing. I happen to know the noble Earl and think that he has a great deal of good sense. In connection with the White Paper which we are discussing, we are of course to await a Green Paper which we are told will be published later this year, which will tell us the Government's views about

1195
finance. A year ago, when discussing the Labour Government's White Paper, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and others, told us, in effect, that it was nonsense to be discussing local government reform in the absence of proposals for a reconstruction of the financial system. But those noble Lords, or at least the Government, are expecting everyone to discuss this White Paper intelligently in advance of the Green Paper which we are told to expect later. This is only a gentle leg-pull, because 12 months ago I could not see why you could not decide certain major changes in the structure of local government, and having done so make the financing of local government fit that structure; in other words, make the finance fit the structure and not the structure fit the finance, important though finance undoubtedly is.
With my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, I welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has traversed the Road to Damascus. He has seen the blinding light, although it is not so blinding as all that. Incidentally, the same noble Lords seemed to think that it was nonsense to discuss local government reform without Crowther, but to-day they have no objection to proceeding, as we proposed to do, while awaiting the Crowther Report. Still, my Lords, I suppose that what I am doing now is merely playing the game of the "ins" and the "outs", to which Parliament is very much addicted; this game in which those who are "out" talk this way about the "ins", and the "ins" talk as they so often do about the "outs".
The next point to which I want to make some reference is the payment of councillors. I want to mention the enhanced duties of many of the councils, and the greater power they will have to wield if the Government find it possible in the words of the White Paper,
"…to return power to those people who should exercise decisions locally, and to ensure that local government is given every opportunity to take that initiative and responsibility effectively, speedily and with vigour."
At county level, county councillors are to-day doing practically a full-time job and it will be even more a full-time job if the ideas in the White Paper are carried
1196
out in their entirety. If the Government decide that a salary ought not to be paid—and of course there is more than one view about this—there should be a payment for daily expenses which would cover travelling expenses, a subsistence allowance and a sum for loss of earnings. There ought also to be an allowance sufficiently generous to compensate for loss of promotion opportunities, which comparatively young men suffer when they give up much of their time to local government work. Without something of that sort, fewer and fewer ordinary working class men of the standard local government ought to have for its efficient running will be willing to stand for election. Something has to be devised in this connection. As the noble Viscount, Lord Amory said, we need councillors of the highest quality, and only in this way can we hope to get them.
My Lords, the last point to which I wish to make reference is that of the timetable. I very much agree with the White Paper where it says that the present momentum towards reform must not be lost. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, when he welcomed that sentence. I must say that the timetable is tight, but not too tight when regard is had to the fact that the Report of the Royal Commission was dated June, 1969, that the Royal Commission sat from 1966 onwards, and that there had been intensive discussion by the associations of local authorities and others before 1969 in readiness for the presentations of submissions to the Commission. Added to that there were, and there have been over the last year, discussions arising out of the White Paper on local government.
What I would say about this proposal to reform local government is, "Reform it and leave it alone for as long as you can"; in other words, stop messing it about. The difficulties and frustrations created by the feeling that change is hanging over their heads is, for officers and councillors, enormous. That is why I strongly support the decision evidenced in the White Paper of setting a target date for the settling of boundaries of new districts. I also welcome the assurance in Circular 8/71 that the Commission will be set up while the Bill is before Parliament; in other words, that the preparations will go on and not wait until the

1197
Bill becomes an Act and some appointed day is set. My Lords, if the Boundary Commission looks like having difficulty in meeting the target date, split it up and let it conduct its examination in parts over the whole country, so that the target date will in fact be met.
Just how difficult the question of boundaries and sizes of new authorities is has been made glaringly obvious by the speeches of my noble friend, Lord Jacques, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and others. There are bound to be difficulties, but the Government must face those difficulties, and I think they have to push their legislation through. Look to see whether it is possible to make some adjustments, but in the main stick to the White Paper: that is the advice I tender to them. Whatever the pattern of the districts eventually proposed by the Boundary Commission, there is bound to be opposition which will go on up to the time of the Parliamentary debate on the Orders, when they are laid. Councillors and officials tend to cling to bits of territory and to powers with very great tenacity.
My Lords, the note upon which I wish to end is a note of praise for the officers and councillors who have carried local government in this country for so many years. A magnificent job has been done by them and the country owes them a very great debt. I feel it especially for those councillors who, as a result of this reform, will not longer find themselves councillors. Being a councillor is something which becomes part of one's life, and to be cut off, as some of them will be, will create a tremendous void in their lives—the sort of void I felt when I lost my seat in the other place in 1959. For a period I was absolutely lost, but fortunately I came here. They cannot all hope to get back on other councils and I can only say that this House should feel with those councillors and should do what I am doing now—thank them sincerely for the magnificent work they have done and hope that they will not be too frustrated in their lives after this White Paper becomes a reality.
9.14 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to start by first of all thanking all those noble Lords who have given Her Majesty's Government their comments
1198
and advice and have posed us their questions during this debate, but I think the House will appreciate it if I am somewhat selective in those remarks to which I respond at this particular moment. I should next like especially to register my tribute and my applause to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and to all their colleagues for the Report on which all this is based and without which none of it could be happening; and also especially for the very generous welcome for our plans which both of them expressed, despite their reservations, and for the strong encouragement they gave to our determination to "get on with it".
I should also like to acknowledge the warm response that we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and from almost all their colleagues on that side of the House, for our particular choice, which is, of course, not their choice. We welcome particularly the powerful note of encouragement that we have received to press on, though, of course, not to press on into Wales—that is a useful caution. I should like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, on being made President of the Urban District Councils Association, and to express our regret at not having with us today the President of the Rural District Councils Association, the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, who sent me a telegram to express his regrets at not being here.
Finally in my expression of gratitude on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I should like to thank the local authority associations (which I can do very conveniently through their presidents, ex-presidents and vice-presidents, who have in so many respects and from so many quarters adorned the whole of this debate) for the work that they have already done, for the work that they are doing now and for the work that they have undertaken to do to help us set the pace we have set and to keep it up. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said, there is indeed a very great deal still to be done.
My Lords, I should like to turn, in sequence, to the various sizes of authority with which this whole programme deals, and first of all to the regions and the Provinces, and particularly to the criticism which has been voiced by several

1199
noble Lords and Baronesses about the fact that the metropolitan county boundaries have been drawn too tightly. Our view (and surely, my Lords, this is the experience so far with Greater London) is that all the big issues of the big conurbations the green belt, overspill housing, commuter travel, planning and building of strategic highways and problems of employment—affect really big areas far beyond any boundary that would suit other functions of any single local government authority. The conurbations act upon the whole of a very wide region around them, and the counter-action needs to be worked out on a regional and provincial basis.
Of course, we are not unmindful of this problem, but we recognise that for the time being it is to the appointed economic planning councils and the standing conferences of elected local authority members that we must look for the answers to these problems. The South-East Joint Planning Study, on which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, served and to which he referred, has shown what can be done. It has shown how that worm to which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, referred can be defeated. Later on, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reminded us, we shall have the benefit of the views of the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther; but we do not believe that in the meantime any of these problems can be dealt with or mitigated or reduced by extending the boundaries of the metropolitan counties in an attempt to embrace them. Indeed, they fall more readily to those who can cope with them if the boundaries are drawn closely: and this, therefore, is what we have done.
We think that it is this change of outlook, as compared with Maud, which leads us to find conditions in which six, rather than three, metropolitan counties will serve well. But in that process we have also become quite clear, as did the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe-Maud, and his colleagues, that those conditions do not exist anywhere else—either in Hampshire, where the previous Government thought they did and where the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Lucas, still think they do, or in Central Lancashire, where the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, thought they did, but his Party did not.
1200
My Lords, if I may, I will turn to the next level, counties and districts and their boundaries. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, the introduction by us of a second tier in the non-metropolitan counties has obscured the very wide measure of agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Royal Commission on almost everything else. In fact, the debate has revealed some fresh agreements that we had not up till now been expecting, both in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and in those of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. For instance, we are at one with them in agreeing, as Labour did not, that education was a service which could be handled adequately by the metropolitan districts. The huge majority of our counties lie within the population range they established and followed; and it has to be remembered that in practice every service for which the Maud unitary authorities would have been responsible and every service for which the new counties will be responsible is certain to be decentralised for one reason or another and in one way or another. For example, local authority personal social services would have worked, and still will work, following the Seebohm Report, in area teams covering a population of roughly 50,000 to 100,000. The difference is that what would have been decentralised by an administrative or managerial decision in every case will now in some cases be allocated to district councils by Statute with areas defined by order.
It is for that reason that it does not by any means follow, as Lord Greenwood feared, that physical planning and social planning might be divorced. Nevertheless, there is clearly a very great deal to be said for using the same boundaries both for the area into which local authority functions are decentralised by management for administrative reasons and also for those areas in which other local authority functions are exercised by district authorities under Statute. I am glad to confirm that the Boundaries Commission will have this consideration in mind, as they will also have in mind the fact of which the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, reminded us, that the reorganisation of the National Health Service is

1201
to come into being simultaneously with the reform of local government and is to share boundaries, as closely as is practicable.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, all I would say further is that the Boundary Commission will be a permanent, independent body capable of keeping local authority boundaries under review. My noble friend the Leader of the House referred to our desire to establish a structure of local government that would last for a hundred years. All of us would say "Hear, hear "to that; but no one expects that the boundaries within that structure will remain permanent for that length of time; and the full intention of Her Majesty's Government is to establish a strong, independent Boundary Commission to keep the boundaries under adjustment.
A certain amount has been said today in this House, and a good deal more outside it, to the effect that the county boroughs will disappear under this plan; and so they will. But, my Lords, so will every other authority which is now on the face of the map. All authorities now involved in local government will disappear, and all will be making an entirely fresh start.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment, before I go on to the next level, to the question of housing, on which I think Her Majesty's Government and members of the Royal Commission are still not in agreement. The Government believe that housing is a function which should be operated as close to the citizen as possible. Accordingly, district councils are proposed as the main housing authorities everywhere. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and with many others, that county councils will need powers to deal with housing problems which transcend district boundaries. Proposals are now being considered in detail, and they will include provision to make sure that there need be no gap between the satisfying of housing needs and the tackling of other personal and social problems.
I should like to turn to, not the least but the smallest of the authorities to be considered; namely, the parishes, the
1202
most local of the local councils—and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, referred to them in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe-Maud, said in his Report there can be little doubt in anybody's mind that there is a level well below the 200,000 mark where people feel at home and where they may say, "This is where I belong". As the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, reminded us, it is often at this level that the spirit of local service is first kindled. It should be possible at this level for people to say what they want to say, and to be heard; to pay for what they want to have and get it done. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who said much the same thing during his lively speech.
My Lords, we neglect this element in the whole pattern of local government very much at our peril. Perhaps it may wait while the larger areas and the bigger functions are discussed, and the financial side must wait for our Green Paper. But while the main structure of local government is being re-forged, the pattern of the parishes must be pondered with the very greatest care. There are, of course, the existing rural parishes—7,000 of them; and some combination or reorganisation of these might be helpful. There will be more scope in future for councils of the parish council mould in the smaller towns; and there is scope, too, for councils (of a rather different kind) to focus the views and desires of whole neighbourhoods in the larger towns. These last may be of two kinds, either statutory or voluntary—or even both—working in parallel. But these are matters to be looked at later on.
What is also important now, at this level in particular, is that voluntary bodies and the Churches (here I particularly welcome what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said) and all other bodies who work closely with the local authority services should make their views known and say how they think the pattern of the new services at the more local levels should be re-fashioned. Incidentally, I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that so far as the Church is concerned, the dioceses are already much closer to the pattern to which local government is moving than is local government itself, and they may well have a contribution to make. The

1203
Church has never divided town and country in the way it has been divided, up to now, by local government.
Then, my Lords, when, in due course, the new boundaries are settled, I entirely agree that voluntary bodies and the Churches should be quick to adjust themselves to fit in and build up new Church/State voluntary statutory partnerships at the local level under the new conditions.
May I turn briefly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, and others, about the sanctions and controls exercised by central Government over local government? In his Royal Commission Report the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, agreed that the controls that central Government exercise over local government should be reviewed once local government is reorganised. We very much agree upon the need for this. But we have already started the process, and we hope that the main legislation for the reform of local government, the Bill that is to be introduced in the next Session, will itself contain the first fruits of that review. Beyond that, the review will be a continuing and searching process.
I come now finally (I apologise for speaking at some length, but this is a wide topic) to the programme for putting into effect the proposals in this White Paper. Of all the wide support that these proposals have had, I think perhaps the widest is for the Government's intention now to act with all despatch. We have heard Lord Redcliffe-Maud's encouragement to press on with "this robust, vigorous and ambitious programme" and we are grateful to him for these words. We have also heard—and this in a way is even more welcome—from the General Secretary of NALGO, speaking for those who are, with a vengeance, on the receiving end of all this, these words:
"NALGO welcomes the end of uncertainty and welcomes the speed of the timetable which the Government have laid down."
While talking of staff, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, for recognising the value of the Staff Commission which we propose to set up and for acknowledging, as did the noble Lords, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, Lord Champion and others, the weight that the local authority officers will be bearing, and
1204
bearing not just for the next three years but for many years thereafter, as they seek to perfect the new system which we, by legislation, are introducing.
The fact is that in this week in three years' time, on April 1, 1974, all the new councillors will be elected, officers will be in their new posts in all the new authorities and all will be set to go. Perhaps I may briefly re-state the programme between now and then. It is this. Early next Session the main Bill will be introduced. Meanwhile the Government have asked for comments about areas. And I would urge the counties of Essex, Buckinghamshire, Somerset, Suffolk and other counties whose case has been urged so eloquently this afternoon in the House to urge their case to us—in 10 copies, with three supporting, maps, and, if possible, emulating the eloquence of noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I can assure them that their comments will certainly he heeded. But I hold out no prospect whatever of any extension of the date, the end of May. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his endorsement of our determination to stick firmly to that.
The Government are now having consultations with the local authority associations about functions—and these, of course, include building controls, clean air, museums, concurrent powers, food and drugs, and all those things about which many noble Lords have spoken and made such hopeful comments on today. The Government will come to conclusions on both areas and functions in time for those conclusions to be incorporated in the Bill. This preparation, the drafting and the introduction of the Bill, will occupy most of the rest of this year, 1971.
In the course of this period our Green Paper on local government finance will be issued, and I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that that will be done before the Bill is introduced. At the same time, and in the same period, the Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee will be published. The consultation document on the reorganised National Health Service will also be published, and discussions on all these will continue.
When, in 1972, the Bill has been given a Second Reading, the Boundaries Corn-mission will be brought into being and

1205
will start work on the district boundaries outside the metropolitan areas. Their proposals will be debated in Parliament and will be given effect by Order at the end of 1972. In this period our Bill on housing finance will be before Parliament. During 1973 the members of the new authorities will be elected: those of the counties and the metropolitan districts in the spring; those of the other districts in the late autumn. If thought fit, there will be an opportunity in this period to legislate on local authority finance. In 1974, on April 1, the new authorities, and also the new authorities that will run the reorganised National Health Service, are to take over.
Our predecessors were planning to legislate in 1971–72. Nothing has changed to make the need for reform less urgent—in fact, everything conspires to make an early change important. There will therefore be no delay in drafting and introducing legislation. Nor is there any virtue in any extension of the period of transition. I am glad therefore for to-day's firm endorsement, from virtually all of your Lordships, that the broad conclusions that have now been reached should now be implemented, and with all despatch.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.
LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  USE OF ALGICIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS
  USE OF ALGICIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS
  CRIMINAL DAMAGE: SENTENCES
  CRIMINAL DAMAGE: SENTENCES
  MALICIOUS DAMAGE: CIRCULATION OF LAW COMMISSION'S PAPER
  MALICIOUS DAMAGE: CIRCULATION OF LAW COMMISSION'S PAPER
  COMMUNITY CENTRES: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  COMMUNITY CENTRES: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  YOUTH SERVICE AND COMMUNITY WORK
  YOUTH SERVICE AND COMMUNITY WORK