Sitting of 26 May 1971

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

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, in the Committee, read.
  Bill to be considered tomorrow.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25th May]:
  That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

  SCHEDULE
  Standing Order 22, line 22, leave out 'Postmaster General' and insert 'Post Office'.
  Standing Order 27, line 57, leave out 'a' and insert 'one' leave out from 'Office' in line 59 to end of line 61 and insert 'and two copies at the Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 29, line 3, after 'system', insert 'two copies of'.
  Line 8, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Line 9, leave out 'ministry' and insert 'department, and one copy'.
  Line 9, leave out 'at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and'.
  Standing Order 30, line 5, leave out 'Ministry of Power' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.
  Line 6, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 30A, line 4, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 31, line 6, leave out 'Board of Trade' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.
  Standing Order 34, line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and add 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 37, line 15, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 39, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14 and insert 'On or before the fourth day of December printed copies shall be deposited (1) of every bill, three at the Department of the Environment; two at the Department of Social Services and at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and one at the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster'.
  Standing Order 45, line 32, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 46, lines 4 and 5, leave out 'Board of Trade or Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry or Department of the Environment'.
  Line 5, leave out 'offices' and insert 'Departments'.
  Standing Order 47, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 144, line 13, leave out 'and the Board of Trade'.
  Standing Order 146, line 5, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
  Line 7, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 147, line 7, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
  Line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
  Standing Order 154, line 11, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
  Line 23, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
  Standing Order 155, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert 'Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for the Environment'.
  Line 8, leave out 'Board or Minister' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
  Standing Order 156B, line 16, leave out 'Minister of Housing and Local Government or'.
  Standing Orders page 98, leave out Table of Fees and insert new Table of Fees as follows:

  A TABLE OF FEES TO BE CHARGED AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

  I. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL

  For the deposit of the Petition, Bill, Plan and other Documents required to be deposited in the Private Bill Office

  £5

  For each day on which the Examiner shall inquire into compliance with the Standing Orders

  £5

  FOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE

  On the First Reading of the Bill.

  £15

  On the Second Reading of the Bill.

  £15

  On the Report from the Committee on the Bill.

  £15

  On the Third Reading of the Bill

  £15

  Additional fee on a Debate at Seven o'clock on one or more evenings on any one stage of the Bill

  £25

  The promoters or Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage is derived, and Personal Bills brought from the Lords, may be charged one-half of the preceding fees.
  Except for such Bills as are mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, the preceding Fees on First, Second and Third Readings, and on Report, shall be increased, according to the total sum of the moneys which it is proposed to raise or expend under the authority of the Bill, in accordance with the following scale:—
  If the sum be two hundred thousand pounds or more, and less than one million pounds, twice the amount of these Fees;
  If the sum be one million pounds or more, and less than two million pounds, three times the amount of these Fees;
  If the sum be two million pounds or more, and less than three million pounds, four times the amount of these Fees;
  If the sum be three million pounds or more, and less than five million pounds, five times the amount of these Fees;
  If the sum be five million pounds or more, six times the amount of these Fees.

  FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A COMMITTEE OR THE COURT OF REFEREES

  For each of the first three days on which a Committee on an opposed Bill shall sit

  £10

  For each subsequent day

  £15

  For each day on which a Committee on an unopposed Bill shall sit

  £3

  For each day on which the Court of Referees shall sit

  £10

  For proceedings before a Joint Committee one-half of the preceding fees shall be charged.

  II. FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORALISTS

  On the deposit of any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with

  £1

  On the presentation of any Petition in favour of or against a Private Bill.

  £2

  For each day on which the Examiner inquires into any Memorial complaining of non-compliance with the Standing Order.

  £2

  For each day on which a Petitioner appears before any Committee or before the Court of Referees

  £2

  For each day on which a Petitioner appears before a Joint Committee.

  £1

  III. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE APPLICANTS FOR A PROVISIONAL ORDER
  On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, the applicants for each Provisional Order included in the Bill shall be charged a fee of £15.
  For proceedings before the Court of Referees or any Committee, the fees charged to applicants and opponents shall be at the same rates as those charged for similar proceedings on a Private Bill.

  IV. FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER

  For each day on which an applicant (other than a Minister) appears before—

  (a) the Chairmen

  £1·50

  (b) a Joint Committee

  £5

  On the deposit of each Petition or Counter-Petition, a copy of either

  £1

  For each day on which a Petition in either House appears before the Chairmen or before a Joint Committee

  £1

  For each day on which a Counter-Petitioner in either House appears before a Joint Committee

  £1

  V. GENERAL FEES

  On each Motion, Order or Proceeding in the House upon a Private Bill, Petition, or matter not otherwise charged

  £1

  For a copy of any Paper or Document, per folio of 72 words—If five folios or under

  19p

  If above five folios, per folio.

  4P

  For a copy of a Plan, made by the parties

  £1·50

  For the inspection of a Plan or other Document

  37½p

  For each day on which any parties shall be heard by Counsel at the Bar, from each side

  £10

  For each day on which a Committee of the whole House shall sit on a Private Bill or matter

  £6

  For serving any Summons or Order on a Private Bill or matter

  £1

  For each Order for the commitment or discharge of any person

  £1

  For taking any person into custody for a Breach of Privilege or Contempt

  £5

  For taking any person into custody for any other cause

  £2

  For each day on which any person shall be in custody

  £1

  For Riding Charges per mile

  5p

  VI. FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATION OF COSTS ON PRIVATE BILLS

  For each application or reference to the Taxing Officer of the House of Commons for the Taxation of a Bill of Costs.

  £1

  For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer.

  £1

  On the deposit of a Memorial complaining of a Report of the Taxing Officer

  £1

  For any Certificate which shall be signed by the Speaker

  £1

  For a copy of any Document in the office of the Taxing Officer, per folio of 72 words

  5p

  VII. FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE SHORTHAND WRITER

  For each day he shall attend Home

  £7·82½

  Distance of more than 60 miles from Charing Cross

  £9·27½

  For the transcript of his notes, per folio of 72 words—

  where carbon copies of transcript are supplied

  13½p

  where no carbon copies of transcript are supplied

  19p

  carbon copy, per folio of 72 words.

  1p

  where evidence is sound recorded

  25p

  The preceding fees shall be charged, paid, and received at such times, in such manner and under such regulations as the Speaker shall from time to time direct.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Question put and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Housing Starts (Private Sector)
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of houses started in the private sector during the first quarter of 1971; and what increase this represents over the same quarter in 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The number was 1,832–29 per cent. more than were started in the first quarter of 1970.
    Mr. Sproat: These are absolutely first-class figures for Scotland. What actions on the part of the Government caused these figures to be achieved? May we have an assurance that every step will be taken to increase the number of owner-occupiers in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I agree that it is desirable to increase the number of people who are able to own their own homes. These figures have been brought about partly by various measures that have been taken by the Government to make it more attractive for people to become home owners.
    Mr. Sillars: As the hon. Gentleman is in a boastful mood, may I ask him to answer the question which has been repeatedly put to him, namely, will the Conservative Government build more houses in total than were built in the last year of the Labour Administration?
    Mr. Younger: That is another question which is not related only to private house building. I have consistently told the hon. Gentleman that our objective is to build as many houses as possible in areas of general need.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Recalling that 1969 was the best year since the war for private house building, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether he thinks the Conservative Government will achieve in 1971 the record figure of that year? If

    347
    so, the figure for the first quarter is very disappointing.
    Mr. Younger: The figure for the first quarter of 1971 relates, of course, to only one quarter of the year, and one should not read too much into it. However, the present trend represents an encouraging start.

    Fishing Rights (Hunter Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Hunter Report on Fishing Rights.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): My right hon. Friend is preparing proposals.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the angling community have an official Governmental view before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When proposals have been prepared they will be announced in the proper way.
    Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great potential which exists in the Highlands of Scotland from the point of view of trout fishing in hill lochs? Will he bear in mind that restocking, which is essential, will not take place unless some assurance of legal protection is given?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend raises an important point, of which we are aware. I assure him that it will be taken into account in our consideration of this matter.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition will look with a jaundiced eye on proposals which protect only trout-fishing rights and which do not take into account the need to open up fishing in Scotland to the vast majority of the population?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to put it in that way, for the Labour Party took five years simply to study the proposals and then did not announce a decision. We shall certainly do much better than that.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the much-increased catch by drift netting off the north-east coast of England likely to affect stocks in Scottish rivers?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is a matter which we shall be considering.

    Home Purchase (Mortgages)
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further proposals he has to strengthen the building societies in Scotland, and for making mortgages easier and cheaper to obtain.
    Mr. Younger: The building societies have agreed to improve their lending arrangements, and for our part we are making the option mortgage scheme more flexible. The societies and their mortgagees will also benefit from the Budget proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially from the abolition of stamp duty on mortgages and the reductions in income tax and corporation tax. We will take further steps if these are necessary to promote home ownership in Scotland.
    Mr. Gray: These measures will unquestionably be helpful. Can my hon. Friend confirm that there are many people in the lower income groups who would like to become home owners? What steps is it proposed to take to assist them?
    Mr. Younger: I am very conscious of that problem, as my hon. Friend knows—and this is one of the reasons why we have removed all restrictions on mortgage lending by local authorities, so that they will more easily be able to fill the gap between those whom building societies are unable to help and those who would still wish to own their own homes.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any discussions that have taken place between the Scottish banks and the Bank of England in relation to the Bank of England's discussions document? How will that affect building society deposits in Scotland and the ability of building societies to reduce their interest rates to borrowers?
    Mr. Younger: This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have had no representations from the building societies in Scotland that this will cause any difficulties for them.

    Alcoholism
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether

    349
    he will give details of the research now being done into the relationship between alcoholism or excessive drinking and crime, stating by whom such research is being financed.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of four programmes of criminological research in Scotland known to me to be concerned in part with the relationship between alcoholism or excessive drinking and crime.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman say how much of this research is financed by the brewers? Can he also confirm the figures given by his hon. Friend in a speech a week or two ago, when he said that 20 per cent. of crime in Scotland was directly related to excessive drinking? Will he persuade his hon. Friends to use the £150,000 that the Tory Party got from the brewers in the last two years leading up to the election for this very socially desirable purpose of research into crime and drinking?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my right hon. Friend has already indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), we accept this relationship between excessive drinking and crime. Indeed, this is a matter which we are referring to the Clayson Committee. This is a very helpful way of approaching it.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of Distillers lives in my constituency. He markets splendid products, which I strongly recommend. If my hon. Friend were to approach him for some money for research, I am sure that he would not receive a dusty answer.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. What we have to remember is that the question of the misuse of alcohol is primarily the responsibility of the individual. What is important is to make sure that public attitudes towards this matter are right.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Is it not time that a forensic laboratory was set up in Scotland to investigate the causes of crime generally?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Question relates to drinking, and we are financing
    350
    research on that. Indeed, we have not so far refused any application for grants for criminological research projects into this field.
    Following is the information:

    CRIMINOLOGICAL STUDIES IN SCOTLAND WHICH INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL
    1. A programme of studies of violence and the misuse of alcohol including comparative studies of psychological and social characteristics of various categories of offenders, with special reference to violent and chronic drunken offenders, is being conducted in the Department of Psychiatry at Edinburgh University.

    2. The Department of Criminal Law and Criminology at Edinburgh University is conducting a research project on homicides, part of which includes a study of the state of drunkenness of the aggressor and the victim.

    3. The Departments of Psychiatry and Criminal Law and Criminology at Edinburgh University are conducting a study of the circumstances of crimes of violence tried before the High Court in 1969.

    4. The Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency has initiated a project to study crimes of violence in Glasgow which will include the collection of information on the extent to which the consumption of alcohol was a factor in the assaults.

    The second project receives financial support from the Social Sciences Research Council and the others from the Scottish Home and Health Department.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the age groups, for males and females, at which there is the greatest incidence of alcoholism; what is the number of deaths as a result in those age groups; and what relationship that number bears to the five most lethal diseases.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Statistics on the incidence of alcoholism in Scotland are not available. The rate of admission to hospital with a diagnosis of alcoholism is highest in the 35–44 and 45–54 age groups for both men and women. Deaths in Scotland from alcoholism and alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver are very much fewer than from any of the five most common causes of death; I shall publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Would he agree that inadequate research facilities are available to find out the incidence of alcoholic disease in Scotland? For example, is he aware that medical opinion is fast reaching the conclusion that death from alcoholic disease is rapidly reaching

    351
    the top of the table in the incidence of killer diseases?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's view is not supported by the statistics which have been published so far, but I agree that there is a problem because alcoholics are to be found in all walks

    THE FIVE MOST COMMON CAUSES OF DEATH IN SCOTLAND IN 1970

    Cause

    All Ages

    0-

    5-

    15-

    25-

    Males

    Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)

    9,909

    —

    —

    2

    26

    Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209).

    6,763

    23

    30

    47

    61

    Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)

    3,819

    8

    —

    8

    21

    Bronchitis, emphysema, asthma (I.C.D. 490–493)

    2,137

    —

    4

    5

    4

    Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)

    1,440

    147

    9

    6

    10

    Females

    Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)

    7,641

    —

    —

    4

    6

    Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)

    6,131

    3

    1

    7

    16

    Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209)

    5,857

    13

    23

    25

    68

    Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)

    1,604

    110

    9

    7

    11

    Other forms of heart disease (I.C.D. 420–429)

    1,337

    —

    —

    3

    2

    Cause

    35-

    45-

    55-

    65-

    75

    Males

    Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)

    232

    995

    2,519

    3,241

    2,894

    Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209)

    193

    634

    1,874

    2,409

    1,492

    Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)

    49

    150

    570

    1,236

    1,777

    Bronchitis, emphysema, asthma (I.C.D. 490–493)

    19

    107

    486

    875

    637

    Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)

    19

    40

    152

    345

    712

    Females

    Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)

    55

    256

    1,010

    2,175

    4,135

    Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)

    48

    205

    540

    1,524

    3,787

    Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209).

    209

    674

    1,324

    1,719

    1,802

    Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)

    18

    44

    96

    290

    1,019

    Other forms of heart disease (I.C.D. 420–429)

    11

    29

    77

    261

    954

    DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM AND ALCOHOLIC CIRRHOSIS OF LIVER IN SCOTLAND

    Cause

    All Ages

    0-

    5-

    15-

    25-

    Males

    Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)

    45

    —

    —

    1

    1

    Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)

    18

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Females

    Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)

    9

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)

    9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Cause

    35-

    45-

    55-

    65-

    75

    Males

    Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)

    10

    12

    11

    9

    1

    Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)

    —

    5

    9

    2

    —

    Females

    Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)

    3

    2

    2

    1

    —

    Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)

    —

    5

    1

    2

    1

    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of male patients in mental hospitals are there because of alcoholism; and how this figure has varied in the last 20 years.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Information is not available in this form. Of the total male admissions to mental hospitals and psychiatric units, about 20 per cent. in
    of life and an unknown number do not seek treatment. I share his concern about the problem of alcoholism in Scotland, and I believe that the recent campaigns by the Scottish Health Education Unit show our concern.
    Following is the information:
    1961 and 28 per cent. in 1970 were for alcoholism; these include a high proportion of readmissions.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the scandalously high figures that he has given, there is something very immoral in the Tory Party accepting enormous sums of money from the brewers who put these people into mental institutions?

    353
    Will he make representations to his hon. Friend sitting near him that in no circumstances will the Tory Party soil its hands wth this filthy lucre?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have always been a strong temperance man. But I believe that if we were to approach the problem with the jaundiced view which he has expressed we would not get results. The Government are doing things in the right way. The Scottish Health Education Unit has been conducting a campaign aimed at educating the public. This, and not abuse and misrepresentation, will bring results.

    Housing Aid Centres
    Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to promote the formation of housing aid centres; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: At my right hon. Friend's request, the Scottish Council of Social Service is examining the need for such centres and their relationship to the existing services provided by their Citizens Advice Bureaux and by local authorities. We are also in touch with other organisations which are active in work of this kind.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: As many of the services are those normally supplied by solicitors, surveyors and bank managers, has my hon. Friend taken advice from the professional bodies representing such people?
    Mr. Younger: I have had informal discussions with solicitors as well as with the other bodies which I have mentioned, but my general objective is to find the most effective means of getting better access for the public to advice and help on how they can best fulfil their housing needs.
    Mr. Small: Related to that question, would the Minister examine and restore the 4,000 cut in S.S.H.A. building programme, which would certainly be a more practical step in its application than some other ideas?
    Mr. Younger: It would certainly have been so if there had been any such cut. But there has been no such cut, and I am glad to be able to say that to the hon. Gentleman.

    Scotland West Industrial Promotion Group
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial or other support he is giving to the Scotland West Industrial Promotion Group; and if he will make a statement on its progress so far.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I warmly welcome the setting up of Scotland West and I wish it well. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on 13th January, I think it right that the finance and other resources for regional efforts—of which Scotland West is one—should come from the regions concerned.—[Vol. 809, c. 58.]
    Dr. Mabon: Undoubtedly that is a sailor's farewell. Does this mean that every regional promotion group in Scotland is to receive no money whatsoever from the Government directly? Is it a case that the total promotion of Scotland abroad will be £20,000, less than a penny a head? Is not this utterly deplorable in an area of Scotland which has had a series of closures—for instance, Plessey and many others—and now faces this deplorable decision not to allow Chevron to develop at Hunterston?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not understood what has been arranged with the Scottish Council. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has been seeing regional and other promotional agencies to seek support, including financial support, for a campaign to promote Scotland as a whole. The initial response has been excellent. The Government have agreed to provide £20,000 a year as a contribution to the new national organisation, and that is double the amount that the previous Government were providing, which in any case was due to come to an end.

    Hospitals (Ministers' Visit)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what hospitals he has visited officially in Scotland since 1st January, 1971.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have visited one hospital in an official capacity. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State

    355
    for Health and Education has made two official visits in the period.
    Mr. Hunter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but if he is unable to visit Dunfermline in the near future, would he ask the Under-Secretary responsible for the health services to come to Dunfermline and to see how badly we are in need of a new general hospital?
    Mr. Campbell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will consider that. I will make inquiries, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me about any particular points he wishes to raise.
    Mr. Steel: Would the Secretary of State also consider an invitation for himself or his Under-Secretary to visit Peel Hospital on the Border? Is he aware that there are growing protests in Scotland as hospital standards rise elsewhere—and rightly so—that a wartime wooden-hutted hospital is no longer adequate to serve the needs of the populations of the four Border Counties? If he or his colleagues could see it for themselves, they would receive a warm welcome.
    Mr. Campbell: I will also consider that matter. I am aware of the conditions which have been described. I hope that the House will have noted the announcement I made last Friday about the reorganisation of the whole hospital service in Scotland.

    School Leaving Age
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official representations he has received from education authorities about their capital allocation for the raising of the school leaving age; and what replies he has sent.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): Since my right hon. Friend increased the allocations of a number of education authorities for school building generally last December, representations involving accommodation for the raising of the school leaving age have been received in three cases. Discussions with the authorities concerned were arranged.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware of the voices in Scotland now urging him to leave out certain areas from the initial introduction of the raising of the school leaving age? Will he take this opportunity to state definitely that the school leaving age will be raised, on the Government's target, all over Scotland on the same day?
    Mr. Taylor: That is a different Question from that which the hon. Gentleman asked about building. There is on the Order Paper a separate Question on the school leaving age, which I shall be very glad to answer later today.
    Mr. MacArthur: Important as school buildings are, would my hon. Friend agree that the provision of an adequate number of teachers is even more important? Has he had any recent consultations with local authorities, in West Scotland particularly, where an especially severe shortage of secondary teachers is expected in 1973? Is he prepared to take further steps, if necessary, to overcome that shortage?
    Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend rightly said, staffing is the main consideration. He will be aware, from the various announcements which have been made, that the position is showing some very encouraging improvement.
    Mr. William Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give a firm assurance that the school-leaving age will be raised to 16 years as from 1972–73.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he now proposes to raise the school-leaving age to 16 years.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Yes, Sir. I do not anticipate any significant difficulties in carrying this policy into effect except in certain areas in the West of Scotland. I believe that the special measures announced to assist the areas of difficulty, including the increase in the number of designated posts, should help to remove inequalities of distribution.
    Mr. Hannan: That statement will be welcomed by all of us on this side of the House, and I think by some hon.

    357
    Members opposite. Would it not be intolerable if the school-leaving age went up to 16 in England and Wales and not in Scotland? Though I understand the problems of the teachers, surely with the provision of the necessary extra accommodation and an increase in the number of graduates, the likelihood of success on this occasion is much greater than in 1947?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is correct in emphasising the importance of adequate teacher supply. All the recent indications have been very encouraging. It would be misleading not to say that we have a problem in the West of Scotland, one which we hope the measures announced so far will help to overcome before the date of raising the school-leaving age.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the problems which faced the Labour Government 25 years ago were mountainous compared with the problems that face him today, yet that Government went ahead despite the difficulties and successfully raised the age to 15? Are he and his Government to hesitate now, on the eve of our entry into the Common Market? Will he ensure that there is not even a little part of Scotland where he is afraid to use all the influence and power of the Government, so that the age is successfully raised all over Scotland at the date of the change, which I assume he will announce to us?
    Mr. Taylor: I have not yet been authorised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer Questions on the Common Market, so I will not deal with that point. The hon. Gentleman's important point was to relate what is to happen now to the situation when the school-leaving age was raised to 15. He will be aware that there were many serious practical problems then. It is certainly our intention to take all possible steps to make sure that raising the school-leaving age does not have the effect of reducing general education standards in any part of Scotland in any way.
    Mr. Brewis: Did not the last Labour Government postpone raising the school-leaving age? Can my hon. Friend say how applications from graduates to enter the colleges of education are coming along?
    Mr. Taylor: It is true that the raising of the school-leaving age was postponed by the previous Government for economic and other reasons. The number of teachers in the schools last January was over 1,000 up on the 1970 figure. The figures of graduates entering the colleges of education are also extremely encouraging. I hope to have some figures to give the House within a month or so.

    Winter Works Programme (Old Schools)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce an educational winter works programme in order that old school toilets in Lanarkshire can be replaced; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: As regards a winter works programme, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 5th May. Lanarkshire Education Authority is making progress with the replacement of school toilets under the normal school building programme.—[Vol. 816, c. 1359–62.]
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that what is required is not the usual, normal routine works programme, but a programme of a massive character? Does he realise that primary school toilets, such as those at Rochsolloch primary school, built in 1902, still cannot be replaced because of lack of money? Would he please do something about it.
    Mr. Taylor: It would be wrong to give an answer on each individual school, but Lanarkshire is at present engaged on a programme of school toilet replacement amounting to £200,000. As for the future, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extra £4½ million of capital investment which the Government are making available for starts in 1972–73 which should enable authorities to make faster progress than at present.
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we do not expect him to make a statement on every individual toilet, but in view of the derisory nature of last winter's work programme; the alarming unemployment figures, particularly among construction workers; the problem we shall face with the raising of the school

    359
    leaving age next year; and the fact that we are likely to have the bleakest summer in employment for years, would he not consider altering the terms so as to give us a summer works programme to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we inherited a school building programme, and we have increased that programme by the special measures announced for primary schools. We shall shortly announce our 1973 allocations. The hon. Gentleman should await that announcement. In the few months we have been in office, we have a record to be proud of, since we have increased the programme which was announced.

    Portobello Power Station (Conversion)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress regarding the proposal that Portobello power station be converted from coal to oil firing.
    Mr. Younger: I met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress recently. They urged the Government not to allow conversion of the power station from coal to oil firing because this would have adverse effects on mining employment and morale.
    Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the repeated statements by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regarding concern for the number of unemployed in Scotland will be hollow indeed if he decides to put over another 1,000 families on dole next winter on the basis of the flimsy case which has been advocated for this oil conversion?
    Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the Adjournment debate which took place last week, we have been at great pains to take views from all bodies concerned on the question whether this power station should be converted. I assure him that we are taking all these facts carefully into consideration.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will receive with some satisfaction the fact that he has firmly stated that his mind is not made
    360
    up? However, is he further aware that this week the Scottish area of the National Union of Mineworkers voiced the great concern felt by miners, and that the situation could create a crisis of confidence in the mining industry? Will he act immediately in the interests of giving some confidence and heart to the mining industry by doing away with this proposition to convert to oil?
    Mr. Younger: I can again confirm that no decision has been taken in this matter, and I was left in no doubt by the representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Mineworkers when I saw them that they felt that it is not in their interest this should be done.

    Development Council for Lanarkshire
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused to meet a delegation from the Development Council for Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: As was explained in the reply to the Council, a meeting would not be appropriate at this stage because there is nothing more I could say at present on the matters raised.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Development Council for Lanarkshire consists of representatives from all the local authorities and Members of Parliament in the county and that the rate of unemployment in the North Lanarkshire area alone increased last month to 7·5 per cent., making it the second highest unemployment area in Scotland? Is he aware that his attitude to this responsible body makes it feel that the Government are not concerned to solve the problems faced by our country.
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman only three weeks ago, in somewhat intemperate terms, was demanding that I should see a deputation from Caldercruix, but the terms were somewhat misplaced because, in confirmation of what I said to the House, I saw a deputation. I was acutely aware of the particular misfortune which has struck that relatively small community. However, when I am not in a position to say any more at a certain stage, it does not help busy people, Members of Parliament or local authorities to have a meeting of the kind suggested.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since the inception of this Development Council in 1961, this is the first time that a Government Minister has refused to meet a deputation—and at a time when the unemployment situation in the area is chronic, and indeed is escalating? Will he not reconsider his decision not to meet the Lanarkshire Development Council?
    Mr. Campbell: What I have said is that it is not an appropriate moment to have that meeting now. It would inevitably mean two meetings. I have had correspondence with the Council, I have taken into account the views which they have expressed, and I am very much aware of them.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have made representations to him in respect of the fishing industry with regard to Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To date, representations on this subject have been received from some 20 Scottish local authorities. The replies repeated the assurances that have already been given in this House.
    Mr. Baker: Would my hon. Friend say how many local authorities were enthusiastic about the reply; and, secondly, would he say when the Government will clearly say that the minimum terms for the British inshore fishing industry embrace the retention of the 12, six and three-mile limits?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have had letters of thanks from those to whom we have written. At the same time, I must remind my hon. Friend that this is a delicate matter, and I repeat the assurance that we shall be negotiating it with the Six.
    Mr. Strang: Would the Under-Secretary confirm the very important statement made by the Foreign Secretary at the Scottish Conservative Conference in Aberdeen that the Government will not take Britain into the E.E.C. without first obtaining some modification of the common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman reads what my right hon. Friend says—and what my right hon. Friend says he means.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman share the optimism expressed by the Prime Minister on Monday, that in the forthcoming negotiations in Luxembourg this matter will be settled; and does he expect that it will be settled to the advantage of Scotland and the United Kingdon before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am afraid that I do not approach this matter in quite the same cavalier way as that in which the hon. Gentleman approaches it. The matter is far too important and far too vital for Scotland for that. I believe that anybody with experience of international negotiations would realise that it would be imprudent at this stage to reveal our hand.

    Regional Planning (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for co-ordinating regional planning in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Yes, Sir, though I am always looking for improvements. The Scottish Economic Planning Board co-ordinates the work of Government Departments and my officials maintain constant liaison with local planning authorities and their joint advisory committees.
    Mr. Douglas: How have the sub-regional economic planning groups reacted to the visits proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's Department and others to Germany to attract West German industrialists to Scotland? Have the local groups been consulted on whether they want direct investment or indirect investment by German manufacturers in Scotland, and why cannot Scottish industrialists take up favourable investment opportunities?
    Mr. Campbell: I cannot speak for all the bodies concerned without notice. But I have had no impression of any opposition to investment from abroad, particularly from Germany, where the Government have asked industry to expand abroad.
    Mr. Dickson Mabon: Since the right hon. Gentleman has written to the chairman of the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee, do I take it, in the light of co-ordinating regional activities and his decision on Chevron, that the German industrialists are to be brought over to Hunterston to view the vacant land that the right hon. Gentleman has declined to zone for an oil refinery?
    Mr. Campbell: The decision which I have taken is exactly similar to that taken by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) a year and a half ago on a proposal by Murco for an oil refinery nearby. For similar reasons, I have accepted the recommendation made very strongly by the reporter. I raised, probably before any other hon. Member, the importance of the deep-water facilities at Hunterston for the steel industry in Scotland, nearly two years ago. I initiated a debate on the subject in Supply time long before other hon. Members were saying anything about it; and I am particularly concerned about the importance of the area for the steel industry.

    National Health Service (Charges)
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had about the proposed increases in National Health Service charges.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend has received seven representations aaginst cost-related prescription charges in addition to those from bodies representative of the medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that objections to his proposal have been based on clinical grounds, which is a very nice way of covering up the real meaning of his proposals, which would be extremely damaging to the health of the people in Scotland? In view of the representations he has received, will he undertake to withdraw this grotesque and unacceptable policy?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right in that a variety of objections have been made for a variety of reasons. We shall give very careful consideration to the views of the professions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I met the representatives
    364
    of the doctors and the dentists last week to discuss their objections to cost-related prescription charges. We shall be meeting representatives of the pharmacists next month.

    House Improvement Schemes (Publicity Campaign)
    Mr. Mac Arthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to date by his Department's house improvement publicity campaign; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: The campaign, which was begun on 3rd May, has elicited a most encouraging initial response from members of the public, local authorities and others. Press and television advertising, local exhibitions, and other activities will continue throughout the summer.
    Mr. MacArthur: Can my hon. Friend quantify his answer in any way? I realise the difficulty of doing so at this stage, but can he give any estimate of the number of houses in Scotland which could be improved in that way? Is his feeling that the early results of the campaign are extremely promising?
    Mr. Younger: The early results are very encouraging. In the few weeks that the campaign has been going on we have already had 2,000 inquiries from members of the public, and 31 local authorities have said that they are willing to hold local improvement exhibitions. All the indications are that this is a most encouraging start towards what I hope will be a major break-through in providing more homes for people in Scotland.
    Mr. David Steel: How many mobile exhibition units are there as part of the campaign?
    Mr. Younger: We have some flexibility, in that there can be more than one at one time if they are relatively small, or they can be amalgamated to make a bigger exhibition display if necessary. If the hon. Gentleman has particular inquiries from his local authority, I shall be very glad to receive them.
    Mr. Galbraith: Are the houses mainly for owner-occupation or for rent?
    Mr. Younger: They cover all types of housing. The basic requirement is that

    365
    the house concerned should be improved to modern standards and then be able to provide a home for a family which would not otherwise have been provided.

    Regional Employment Premium and Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following the recent Budget concerning the net benefit to Scotland of the regional employment premium and the selective employment tax.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, Sir.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the halving of S.E.T. is very good news for Scotland? Could R.E.P., which has been quite popular in some quarters, in any case continue after 1974 under the regional policy of the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of the great welcome in Scotland for the halving of S.E.T. in July. [Interruption.] There is no need for writing on that, or for the welcome of the total abolition within two years. I could not answer the question about R.E.P. and the E.E.C. regulations without notice, but I want to make it clear that we are committed to continuing it until September, 1974.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Scottish Development Department do a study of the effect of continuing the regional employment premium on the investment plans of multi-national companies?
    Mr. Campbell: I will consider that but I am not sure what its relevance will be.
    Mr. Buchan: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that, despite the apparent marginal effect of the halving of selective employment tax, it by no means compensates for the ending of the regional employment premium. This is especially serious in view of the destruction by the Government of the other incentives which should be going to Scotland. Has he made any estimate of the loss to Scotland incurred by the simultaneous phasing out of the regional employment premium and the introduction of the value-added tax?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not know about the marginal effect in one respect, but I know of another—that the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is likely to become more marginal as a result of the abolition of selective employment tax. The package of incentives introduced by the Government is more flexible and more related to the creation of new jobs. A larger amount of incentives is flowing to the special development area in West Central Scotland than ever before.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Horticulture (Competition)
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him about the problems of Scottish horticulturists arising from unfair competition from subsidised fuel prices enjoyed by the Dutch growers.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand that the fuel subsidies to Dutch growers have ceased.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to look at that statement again, because I do not think that it is entirely accurate? In view of the conversion to natural gas, the Dutch growers are getting subsidies and benefits of various kinds from their Government. Would not he agree that it is absurd that the Dutch growers should be able to sell tomatoes in Glasgow cheaper than the Scottish horticultural industry can sell them? Will he look at this matter again with greater sympathy?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The information I gave is of very recent date and I think that my hon. Friend will find it accurate. I assure him that if growers have evidence that foreign produce is being dumped on the United Kingdom market, they can be assured of a rapid hearing from the Government.

    Misuse of Drugs (Edinburgh)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view

    367
    of the rise in drug taking and drug thefts in Edinburgh, he will call for reports from the police authorities about the work and strength of drug squads; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is for chief constables to determine how best to deploy their manpower but I know that they are devoting increasing resources to problems arising from the misuse of drugs.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend realise that the number of these offences in Edinburgh has doubled in the past year and that there is great concern in the city? Is he convinced that there are enough police resources, in manpower, equipment, intelligence work and everything else, to get rid of this appalling problem.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern and I know that it is also shared by the Edinburgh police. I want to pay tribute to the work of the force and of its drug squad. So far as the force's establishment is concerned, we are prepared to give all the help we can in order to assist it to meet this very difficult problem.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the need to enlist to co-operation of the parents in any effective campaign against teenage drug taking? Will he consider a campaign to educate parents, in view of the education gap, in order to give them some knowledge of the danger of drug taking and also in the detection of what I understand to be the characteristic odour of cannabis?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree that the matter must be tackled on a wider front than police work alone. In many local authority areas, liaison committees have already been set up whereby educational and social workers come together with local medical officers and police officers. This wider approach is much the most effective one that we can follow.

    Museums (Admission Charges)
    Mr. Alexander Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will grant exemption from paying admission charges to museums for students, all pensioners and persons below 16 years of age.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The proposals contained in the White Paper "Future Policy for Museums and Galleries", which are still to be discussed with the Trustees of the National Institutions, include provision for exemptions for organised educational parties, library readers, and scholars and students on prearranged visits. No other exemptions for particular categories of visitor are proposed.
    Mr. Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware, however, that the money to be raised by these charges is so low in total that it is not worth imposing the charges in the first place? Is he further aware of the detrimental effect the charges could have on students in their research projects? Is he further aware of the loss of culture which could otherwise have been obtained by the under-16 age group? Is he further aware of the loss of interest and recreational facilities to the pensioners in Scotland and elsewhere in Britain as a result of the charges? Will he reconsider the whole project and not introduce charges at all?
    Mr. Taylor: The estimated income is not insignificant. It is, for Great Britain as a whole, £1,300,000, less 10 per cent. for administrative costs. The White Paper points out that for scholars and students prearranged visits should be allowable for exemption.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this attack on the old and the young is one of the meanest of all the mean measures produced by this meanest of all Governments? Is it not characteristic of the Government that they equate the arts with cash and call the man in charge of the arts the "Paymaster-General"?
    Mr. Taylor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is being quite ridiculous. The Government have a record of concern for the elderly of which we can be proud. When did the hon. Gentleman's Government raise pensions by £1 a week?

    Local Government Reorganisation (Water Boards)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the statutory

    369
    water boards in Scotland about the forthcoming reform of local government as outlined in Command Paper No. 4583.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from statutory water boards in Scotland about the proposals for the reform of local government as stated in Command Paper No. 4583; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. George Younger: My right hon. Friend has asked the Scottish Water Advisory Committee to consider future arrangements for administering the water service, in the light of our White Paper. I understand that all water boards have been invited to submit evidence to the Committee, and the Fife and Kinross Water Board have sent my right hon. Friend a copy of their written evidence.
    Dr. Mabon: Since we have heard today that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education has been gagged by the Prime Minister on matters concerning the Common Market, are we to take it that the Secretary of State is gagging the Water Advisory Committee by the narrow and restrictive remit he has given it? Is it not fair that the Committee should be entitled to make comments going wider than that remit? Since water is in public ownership in Scotland, should not the Committee be allowed to consider whether water should be nationally and not regionally organised?
    Mr. Younger: No one in this Government has been gagged by anyone. That may be how things are operated in Labour Governments, but it is not the way things are done in this Government.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Water Advisory Committee has been asked to consider the future organisation of water services in the light of the reform of local government. It is open to the Committee to produce any recommendations it thinks fit, but I gather that all concerned have accepted the general proposition that the future organisation of water supplies should relate to the new functioning of regional government.

    Technical Colleges
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for allocating more funds to provide
    370
    more technical college building in Scotland.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: In my view the present education authority building programme is adequate to meet the demand for student places as expressed in proposals submitted by authorities.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new Lauder Technical College in West Fife is not yet complete? Would he agree that to leave this college unfinished is not good for staff or students, who have to work in old buildings in other parts of my constituency? Can he not do something to speed up the next phase?
    Mr. Taylor: I understand that the authority hopes to be ready to start this phase late in 1972 or early 1973. If the planning of the project proceeds accordingly, it will be considered for inclusion in the programme of starts for the year 1972–73.

    Unemployment (Government Policies)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from industrial organisations in Scotland about the effect of Government policies on the level of unemployment; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: During the past six months I have received representations from a number of industrial organisations referring to the general unemployment situation or the situations in particular areas.
    Where appropriate, my replies have referred to the Government's regional policy measures and to the measures proposed in the Budget to improve economic growth.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the largest industrial organisations in Scotland, thanks to his policy, is the army of unemployed? Is he further aware that the unemployed yesterday regarded his disgraceful decision in turning down the Chevron development project as a meaningful gesture of his disregard of their needs? Is he also aware that the unemployed people in Scotland are fed up with his platitudes and want to know when he will pull his finger out and give us some decisive action?
    Mr. Campbell: At the time that the Secretary of State in the last Labour Government was rejecting the Murco application, a year and a half ago, I was pressing him to take action which would have avoided the unemployment that we have today. As for the number of jobs, the oil refinery would have produced 300 jobs but against that would have to be offset jobs in agriculture and damage to the local tourist industry.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who are interested in the long-term welfare of Scotland are delighted that he has decided to keep clear of oil pollution in the important recreational area of Hunterston and that they deprecate most strongly the heartless use of the numbers of unemployed for purely party political reasons when it is the Labour Party which is responsible for that unemployment?
    Mr. Campbell: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that even some hon. Members opposite have been coming to the same conclusion as I, that the steel industry is perhaps the most important consideration in this area. The jobs involved there could be over 12,000. Moreover, it has been said, and found, that a combination of a refinery and a steel works can produce some of the worst atmospheric pollution, and therefore a refinery might be prejudicial to the steel development.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman concede that the arguments he is using, relating to Murco and Chevron, are not valid? In terms of future industrial development in Scotland, would he give us a clear idea of the type of developments he will foster or assist in fostering at Hunterston? Is he aware that unless we get west central Scotland sorted out, the Scottish economy overall might be in jeopardy?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member seems to be unaware of the most important decisions taken by me as soon as possible after coming into office in planning questions on Hunterston, when I authorised, for planning purposes, an ore terminal and a deep-water port, paving the way for a steel works.

    Coatbridge High School (Political Meeting)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Lanarkshire concerning the employment of a member of his force, on 24th April, at Coatbridge High School, for the purpose of forcibly ejecting persons from a political meeting addressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell); and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The chief constable has informed me that his officers were present at the meeting but that they did not forcibly eject any person.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the incident, involving uniformed men as well as plain clothes men, arose from the fact that one of the two gentlemen had in his lapel a badge with a slogan saying, "Kill the Bill", and that the hon. Gentleman's local Tory friends said that they wanted no anti-Government propaganda at that meeting? Is this not a denial of free speech, and since these chaps were unceremoniously turfed out, will he ask his local Tory association to give them an apology?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have looked closely into this and found out that the officers made it quite clear that it was no part of the duty of the police to remove persons from the hall but that the responsibility for such action must reside with the stewards. They made this position clear to everyone involved.

    Land (Ownership)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a report on the present ownership of land in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No Sir.
    Mr. Strang: Why not?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Because such an undertaking would not be justifiable.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his friends, the Scottish lairds, have waxed fat on the land of Scotland for generations and that by his refusal to institute an inquiry into

    373
    land ownership he is keeping the facts from the people of Scotland? In the interests of honest government, will he institute a survey of land ownership in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should bear two points in mind. The first is that one of the largest lairds in Scotland is the State. The second is that the answer I have given is the same as that given by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) a short time ago.

    M80 (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the estimated starting date for work on the M80 motorway.
    Mr. Younger: I cannot at present add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 7th April.—[Vol. 815. c. 422.]
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware of the distress felt by the people of Stepps over the lack of a safe road through the village? Is he further aware that they would be willing to put up with temporary difficulties if they knew that there was a definite starting date for the motorway M80?
    Mr. Younger: I entirely share the hon. Member's concern about road conditions in this village and for this reason I have authorised various traffic management measures, including the provision of pedestrian crossings and traffic lights and the removal of bollards. I have further invited Lanark County Council, as my agent, to consider the possibility of more extensive short-term improvements. As for the major reconstruction of the road, this must await consideration of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study by the highway authorities involved.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Members of Parliament (Pensions Increases)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether the pensions increases to public servants will be applied to those pensioners who were former Members of Parliament.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I said on this subject yesterday during the debate on the Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.—[Vol. 818, c. 239–93.]
    Mr. Lewis: May I first of all thank the Minister for that reply and apologise for the fact that I was not able to remain here yesterday, but I have read the report of the proceedings? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this reply is not satisfactory? Is he further aware that former Members of Parliament are the only pensioners who have been left out and that in some instances it has been for as long as 30 years? Does he appreciate that such Members received no pension at all until 1964 and that some, who have done 48 years' solid service, are being shabbily treated by all Governments? Does he realise that it has taken two years to announce the review body and that we have had to wait six months for the chairman to be appointed and are still waiting for the members of the Committee to be appointed? Does he appreciate that these are Members who have given a lifetime of service to their country and who are now dying off? Why cannot he table an Amendment to the existing Bill to give these people a decent pension?
    Mr. Howell: I understand the hon. Member's strong feelings. As my hon. Friend said last night, it is for the Top Salaries Review Body to consider whether it wants to change the present structure. If it does, and the House agrees, the change can be included in the Bill under Clause 5(2). On the second part of the hon. Member's comments, I can tell him that the names of the members of the salary Review Body will be announced before the House rises.
    Mr. John Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that, of all the major trade unions, only the Transport and General Workers' Union has not given a cost-of-living increase to its pensioners since 1945? Is he proposing to take any action on that?
    Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, but I do not think it arises on this Question.

H. M. TROOPS, NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)
Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the nature of the orders concerning the use of firearms by Her Majesty's troops in Belfast.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Fire may be opened by troops when it is judged necessary to do so to save life or when firearms have been or appear likely to be used against the security forces or persons whom it is their duty to protect. In this context a firearm includes such weapons as grenades, petrol bombs and gelignite.
Whenever practicable an oral warning, preferably by loud hailer, is given. There are, however, circumstances in which soldiers are empowered to fire without giving an oral warning; essentially when a warning is impracticable or when any delay could lead to death or serious injury for the soldier himself or people whom it is his duty to protect.
It is of course the requirement of the common law that when acting in support of the civil power a soldier shall use no more force than is necessary for the accomplishment of his immediate task.
Mr. McNamara: May I take this opportunity, I think on behalf of the whole House, to express our sympathy to the families of the people who have been tragically killed and injured in Northern Ireland, particularly to the family of Sergeant Willet, who acted yesterday in a most courageous way?
What the right hon. Gentleman has said is very different both in tenor and in substance from what was said yesterday by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who seemed to be more intent on unifying his own party than in bringing help and succour to the communities there. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said was correct, he conceded victory to the Provisionals, which none of us could want, and brought encouragement to people who want to see further bloodshed in Northern Ireland? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that British troops are not advised to fire warning shots?
Lord Balniel: I join in expressing sympathy to those who were hurt. In particular I pay tribute to Sergeant Willet of the 3rd Parachute Battalion, and Inspector Nurse of the R.U.C., whose brave action in shielding the by-standers and children undoubtedly saved their lives. In the case of Sergeant Willet, this was at the cost of his own life, and I offer the sincerest condolences of the whole House to his widow and relatives.
I understand that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has this afternoon made a clarifying statement to remove any possible ambiguities. The position of the two Governments is the same.
In answer to the third question, warning shots are not resorted to by the Army. When the Army opens fire it is at a target and is designed to kill.
Mr. George Thomson: We on this side of the House associate ourselves with the expressions of sympathy voiced by the Minister and my hon. Friend, to the widow and children of the sergeant who was killed, and join in the tributes to the superb courage shown by the sergeant.
Is the Minister aware that we join in supporting the appeal made today by the Northern Ireland Premier asking for the support of the entire community in stamping out terrorism and assuring those who give information that it will be treated in full secrecy.
Will the Minister be more explicit and tell us whether any extension has been authorised of the orders to British soldiers? Was the Northern Ireland Premier's statement yesterday in Stormont, that soldiers may fire on anyone acting suspiciously, true, or was it the kind of imprecision that is sometimes uttered by anyone in a Parliament who is under pressure at question time? Will the Minister remember that the responsibility for instruction to British troops rests firmly on Her Majesty's Government in this House, and that it is vital that Ministers should remain in control of this situation and should seek to remain in control, as was the case with my right hon. Friends when they carried these heavy responsibibilities?
Finally, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in arresting the bomb thrower in this case and the other gunmen in similar incidents? Is he aware

377
that this is of overriding importance in dealing with this problem?
Lord Balniel: I am sure the whole House will echo the words of the right hon. Gentleman in appealing to the people of Northern Ireland to support the Forces. To use the words of the Commander of the 3rd Parachute Battalion, the act of the terrorist almost passes comprehension.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the right of soldiers to fire on people who are acting suspiciously. If there are strong grounds for a soldier believing that he or the people whom it is his duty to protect are in danger from a terrorist or from someone acting suspiciously, he will not wait for the terrorist to fire but will fire first.
The right hon. Gentleman asked where the responsibility lies for orders given to British troops. The responsibility, of course, rests on Her Majesty's Government in Westminster.
Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend answer two questions, the first one for better clarification, which everyone will agree is desirable. If a soldier on the ground saw someone whom he suspected was about to use gelignite to injure human life, would he be entitled, if there were no other option open to him, to fire and kill that person?
Secondly, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time when a child has been injured by being blown out of a pram and when Sergeant Willet has gallantly given his life to save an innocent family is no time for mischief-making semantics about the use of words?
Lord Balniel: In the circumstances outlined by my hon. and gallant Friend, the position would be that if the soldier had no other option in stopping that form of terrorist attack he would of course have the right to fire to kill.
Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that while there will be universal support for the expressions of sympathy voiced by himself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), there is growing concern in this country about reports of recent incidents involving the use of British troops in Northern Ireland? Is he
378
further aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in this country, and amongst some hon. Members, that there can be no military solution to the problems of Northern Ireland? Will he therefore give urgent consideration to the constructive suggestions which have been put to him in the House and from outside the House to try to create an atmosphere in which the people who are concerned about this problem can come together and discuss a permanent political solution.
Lord Balniel: I am aware that there can be no military solution. All the military can do is create time and conditions in which an agreement can be worked out. I am not aware of the criticism which the hon. Gentleman makes about the conduct of the British troops. My impression is that overwhelmingly there is the utmost admiration for the restraint and conduct of the British troops which few armies in the world would show in these circumstances.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the conduct of the British troops in Northern Ireland. May I suggest to him that he should go back with the Home Secretary and once again discuss the plans and proposals which were discussed at the time of the resignation of the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?
Will he also convey to his colleagues that the battle against the mad bombers and those who are purveying bullets will be aided if the British Government will show less nervousness and throw their full weight behind the conception that Northern Ireland is a State in which every grievance that can be thought of that can be eradicated by legislation has been so eradicated, and that the people who are trying to run that country are, by and large, men of good will who have proved their good will over many hard years?
Lord Balniel: I am sure that the points made by my hon. Friend, worth while and important though they are, and which are outside my departmental responsibility, have been taken note of by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Miss Devlin: Will the noble Lord accept that there can be no ambiguity

379
about the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, particularly as he was here and had consultation with Ministers in this Government no later than last Monday and that, therefore, any disagreement between what he said and what is general Army policy cannot have arisen from confusion, but that it was on the part of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who has no right to speak on matters of defence, a declaration of an open season in Northern Ireland and an attempt to create an Aden or a Cyprus situation, which is no solution to the Northern Ireland problem?
Therefore, will the Minister give serious consideration to the fact that, as he accepts that there is no military solution to the problem of Northern Ireland and that the military cannot keep the peace and cannot catch one solitary bomber, he should take the Army out of Northern Ireland and that might help to secure the peace?
Lord Balniel: I am glad that the hon. Lady thinks that there was no ambiguity in the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Mr. Faulkner thought that there was possibly some ambiguity and it was for that reason that he made a statement this afternoon eliminating any possibility of ambiguity. I can assure the hon. Lady that the position of the two Governments is the same. The British Army will stay in Northern Ireland as long as it is required to maintain law and order and improve the position.
Mr. Strattom Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that all of us on this side of the House, and indeed hon. Members opposite, wish to join in the expressions of sympathy to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has given voice for the people injured in the murderous bomb attack yesterday?
Will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the question whether there is a need to change any of the instructions for guarding joint R.U.C.-Army stations?
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the statement by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland yesterday had been cleared with the security authorities
380
before it was made? Will my hon. Friend continue, as he has done today, to resist the attempts to tie the hands of the Army in dealing with the terrorists?
Lord Balniel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expression of sympathy, which I know is shared by the whole House, for those who were injured. I assure my hon. Friend that the hands of the Army are in no way tied. The orders under which they operate are those which they think are necessary for the task which they have to perform.
As to the guarding of R.U.C. stations, it has been decided that shared R.U.C.-Army stations will be guarded by the Army and entrances will be covered by fire. R.U.C. stations which are not shared are being advised on how best to protect and guard themselves.

IMMIGRATION (PASSPORT AND VOUCHER HOLDERS)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Government have now completed their review of the position of United Kingdom passport holders. We have had discussions with Governments in East Africa with a view to facilitating more orderly movement of United Kingdom passport holders to this country and reducing the waiting time for vouchers. Discussions with the Government of Uganda were interrupted by the change of Government there, but have been resumed.
The Government have decided to double the rate of entry of United Kingdom passport holders by the issue of 3,000, instead of 1,500, special vouchers a year for heads of households. This increase will take effect from 1st June. In addition, over and above this there will be a once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers. These will be issued over the next six months.
The Government have also decided at the same time to reduce the number of Commonwealth citizens entering this coun Commonwealth citizens entering this country to take up employment. They intend to cut from 4,000 to about 2,000 the annual rate of admission of employment voucher holders. My hon. Friend

381
the Minister of State, Department of Employment, is today circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Written Answer giving the changes in the voucher scheme to effect this reduction. In brief, no more category A vouchers will be issued to independent Commonwealth countries—other than Malta—for unskilled or semiskilled employment; and a reduction will be made in the issue of category B vouchers.
I believe that these steps provide the best attainable solution of a difficult human problem of conflicting rights and interests which has long given concern to both sides of the House.
Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Home Secretary one or two questions? First, have the discussions with the East African Governments led to agreement with them that they shall no longer bring pressure to bear upon British passport holders to leave especially Uganda and Kenya, or is this a unilateral action by the Government in the absence of getting agreement? Second, on a point of detail, will heads of households be allowed to be accompanied by their dependants? In view of the new Immigration Bill, this is clearly a point that might be called in question. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that this obvious common sense will be adopted.
Third, why is it necessary to reduce the number of B voucher holders entering this country, as they are specialists or technicians who have something to contribute to this country? Why is it necessary to reduce the number of these skilled men entering, some of whom are doctors or dentists, or have some other professional qualifications?
Finally, although I recognise that with the present level of unemployment in Britain people are not applying to come here in the same numbers, is it not rather derisory to reduce this trifling number of people who now wish to come to Britain in this way?
Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling First, we have had discussions with Governments in East Africa, particularly with the Government of Kenya, and I think we have reached a common point of view on the way this problem should be handled. Second, dependants will come with heads of households.
The third and fourth points are related. The problem here, as the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, has always been the conflicting problem of giving access to more of these people—more access more quickly—without at the same time creating more tensions in community relations here. This has always been the problem which, for various reasons, the House has faced. This was the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's own legislation in 1968. I am following that principle.
Sir D. Renton: Whilst not dissenting from any part of my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask if he can give the House an idea of the total effect of these proposals taken together upon our immigration figures over a period of, say, 12 months in the near future?
Mr. Maudling: The broad effect should be that the total should not change appreciably, but we are recognising what I have always believed to be the truth—namely, that these people have a prior claim.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement about the East African United Kingdom passport holders will be warmly welcomed among the communities there, and not just for the annual increase but particularly because of the very sensible measure of the once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers? I have in mind particularly the very severe social problems faced by these people, problems which I saw for myself only last week. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this part of his statement will be widely welcomed both there and by hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been pressing for this for some time, because it is a humanitarian step?
Mr. Maudling: I am very gratified to hear that point of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he has studied this problem very closely.
Mr. Deedes: I accept that the cut in the issue of A vouchers will mean very little in India and Pakistan, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it will hit the Caribbean to some extent? Will it be possible to offer any differential in favour of the Caribbean?
Mr. Maudling: I will look into that question. My impression is that the effect on the Caribbean will be very small.
Mr. Crawshaw: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is very gratifying to those who for a considerable time have felt very ashamed of our policy in this regard? How will this ease the general burden of people coming from that source? As these people sacrificed their right to remain in their country by relying on a promise from this country which was later dishonoured, even if it means reducing even further the number of other immigrants coming here, should not these people be accorded priority above all others?
Mr. Maudling: I am grateful. This is not an ideal solution. It is not a problem to which there is an ideal solution. It is the best solution that we can find. It will make a big, immediate contribution. It will prove that we really intend to carry out what we have said.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend say what has happened to Her Majesty's Government's exchanges with the Governments of India and Pakistan, whence the East African Asians originated? How many are those Commonwealth countries taking? Are they assuming any responsibility? Are they helping at all?
Mr. Maudling: We have been in close touch with the Indian Government in this matter, and they have been most helpful.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: While welcoming the statement about the East African United Kingdom passport holders, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there will be concern about this cut among other Commonwealth citizens? Is not it the case now that it may become more difficult in certain circumstances for a Commonwealth citizen to come to this country than it is for other aliens? Is not that a development against which many of us must set our faces, and will not it be a cause of concern amongst some of us about our approach to the Common Market?
Mr. Maudling: I cannot make any statement about aliens as opposed to Commonwealth citizens, but I hope that there will be a Government statement in the near future. We believe that Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth people coming here should be treated on the same principle.
Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement about United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa will be welcomed in this country, not least because of the valuable contribution to British life made by the overwhelming majority of them? On the point about reducing the waiting time, can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will do everything possible to cut down the administrative delays which have led to a great deal of individual hardship?
Mr. Maudling: Certainly we shall try to do that, and we shall try to give priority to the most pressing cases.
Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from one hon. Member who represents an area which contains considerable numbers of immigrants from many parts of the world that his reference to easing community tensions by cutting to 2,000 the number of vouchers from other parts of the Commonwealth is derisory and contemptible in the view of many people? While I welcome the other parts of his statement, may I put one specific question to him? What will be the impact of this cut on the quota system for Commonwealth immigration which has operated to date, and what impact will it have on the differential in favour of Malta which has operated since 1965?
Mr. Maudling: I said in my statement that the special position of Malta will be recognised and continued.
Mr. Freeson: How?
Mr. Maudling: Through the quota system. In general, I think that it was right in this very difficult and delicately balanced situation to provide more opportunity for our own United Kingdom passport holders while not at the same time increasing the flow of immigrants.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the employment voucher scheme is to be changed. Will he say how these vouchers, which are peculiar to Commonwealth citizens, are to be reallocated, when, under the Immigration Bill which is at present in Committee, they are to be ended and replaced by a completely different scheme?
Mr. Maudling: I was talking about the employment voucher situation as it is at the moment and the steps to be taken in present circumstances.
Mr. Evelyn King: My right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that the Government of India had been most helpful. That is most encouraging. Will he elaborate on that and say in what way?
Mr. Biggs-Davison: How many?
Mr. Maudling: I cannot give an exact figure without notice. The Indian Government have recognised that it is desirable that people should want to return to India, and substantial numbers have been going back there.
Miss Lesior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is to be congratulated on the action that he is taking to alleviate some of the difficulties being experienced by British passport holders in East Africa? May I pursue the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and point out that the so-called principle behind the Immigration Bill at present before the House is that aliens and Commonwealth citizens should be put on exactly the same basis. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's statement about cutting down the number of other immigrants a contradiction of his own so-called principle?
Mr. Maudling: I am working within the present situation, so long as the employment voucher system continues. The measures that we are taking involving the elimination of most unskilled and semi-skilled people will in fact be consistent with the Bill which is now before a Standing Committee and, therefore, continuity will be preserved.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.

WHITSUN ADJOURNMENT (MOTION)
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I was not able to give you longer notice of this point of order, but I wish to raise a matter which I think is within your control
386
concerning the tabling of the Motion for the Whitsun Adjournment.
Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have been a Member of this House for many years, and I think you will agree that it has been the custom and practice of all Governments, irrespective of party, to give a few days' notice on the Order Paper of the period of the recess in order to allow hon. Members who may wish to do so to put down Amendments. I think that that has always been the case in the past.
You will be aware that there has been no such notice put down up to now and that the earliest opportunity will be tomorrow, unless the Government intend to put it down for Friday, in which event they would be taking up private Members' time. As retrogressive as this Government are, I do not think that they would do that.
If the Government put down the Motion at the earliest opportunity, which is tomorrow, hon. Members will be unable to table Amendments, since they will not see the Order Paper until tomorrow, and that will mean that you will have to consider accepting manuscript Amendments.
I cannot see why the Government should not give hon. Members an opportunity to discuss the Adjournment of the House some days before the actual Adjournment, unless it is that they want to carry on this practice of "bouncing" the House of Commons with a view to preventing hon. Members from discussing the Motion. Very often hon. Members wish to raise important issues. If they know what the period of the recess is to be, they can have discussions through the usual channels, by which I mean the back benchers' usual channels with the Leader of the House.
May I ask whether it is possible to request the Leader of the House to do in future what all Governments have done in the past, and give hon. Members at least two or three days' notice by putting down the Motion on the Order Paper, rather than leaving it until the day before the Adjournment, as will be the case now, unless the Leader of the House intends to put it down for Friday?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must tell the

387
hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that on this occasion he is misinformed. If he examines all the precedents of all Governments, he will find that what is being done on this occasion is in line with them, with one exception. The exception is that the day chosen sometimes has been the day before the date of the Adjournment. It has usually been the practice of all Governments to decide, in the light of the business for the week, which day would be the most suitable. I have taken into account all the factors of the week's business. Looking at the business, I have decided that tomorrow is the most suitable day. Accordingly, the Motion will be put down tomorrow, entirely in accordance with established precedents.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank the Leader of the House for his kind and courteous reply and draw his attention to the most recent example, when, in respect of the Easter Recess, he put down the Motion a week before? It is not true to say that it is done the day before. It is done several days before, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to table Amendments which will be denied them now because they have no opportunity of knowing what the Motion is to contain.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry to take up the time of the House by arguing with the hon. Gentleman. However, he is confusing two things: the day when the debate is taken relative to the date of the recess and the day on which the Motion is put down. I put down the Motion for the Easter Recess some days before the recess because I felt that that fitted in best with the business of the House. I still put down the Motion on the same day relative to that day as I am doing on this occasion.
Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard four contributions. I think that they
388
were all out of order. This is not a point of order. It is a matter for the arrangement of the business of the House, and it is an abuse of Standing Orders to seek to raise it as a point of order.

HUMBER BRIDGE
Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I crave your indulgence and that of the Leader of the House before he leaves?
Mr. Speaker: Is this a new point of order?
Mr. Johnson: It is a new point of order. I do not often bother you, Mr. Speaker, but I feel a sincere sense of grievance about my Question 52. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is staying. I hope that, with his usual courtesy, he will listen for less than a minute. My point of order concerns the Humber Bridge.
I understand that the Government have taken a decision. In fact, the Tory Leader of the Kingston upon Hull Council has stated what the bridge will cost and when the starting date will be. I have a Question down in this House of Commons. These things are being said in Hull and elsewhere. I ask the Leader of the House to make some comment as to when we shall have a statement, because both the Labour Government during the last six years and this Government have played cat and mouse with the people of Hull and North Humberside. I should like to know what the Government are doing about it.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I am in order to reply. I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know nothing of it. However, I shall make investigations. If he asks me tomorrow during Business Questions I shall give him the best answer that I can.

ELECTIONS (VALIDITY OF NOMINATION PAPERS)
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Torney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, relating to the validity of nomination papers for parliamentary and local elections.
I feel sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we in this country conduct our elections with tremendous tolerance, a great deal of fairness, and a very responsible administration of detail by people who carry out their tasks with an impartiality which is beyond reproach. Indeed, our electoral system is the envy of the world. That is why this House should ensure that anyone who dares to damage our good name in the world in this respect by committing an abuse of the law should have the full rigour of the law applied to him.
My attention has been directed to a case in Bradford during the recent municipal elections. Part of my constituency is in Bradford. In this area names have appeared on a nomination paper of people who have not given consent for their names to go on that paper.
I quote from the Bradford Telegraph and Argus of 3rd May. A gentleman called Atkinson said that he considered any suggestion of using his name on a nomination paper
"as damn cheeky. I have definitely not signed Mr. Rimmington's nomination paper and will even swear to this in court. Mr. Rimmington does not even know me. Nobody from his party has ever been near my house. I want this thrashing out in court. I object to my name being used in this way."
This elector is highly indignant that his name should have been used to assert that the nomination of a candidate at the election was valid when he did not know that his name had been placed on the paper. He certainly did not sign the paper. This is a flagrant case of forging the name of an elector on the paper.
When this matter was reported to the returning officer in Bradford, it was apparently learned that his only duty concerning the nomination paper is to ensure that the person whose name appears on the paper lives at the said address, that
390
his name appears on the electoral roll, and that he has indeed a vote in that district. That is the end of the returning officer's responsibility.
This seems a poor state of affairs. It appears that here is a loophole concerning our electoral law. As I said, our electoral law is the envy of the world. I am convinced that it is a good electoral law and that we should ensure that abuses of this kind are not allowed.
I should make it perfectly clear that representatives of the three main political parties, election agents, and so on, are scrupulously careful to ensure that the law of the land in this respect is obeyed. There is no criticism of the representatives of those parties.
The case to which I have referred in Bradford is outside the three main political parties. It is one of a group of candidates who are prepared to use the worst prejudices of people to stir racial intolerance and to seriously disturb racial harmony. They are people who have little or no regard for our election laws, who are prepared to use our democratic procedures and systems for their own nasty ends, but to abuse them when it suits them to do so. I believe that these people must be made to conform to the laws to which hon. Members on both sides prescribe and by which I am sure we are all anxious to abide in fighting elections.
My Bill seeks to amend the regulations to ensure that this will not happen again by giving the returning officer greater authority to check the identity of anyone whose name appears upon a nomination paper if there is any doubt.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Torney, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Harper, Mr. Stallard, Mr. Jeffrey Thomas, Mr. Milne and Mr. Hardy.

ELECTIONS (VALIDITY OF NOMINATION PAPERS)
  ELECTIONS (VALIDITY OF NOMINATION PAPERS)
  Bill to amend the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1949 relating to the validity of nomination papers for parliamentary and local elections, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

  RADIO BROADCASTING (WHITE PAPER)
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to move the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.9 p.m.
  The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No. 4636).
  The White Paper proposes something less than a revolution for British broadcasting. It can be argued that it is indeed less important for broadcasting than the action which we have already taken to restore the finances of the B.B.C. and of I.T.V. to a firmer footing. There are probably larger decisions which will have to be taken in the course of this Parliament about the future of broadcasting in the post-1976 period after the expiry of the B.B.C. Charter and the I.T.A. licence. Nonetheless, the proposals contained in the White Paper are a logical and, perhaps, overdue development of our mixed system of broadcasting and represent a considerable opportunity for improvement and diversification in the services of sound radio.
  Any set of proposals from the Government is open to criticism from one or two directions. It can be said that too much has been decided in too great detail by the Government and that too little is left for public discussion and participation. Or else it can be said that the proposals are too imprecise and vague, and that they ought to have been worked out in greater detail before being put forward for public discussion. This White Paper has had its share of criticism from both directions, so perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that a fair balance has been struck.
  The White Paper describes in clear outline the service that is proposed. At the same time, as I have made plain, it is the Government's intention carefully to consider the views expressed upon the White Paper before proceeding to legislation. I hope particularly in this debate
  392
  to hear views about matters, such as news provision, which have been felt open.
  I welcome the debate, too, as the occasion when we shall, presumably, have the proposals of the Opposition. The only Opposition contribution to the discussion about the future of radio so far has come from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He recognised very fairly in his New Statesman article in July of last year that a purely negative attitude from the Opposition would not do on this occasion, that it would be ridiculous to go through the performance of the early fifties about commercial television all over again, on the one hand arguing for a monopoly and opposing a commercial competitor, and then later welcoming it. A repeat performance of that simply would not be sufficient on this occasion.
  Equally, it would not, I am sure, be the intention of the Opposition simply to argue that more services ought to be put on by the B.B.C. with the frequencies that are available, without admitting that if that were to happen an increase in the B.B.C. licence fee would be inevitable. Therefore, as there is an Amendment to the Motion, one looks forward to the alternatives which the Opposition are to put forward for a commercial service.
  The plan advanced in the New Statesman article by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was that Radio 1 and the B.B.C. local radio stations should be taken away from the B.B.C. and given to a new corporation, to be financed largely by advertising. I shall return to that proposal. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing whether it is that plan which the Opposition have adopted.
  There will, I am sure, be a wide measure of agreement in the House that an alternative radio service, in competition with the B.B.C., is highly desirable. The existence of commercial television is, after all, no longer a matter of controversy between the parties in this country. At the opening of Yorkshire Television in 1968 the then Prime Minister declared that
  "Britain's two television services were the envy and objective of broadcasting authorities everywhere."
  It was a remarkable speech. In it the right hon. Gentleman gave the clear

  393
  impression that, among the almost sacred things of life, he rated commercial television in roughly the same category as motherhood.
  If I may give the House one or two extracts from that speech, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Britain is perhaps the only country in the world which could have achieved, because of its democratic sophistication, a national television service based on two diametrically opposed philosophies …
  Many who foresaw disaster and predicted a widening gap between puritanical paternalism on the one hand and an indulgent, not to say permissive, avuncularism on the other, have seen instead an inter-action or an inter-reaction which has benefited and broadened the philosophies of both. The very existence of a mass audience stimulated by independent television prevents the withdrawal of the B.B.C. into a cloistered retreat. The very attractions of esoteric programmes put out by the B.B.C. for minority audiences … have forced I.T.A. to cater for similar minorities."
  Perhaps not all hon. Members would see commercial television in quite such radiant terms as the Leader of the Opposition. There may, here and there, be a reservation about the existing structure of our television service but, nonetheless, there are, I am sure, very few who would want to restore the monopoly in television.
  There are some advocates of commercial broadcasting who argue that if the B.B.C. had never been brought into existence, commercial television alone—and commercial radio presumably—could have catered as effectively for minorities and achieved just as high standards. 1, for one, do not happen to believe that. On the other hand, there are a few at the B.B.C. who can still be heard to argue that the striking improvement which occurred in B.B.C. television after the introduction of I.T.V. would have occurred anyway. Personally, I find that equally hard to believe.
  Having worked for the B.B.C. in the mid 'fifties, in the period immediately after commercial television started, I have not the least doubt about the beneficial effect of competition upon the Corporation. It became more outward looking, more adventurous, less self-satisfied, less bureaucratic; enterprise and creativity were to an even greater extent valued and encouraged.
  I should not have thought that one needed to labour the advantages of competition
  394
  in broadcasting, and those who accept the value of having more than one source of programmes in television—let alone more than one source of news and influence in newspapers, more than one proprietor for cinemas, theatres and other media of entertainment—will presumably accept that there ought to be competition, that there ought to be more than one source of programmes in radio.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman appears to be equating opposition to monopoly with commercialism. Surely it is possible to envisage competition without necessarily envisaging commercial competition? The case that he has to make is not against monopoly, but for commercialism.
  Mr. Chataway: Indeed, and I shall be interested to hear it argued that there would be some other way of satisfactorily financing an alternative. Perhaps it would be by means of a greatly increased licence fee, part of which would be given to an alternative service. The only point I make is that, as I understand it, the existence of commercial television—the existence of an alternative that is commercial, and financed by advertising on television—is no longer a matter of controversy between the parties.
  I referred to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition appears to have a passionate belief in that system of broadcasting for television. The main argument that is deployed against commercial radio—and perhaps this touches on the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind—is the generalised charge that it will lower standards. It is a theme on which some delightfully bizarre nonsense has been circulated. The vision that is conjured up is one of the British people, now subject to the benign improving influence of B.B.C. radio, being suborned by evil commercial operators who will lure them away to the depravities of popular entertainment.
  It is a picture which has given rise—I must be careful not be unkind to some who spoke during the debate in another place—to some splendid denouncements by people who, one suspects, are not altogether familiar with the programmes to which the majority of the radio audience listen at the moment. I think that it may be helpful,

  395
  therefore, to pause for a moment to consider what part of the existing radio audience could be held to be most at risk from the introduction of commercial radio. The radio audience now divides into the following proportions, according to the B.B.C.'s last annual report: 45 per cent. listen to Radio 1, 35 per cent. to Radio 2, 2 per cent. to Radio 3 and 18 per cent. to Radio 4.
  What is the main source of anxiety about competition? Is it the effect which it might have upon Radio 1, which is devoted almost exclusively to pop music? Is it a fear that the cultural standards of the "Jimmy Young Show" will be undermined, or that the disc jockeys whom the B.B.C. brought ashore from the pirate ships will be unnerved by having to face some competition again?
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead Mr. Phillip Whitehead(Derby, North) rose——
  Mr. Chataway: I do not want to detain the House too long. I hope to have the opportunity of winding up, so, if I am not to bore the House intolerably, I do not want to give way too much.
  The competition against Radio 1 can be competition only for a part of the day. The commercial stations will not be able to put out non-stop pop even if they want to, since they will not secure from the Musicians' Union and other parties concerned a 100 per cent. needle time agreement. The B.B.C. can average out its allocation of needle time to produce pop music for most of the time that Radio 1 transmits.
  The Musicians' Union has made it clear to me in a recent letter that it has no intention of trying to frustrate the introducion of commercial radio or its effective working, but it will wish to see considerable opportunities for live music provided in return for a needle time agreement.
  Does anyone seriously suggest that the pop music which the commercial stations will be able to broadcast for some part of the day will lower the standards of Radio 1 or deprave that almost half of the radio audience which is now tuned to Radio 1? I do not find among those who I think know about pop music any unanimity of view that Radio 1 is of such a uniquely high standard that there is no place for an alternative.
  396
  Is there any more serious argument for suggesting that competition could have a harmful effect on Radio 2 and the 35 per cent. of the audience which it attracts? Does anyone believe that the Palm Court Orchestra or Mr. Eric Robinson will play any less sweetly because there may be music of a similar kind for part of the day on an alternative channel?
  Even more unlikely, perhaps, is the idea that the new service could harm Radio 3 and the 2 per cent. of the audience who listen to it—that they would be likely to be lured away by commercial radio and that the B.B.C. would lower its sights with Radio 3. One has only to pose these questions to realise how silly are some of the suggestions that allowing people a choice will necessarily lead to lower standards.
  There is, of course, Radio 4. In its treatment of news, the news service will certainly compete with Radio 4. Here, I should have thought that all the experience of television suggests that competition will be unquestionably beneficial in the news field.
  For example—I shall not carry the whole House with me in this—I am an admirer of the World at One programme and its numerous offspring. But it seems that the development of more personalised current affairs programmes of this kind accentuate the need for an alternative. One can have a high regard for Mr. William Hardcastle without necessarily believing that the public interest demands that he should have a monopoly of current affairs coverage in peak daytime hours.
  News, local and national, is bound to be important in the news service, because news is a larger ingredient in radio than it is in television. The White Paper sets out three alternative means of providing a national and international news service for commercial radio. There are some attractions in each of the three proposals.
  Independent Television News, with its high reputation, could be expected to provide a very good service, but it is difficult to envisage that the radio companies could become part owners of I.T.N. alongside the television contractors, so there might be difficulties—I do not say that there would be—if I.T.N., owned by the television contractors, were supplying news to radio, which would to some extent be a competitor.

  397
  The alternative concept of an independent radio news jointly owned by the radio companies, operating on the same principle as I.T.N. and working in close conjunction with it, has much to commend it. It is also possible that an I.R.N. or an I.T.N. could also supply an "all-news" service in London, and perhaps in one or two other major centres of population, thus earning revenue directly and perhaps being to some large extent self-financing.
  Many people have been impressed by the development over recent years of "all-news" stations in a number of American cities. A big demand has been shown to exist there for a news service to which one can turn at any time. In New York, Washington, Los Angeles and many other major cities there are today successful "all-news" stations providing a very high standard of service. Here in Britain, too, there is interest in an "all-news" station on the part of some who might be qualified to run a high-level operation.
  I should welcome views about the relative merits of these three alternatives, and I have certainly reached no conclusion as to which might be preferable. But I believe that it is right that commercial radio should by one of these methods aim at a good central service of international and national news—and that means, at least at the outset, one central news service, as in television, taken by all the companies. Only in that way can sufficient revenues be generated.
  I turn now to the general structure proposed in the White Paper. Some who accept the case for competition doubt whether it should come from local stations. Some have suggested that there will not be the resources to finance anything like 60 stations. Others, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) have argued that 60 is too few and that there should be an opportunity for many more to cater for smaller communities. Others argue strongly for a national service in addition to the local stations.
  But I am sure that it is right to base the service upon local stations. This is, of course, to follow the pattern of commercial television. Many of the commercial television stations have served their regions with distinction. The difficulty which is arising over the redrawing of the
  398
  boundary between Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television as a result of the changeover to u.h.f. has brought home to many the regional loyalty which has been generated by some of the regional television stations.
  Hon. Members in the transmission area of Yorkshire or Anglia—whichever side of the argument they have taken and whichever part of the House they sit in—have left me, and the Authority too, I am sure, in no doubt about the strength of feeling which now exists in their constituencies about any proposal to withdraw or change the local I.T.V. service. I have no doubt that commercial radio will engender the same loyalties in its localities as some commercial television services have succeeded in doing within their regions.
  There will, of course, in radio be much greater disparities in the size of area covered than there are in television, and 50 per cent. or so of the United Kingdom population will probably be covered by the first 20 commercial radio stations; those in the major centres of population will cover areas with a population ranging from, say, 300,000 to 8 million or more in London. There can be very few doubts about the viability of these stations, which, of course, will cover much the greater part of the area proposed.
  Indeed, as the White Paper explains, the stations serving the largest centres of population will almost certainly generate revenue considerably greater than the expenditure required by their immediate programming needs, and the contracts that are negotiated between the authority and the programme companies must obviously take this fact into account. We want to see good profits being made and able people attracted into radio, but we do not want to see undeserved excessive profits; the contracts must, therefore, be designed to achieve those ends.
  I cannot foretell how many stations outside the conurbations will prove to be commercially viable. This will depend on the services that they provide; in other words, on their success. It may be that some of the smaller centres of population can best be served by satellite stations which would originate their own programmes for only a small part of the day, otherwise relaying programmes from a nearby centre of population.

  399
  There is room for up to 60 stations—it is impossible to say that 60 will prove to be viable—and that would involve going down to populations of under 150,000. In my view, this is at this stage the smallest area which could reasonably be expected to sustain a worthwhile service, but perhaps in future, when the spread of v.h.f. sets no longer requires duplication on the medium frequency, the opportunity will occur for more stations, if the revenue was forthcoming.
  I come to the proposals which were advanced by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. Arguing, in the article to which I referred, that radio was too important to be left in the hands of the B.B.C., he was anxious, as I am, to set up an alternative commercial system.
  Mr. Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with the attack that has been made on his proposals from these benches before dealing with the remarks of my right hon. Friend? In other words, if he has completed his comments on the White Paper, I find his speech astonishing.
  Mr. Chataway: As a serious proposal was advanced by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who a year ago was the official Opposition spokesman on these matters, I thought it would be discourteous of me not to pay attention to what he said. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have not completed my comments about the White Paper, though if he has specific questions to ask I trust that he will do so, if he has the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I will do my best to answer his queries and comment on his views.
  There are, as the White Paper suggests, a number of strong arguments for entrusting the Independent Television Authority, renamed, with the task of supervising radio, and in the White Paper those advantages are spelt out.
  Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman indicated that he had completed that part of his speech dealing with the White Paper and was intending to come to other arguments. Is this so?
  Mr. Chataway: No.
  Mr. Buchan: If so, I want him to know that he has not sufficiently explained the White Paper.
  Mr. Chataway: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will, if he has an opportunity to speak in the debate, state his views. I do not want to detain the House for too long, though I have a good deal more to say about the White Paper. I was intending to allude in the process, although my doing so may be painful to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, to some proposals that have been made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who was at the time the Opposition spokesman on these matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman wanted to take away the local stations from the B.B.C., together with Radio-1. They were suggestions which were carefully argued and which were carefully considered by me. It seems, however, that there is a place for both a network of commercial local stations and the B.B.C. local stations. The commercial service must, of necessity, appeal—I use the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used about commercial television—to a "mass audience".
  The principal competitors of the new commercial service must, of course, be Radios-1, 2 and 4, to which all but a fraction of the existing radio audiences now listen. If it can give local information to such a mass audience and involve that mass audience to a greater extent in the local community, the commercial service will have fulfilled an extremely valuable social function.
  It was represented to me very forcibly by those interested in B.B.C. local radio that commercial radio would not be able to cater to minorities, particularly at peak hours, in the way that the B.B.C. stations, operating on a set-up of five channels, are able to do. Their audiences may as yet be small, but there is little doubt that the B.B.C. stations have put out fare which will be much appreciated by the wide variety of minorities to whom they have sought to appeal.
  Mr. John Gorst: Is it accepted that B.B.C. local stations should not be provided to cover minorities in Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales—and, indeed, in Cornwall, which also

  401
  seems to regard itself as somewhat separate? If so, why?
  Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend may recall that there are regional versions of Radio-4 prevailing in those areas. It has been represented that Scotland and Wales would prefer to have the frequencies used for the national version of Radio-4 rather than have B.B.C. local stations.
  I hope the House as a whole will agree that there is room for both services. I have been able to agree with the B.B.C. the outline arrangements which will, in due course, provide medium frequency back-up for the B.B.C. stations. It will be necessary to apply for the use of frequencies allocated to other countries to supplement the medium frequencies we have available in this country, and this cannot be a quick operation. International negotiations are involved.
  The siting of the independent stations will need to be considered and a frequency plan will have to be drawn up that caters for both the commercial stations and the B.B.C. I hope that the whole process will be completed in time for the B.B.C. local stations to have their medium frequencies at least by the time the commercial service is starting to go on the air.
  As for the right hon. Gentleman's idea of, so to speak, transferring Radio-1 to the commercial side of the road, there is, of course, much to be said for having a national commercial channel in addition to the network of local stations. We decided against it principally because the national channel, which would probably have attracted more revenue than the local stations, would have been a direct competitor for advertising with the national Press. It might, at a difficult time in Fleet Street, have had a harmful effect on national newspapers.
  The effect of the local network alone on the provincial and local Press is likely to be much more slight. It is, I believe, right to carry out the pledge which we gave in our election manifesto to give these Press interests an opportunity to participate in their local radio stations. By an accident of our broadcasting history, they have up to now been protected from competition from radio. When, by Government action, one changes this situation, it seems right to
  402
  give these highly-valued newspapers a degree of priority in the new radio set-up. I have no doubt also that they can make a great contribution to the development of the new service. I am sure that no efficient newspaper has much to fear from commercial radio. Nor does the Newspaper Society, with which I have been in close consultation, take the view that they will be bowled over by commercial radio.
  It is generally estimated, for one thing, that the total revenue of commercial radio is unlikely to exceed £10 million. That compares with over £100 million spent on television; about £112 million spent on the local Press; a total national advertising expenditure of nearly £550 million. Much of that £10 million will be drawn from money spent on "point of sale" material and the like. A good deal of it will be new advertising expenditure, because what radio will do will be to give new marketing opportunities to the small and medium sized firm which cannot afford to advertise on television.
  Such evidence as there is suggests that local newspayers may positively benefit from commercial radio. Radio and the local Press are held in many other countries to be commercially complementary. At their peak, the pirates were drawing about £2] million annually in advertising revenue. I have only come across one newspaper which claims to have even noticed the effect on its advertising revenue. The Isle of Man is the one place in the British Isles where radio is financed by advertising. Since it started in 1964, the circulation of the local Press has increased by 50 per cent. and its advertising revenue has steadily improved.
  There is no doubt that competition in radio will be welcomed by the public—every poll taken on the subject suggests so—and particularly welcomed by young people. There is, I am sure, plenty of room for improvement and development in radio, and room also for expanding the radio audiences. Our mixed system of television, so much lauded by the Leader of the Opposition, has achieved about the highest figures for penetration of television sets in the world. Viewing figures during the hours of general television programming are somewhat higher than in North America. All this is an indication that, whatever other criticisms

  403
  one might wish to make, our television service must be admitted to be pretty efficient in meeting the demands of the viewing public in putting out programmes which people want to watch.
  The position in radio looks a little different. The 25 per cent. that was suddenly added to the listening audience by the pirates has vanished again. In radio, the average person in this country listens for just over eight hours a week. In America the comparable figure is 17 hours. In part, this is accounted for by a greater number of cars in the United States, and by the five hours of average car listening a week there. I certainly would not want to exchange our radio service wholesale, even as it is, for the United States radio set-up, though the range of services given in the majority of American cities is vastly better than the popular conception of it here.
  One of the reasons why there is apparently a listening figure in the United States of double that of ours, is that radio in America is more useful than radio here. Radio is a quick and flexible medium which people want to use today for some quite utilitarian purpose: to get all sorts of information that they need; to hear about the state of traffic; the sale at the store in town; the price of goods; the length of the queue outside the football stadium, and the main that has burst in the high street. There is no reason why British radio too should not have helicopters directing motorists home by the most trouble-free route.
  I make no criticism of the B.B.C. It is an organisation that is far from perfect, but I have always regarded it as the best broadcasting organisation in the world, and that applies to radio and to television. I should certainly not make any proposal which I thought would endanger the B.B.C.
  It would be odd, though, if one organisation in radio, with no outside criterion by which to measure itself, were able to react as successfully and efficiently to changing needs as the two organisations in television. It is not surprising that those in B.B.C. radio, unable to justify new developments by pointing to the enterprise of a competitor, have sometimes complained of being
  404
  treated like "the poor relations" of television.
  In other countries radio is staging quite a come-back. The same could happen here. I have no doubt that the new IBA stations proposed in the White Paper can contribute to that, and I have no doubt that the fairly modest degree of competition with which the B.B.C. will shortly be faced will do the Corporation nothing but good.
  I commend the White Paper to the House.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  disapproves of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for commercial radio as set out in the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No 4636).
  I begin by apologising to the right hon. Gentleman for missing what I believe to have been the first 30 seconds of his speech. I assure him and the House that for once it was not my fault. The cab that I was in was unfortunately involved in what one would call an "incident" at this stage, which delayed me for some time.
  Apart from the first 30 seconds of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I did not hear, the part that I did hear seemed to be trivial and below the level that this subject demands. The right hon. Gentleman was asked some specific questions by two of my hon. Friends, particularly about the degree of control which is to be exercised by the Independent Broadcasting Authority over the individual programme companies. This is a subject which the right hon. Gentleman will know has caused a great deal of concern, not only in the House but in the Press and in other informed circles. But the right hon. Gentleman chose not to deal with that point. I trust, therefore, that he will take note of the fact that we on this side of the House want from him and from the Government some details of the type of control that they envisage that the I.B.A. will exercise over the individual programme companies, the way in which that control will be enforced, what sanctions it is envisaged that the I.B.A. shall have in order to

  405
  enforce its standards, and, finally, what guidance the Government propose to give to the I.B.A. so as to maintain what the right hon. Gentleman professes to believe in; namely, high standards in broadcasting.
  When he winds up the debate, if the right hon. Gentleman chooses not to answer those questions, which are not put in any carping spirit but in a genuine attempt to try to clarify some parts of his White Paper which are vague and imprecise, I fear that the House and the country can only draw the obvious conclusions.
  In many ways this is a most extraordinary Motion. After all, it is the Government's White Paper. It is not a document which is put before the House or the country for the purpose of general discussion. It is not a Green Paper. It is not even—as one noble Lord described it in another place recently—a White Paper with green edges. From time to time during the last six months, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we on this side of the House have been pressing him specifically to produce a Green Paper. Indeed, I remember asking him at Question Time specifically whether he would produce a Green Paper, saying that if he wanted to produce it on white paper, let it be a White Paper, but it should be clearly understood that they were to be proposals for general discussion and were not to be firm and definite proposals by the Government for the implementation of their policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman refused. He said that the Government would do it in the usual way, and that when the Government had made up their minds they would put their proposals to the House of Commons in the form of a White Paper.
  There has been a slight change in the position. In another place the other day Lord Eccles, in a rather elegant and expansive way, said that this matter is not
  "… to be decided on some dogmatic position."
  Lord Denham, in winding up for the Government in the other place, said that
  "a White Paper such as this is designed as a talking point …".—OFFICIAL REPORT House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; c. 464–505.]
  We are entitled to ask the Government whether the White Paper is designed to
  406
  be a talking point around which the debate shall rage—if one can use that expression with the House as full as it is at the moment—or is meant to be a set of firm proposals by the Government on the introduction of commercial radio into this country and for the implementation of what we on this side of the House believe to be a foolish pre-election pledge. Up to this moment we must, and indeed do, treat these as firm proposals by the Government. Are they so or not?
  Mr. Chataway: This, alas, was the part of my speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman missed. What I said at Question Time was that the Government would put forward proposals in a White Paper and would then take a very careful note of whatever views were expressed on them. The point I made in my introduction was that, whereas I thought we should be criticised for putting in too much detail, or too much decision or too little, we would take very careful note of whatever views were advanced on matters deliberately left open or the propositions in the White Paper.
  Mr. Richard: I heard that part of the speech and, even though the right hon. Gentleman has repeated it, it does not shake me in the views I have just expressed. I am asking whether these are firm proposals by the Government? Is this the structure of commercial radio which the Government wish to see introduced, or is it merely a set of proposals which the Government are putting before the country for general discussion? If the answer is the latter, I suspect he may find that some of his hon. Friends may not be in total agreement with the Government Front Bench. I hesitate to anticipate what will be said by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) but, judging by past experience of the hon. Member, I suspect that his views on the White Paper will not be wholly in agreement with those of the right hon. Gentleman. But, until the Government are prepared to say that their minds are open about the future structure of commercial radio, we must take this White Paper for what it is; namely, as a document which incorporates the Government's proposals. Therefore, we shall divide the House against it.
  It is extraordinary that when the right hon. Gentleman produces a White Paper

  407
  of this nature setting out these matters for discussion, and when he has listened to everybody's views and taken notice of none of them, in the way Governments usually do, he then puts before the House not a proposal to approve the proposals in the White Paper but the most pathetic of all motions by a Government—a Motion which merely asks the House to take note of the White Paper.
  Mr. Chataway: It is normal.
  Mr. Richard: It is not normal, when the Government have gone through a period of gestation almost as long as the proverbial elephant and have laboured to produce a document which is supposed to be the basis for the introduction of commercial radio, to put this somewhat pathetic Motion on the Order Paper asking the House to take note. This is a ludicrous situation.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attitude of the Labour Party? I will tell him, though he should know all about our proposals on local radio because we have spelt them out in considerable detail. We would have continued with the proposal to extend B.B.C. local radio. That was our policy when in Government and it would have been our policy had we been returned to office at the last election. We do not approach this subject rigidly or dogmatically. At this stage our minds are open on the future structure of broadcasting; and so they have to be.
  Mr. Chataway: Ah.
  Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman says "Ah". Of course they have to be, since the charter comes up for renewal in 1976, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.
  The right hon. Gentleman also knows that the Labour Government set up a committee under Lord Annan whose task was to look at the future pattern of broadcasting. It was a most hasty and ill-considered move that when the Conservative Government came into office the right hon. Gentleman decided to abolish that committee. In other words, he decided to do away with any overall national look at the future pattern and structure of broadcasting in Britain. We condemned him for it at the time. We said that the Government would regret that decision. I believe that the right hon.
  408
  Gentleman deep down, though he cannot admit it, now regrets that there is no body in existence at this stage which is capable of looking at the future pattern and structure of the broadcasting services. We believe that this needs to be done. Therefore, we would like to see a major committee of inquiry established to look at the whole pattern and shape of future broadcasting in this country.
  One of the main reasons, why we on this side of the House are opposed to the White Paper is that we feel that by introducing this form of commercial radio at this particular time the right hon. Gentleman is closing one option which should remain open until after 1976. It may well be that at that time various other options may have to be considered, but until then we would condemn any closing of such a massive option by the introduction of local commercial radio in this form. We regard this decision as hasty and ill-considered. If the Labour Party is returned to Government at the next election and this structure is still in being, we should view it with the gravest misgivings. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that if I have anything to do with the matter it will be subjected to the most searching examination.
  The right hon. Gentleman at one stage said that it was his wish to safeguard the existing services of the B.B.C., and he went on to say something about v.h.f. and m.f. I hope he will this evening be able to give one undertaking which his noble Friend in another place was unable to give. Although the noble Lord was asked specifically in the other place whether the B.B.C. could have its medium-wave back-up without waiting for the introduction of commercial radio, he said:
  "I cannot, I am afraid, give this undertaking. We must wait for a comprehensive plan embracing both, and it would be wasteful to do it in any other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; c. 510.]
  That, broadly, is what the Minister is saying this afternoon.
  I should like to have an assurance in respect of B.B.C. medium-wave back-up that there will be no holding back the B.B.C. in order to advantage the commercial stations if and when they are set up. It may be that there is an agreement, although I would not totally accept it, to look at the two together so that one can

  409
  examine a medium-frequency back-up when the v.h.f services are set up. We should be greatly disturbed if the commercial stations were put at an advantage in this matter compared with the B.B.C. existing medium-frequency stations.
  There is also the point that has been raised outside the House that the White Paper proposals run counter to the whole ethos, background and history of British broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a quirk or accident of history that we had never had commercial radio in this country. I do not accept that statement. It was due to no accident of history. It was fortunately due to the fact that some rather perceptive people, at the time radio was introduced, took a long hard look at what was happening to the commercialisation of radio in other countries and thought that Britain's broadcasting would be better run, and that the British people would be better served, by public service broadcasting rather than commercial broadcasting. The whole history of the last 50 years bears out that principle rather than destroys it.
  We on this side are not defenders of the B.B.C., although, compared with this ragbag of ideas in the White Paper, it seems almost to approach perfection. But it has a number of great advantages which the commercial service, if it is ever set up, will not have. First, it is a public service organisation. We on this side of the House regard that as extremely important. Secondly, it consciously tries to preserve a balance. Thirdly, it consciously and deliberately tries to maintain high standards—and what on earth is wrong with that? To try to maintain high standards is an expensive and not necessarily popular thing to do. It will not necessarily attract large audiences. But in dealing with something as important in the life of the nation as our broadcasting service we should welcome rather than denigrate an organisation which consciously and deliberately tries to maintain high standards.
  Fourthly, the B.B.C. has another great advantage in that it sets out deliberately and consciously to cater for minority tastes and interests, as well as for those of the majority. In some ways this should be the real test of a good broadcasting service—it is not over-difficult to produce
  410
  a broadcasting service which can put out programmes consisting purely of pop, which many people may want to listen to. If the Musicians' Union were prepared to agree, it could be done for a relatively small amount of money. Whether it is good or bad pop is another matter. A service which deliberately sets out to cater for minority taste in the community should be welcomed and not denigrated.
  Finally, the B.B.C.'s great advantage is its independence and undoubted and recognised integrity, and the fact that it can and does experiment.
  These advantages have arisen in the B.B.C. not because broadcasting has gone on in this way by an accident of history, as the right hon. Gentleman said, over the past 40 to 50 years, but because some people who were in charge of broadcasting in this country took deliberate decisions to try to organise it in that way. In our view, they were right.
  Mr. Gorst: The hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to mislead us in any way. Is he saying that commercial radio would not perform a public service function? If he is, I would point out that in Canada, where there are both public and private systems, one of the largest stations in Toronto provides 26,000 free announcements of a public service nature per annum.
  Mr. Richard: The hon. Member for Hendon, North has anticipated me by three paragraphs and five minutes. In a few moments I shall tell him why I think commercial radio will move in the opposite direction from that in which the B.B.C. has consciously and deliberately tried to move.
  The distinction between the commercial radio structure envisaged in the White Paper and the one which the B.B.C. envisaged, and which the last Government sanctioned, is that the pressures on commercial radio must all be to maximise audiences. That is what it is there for. Let us take what is perhaps an absurd example; let us imagine Radio Scunthorpe under the right hon. Gentleman's plans. What is it in business to do? It is in business to get revenue from people who wish to advertise their goods, and then to try to maximise the number of people who will be told about those

  411
  goods by the manufacturers and the advertisers. Therefore, the whole pressure on commercial radio is bound to be in the direction of maximising audiences. Once it is in that situation, standards are bound to fall.
  I cannot imagine that Radio Scunthorpe, faced as it will be with a battle for a slice of what now seems to be admitted to be about £10 million-worth of advertising revenue that may be available to commercial radio, will offer many plays to the good people of Scunthorpe, the burgesses. I do not imagine that there will be any great current affairs programmes on Radio Scunthorpe. I do not imagine that even the 3 per cent. of the population of Scunthorpe—or whatever figure the right hon. Gentleman used—who at present listen to B.B.C. Radio 3 will hear from Radio Scunthorpe a great deal of minority classical music programmes. I do not think that they will hear many political discussions. What they will hear is as much pop as the Musicians' Union can be persuaded to disgorge.
  It is an appalling reflection that the responsibility for maintaining standards in the new commercial radio set-up will be left to the Musicians' Union rather than be placed where it ought to be—on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. and learned Gentleman's definition of the purposes of local radio can be exactly applied to local newspapers, and yet we know perfectly well that the results are completely different from those which he has postulated.
  Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman made great fun of a speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I commend to the hon. Gentleman these words: that commercial broadcasting is to be condemned because it distorts—that is the phrase—the purpose of broadcasting
  "by reason of the fundamental purposes for which the vehicle is used—not broadcasting for its own sake but its use as a medium in which advertisements can live."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; Vol. 176, c. 1349.]
  I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with that. [Interruption.] It was not meant to be a very good
  412
  performance. But when the present Lord Chancellor used those words——
  Mr. Chataway: When were the words used?
  Mr. Richard: A long time ago. The Lord Chancellor used those words in relation to the ethos of commercial broadcasting. Whether they were said in 1922, as they might well have been by the first Director-General of the B.B.C., or by the House of Commons when it was then considering the structure of broadcasting, or in 1942, 1952 or today, the principle is still valid, and is one that we on this side accept.
  If the pressures are to be to produce larger and larger audience figures, because otherwise commercial radio stations will not get the revenue, what will the result be on programme content? Unless restraint is applied, by the Musicians' Union or the I.B.A., or some other force, the pressure will be to maximise audiences by putting out trivia. I accept that there is a distinction between good pop and bad pop, but anyone who thinks that local radio commercial stations will put out good pop is making an extraordinary mistake. What the listener will get is something on the lines of what many people in the United States have to suffer—an almost undigested diet interrupted far too often by advertisements of bad pop and what is loosely believed to be that which appeals to the largest audience.
  The fact that one can produce, free, something which is essentially trivial, does not make it necessarily non-trivial, nor does it make it desirable. The thought of 60 Radio Scunthorpes all producing the same type of programme for their own localities, all aiming at an audience of housebound housewives, car commuters and possibly schoolchildren or students, when they are available, does not appeal. Apart from its not appealing on aesthetic grounds, what a waste of a national asset ! It is not as if this country had a superfluity of wavelengths.
  The right hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the United States. He told us that American broadcasting was not as bad as many people thought. I once sat down in Los Angeles with a wireless set and started tuning it, literally going around the bands. I tuned to about 15 stations. They were all broadcasting on a medium wave because in this respect the United

  413
  States is fortunate in not having Europe 22 miles off its coast. Each one was putting out almost exactly the same kind of programme. One had a choice at that moment of no fewer than 15 pop stations. I regard that as essentially trivial and a waste of the wavelengths available in that part of the world.
  Mr. Chataway: All the arguments the hon. and learned Gentleman has used up to now to condemn commercial broadcasting apply just as strongly to commercial television. Are we to take it, from his general denunciation, that the Labour Party now is entering into an undertaking to wind up commercial television?
  Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman cannot read that into what I have said. If he does his capacity for crystal-gazing is only equalled by his capacity for evasion. In a few moments, I will tell him the advantages, as he himself saw them—although his proposal was overruled by the Cabinet—that a national commercial organisation might have had as opposed to a set of local organisations.
  In the debate in the House of Lords the Bishop of Coventry expressed what I think is the real question. He said:
  "What is the purpose? Is the purpose, as the White Paper states, 'to combine popular programming with fostering a greater public awareness of local affairs and involvement in the local community'? Or is it to be only a further electronic extension of the marketing of goods and thereby the enrichment of certain private pockets?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 481.]
  I think the bishop expressed the antithesis exactly. If this was a proposal for, as Lord Eccles said, re-invigorating a local community so that the butcher could ring up and say, "My sausages will be sold at 32p a lb. this afternoon", or if the local fishmonger could ring up and say, "We have nice sole today", or if the local dramatic society could put out some kind of radio play, it might combine popular programming with a greater public awareness of local affairs and involvement of the local community. But does anyone imagine that that is the type of programme that will take place under this scheme?
  Are the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) in the business to make sure that the
  414
  Scunthorpe dramatic society gets a fair crack of the whip on Radio Scunthorpe or that the local butcher in the High Street gets a fair crack of the advertising revenue They know as well as anyone else, and recognise it, that they are in business simply to try to get as much advertising revenue on that commercial local radio station as possible.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Brighouse and Spenborough) indicated assent.
  Mr. Richard: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough admits it. So be it !
  Mr. Stratton Mills Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North) rose——
  Mr. Richard: I have been generous in giving way, and I do not want to detain the House too long. I have some specific points in the White Paper to put to the Minister, and if the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will forgive me, I want to get on now and put them.
  In the While Paper the right hon. Gentleman has spelt out a structure for commercial radio. He says that
  "… the Government proposes to entrust the new service to the I.T.A., which will be renamed the 'Independent Broadcasting Authority'."
  What is to happen? Exactly how is the I.B.A. to maintain standards? We are entitled to know how much advertising it is envisaged should be allowed on commercial radio stations. We want to know what the ratio of musical to non-musical programmes is to be. We want to know what the ratio of local to national programmes is to be. Mr. Hughie Green said recently that he envisaged that approximately 50 per cent. of the output of local radio stations would be national network programmes. Is that the sort of proportion that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind? Is the Authority to get strong guidance from the Government as to the type of programming it will permit? We and the country at large are entitled to know.
  Further, we want to know a little more how the I.B.A.'s control is to be exercised. There were various enigmatic remarks in the debate in the House of Lords, particularly in the speeches of

  415
  Lord Eccles and Lord Denham. Referring to the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Eccles said:
  "He believes that although the techniques of control may well differ from the control of television advertisements, the I.B.A., as it will be called, has the experience to work out and operate a system of control applied after, and not before, the programmes are produced."
  What does this mean? Does it mean, for example, that once every two or three years, or whenever the franchise is reviewed, the I.B.A. will review the sort of programmes put out by Radio Scunthorpe in the preceding period? What are the managers of commercial radio to be told about the sort of programme that, in the opinion of the I.B.A., it would be appropriate for them to put out?
  Lord Eccles went on to say:
  "If you study how it will work, you will see see that there really is a grip on the parties who have the contracts to make them maintain the standards set by the I.B.A."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 468.]
  That is an act of faith, not a statement of policy, because the policy has not been spelt out, and until it is the Government can not expect much support for the White Paper.
  I want to say something about the possibility of news programmes. I accept utterly that the development of I.T.N. has been nothing but good. It has produced a first-class news service. If we have to have commercial radio, I would like to see the I.T.N. take over responsibility for providing a national news service for it. Of course—and the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do—the difficulties of producing news for radio broadcasting are much greater than the difficulties of producing news for television. It has to be done far more often, and more people are needed. Who, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, will do the news gathering? I suspect that, unless there is a strong, central, national organisation like the I.T.N., it will be done for these local stations by tapes, wire services and—dare one say it?—the B.B.C. I have a feeling that Radio Scunthorpe's news will take place about 20 minutes after the B.B.C.'s news. What it will need, therefore, is a very good sub-editor.
  If the right hon. Gentleman has any proposals with which to back up his
  416
  extraordinarily pretentious and absurdly over-ambitious claim in the White Paper that these stations will be sources of national and international news which will in time stand comparison with the B.B.C. service, I should be delighted to hear them.
  Lord Eccles gave one of the most extraordinary justifications for a separate commercial news service I have ever heard. I trust that the Government will disavow his words. I quote the passage because it is necessary for the House to get the full flavour: Lord Eccles said:
  "My right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications … is strongly of the opinion that the British public ought to have more than one national news service, and I was very glad that the noble Baroness touched on this matter. I realise from my own experience how easily we get used to the pattern and choice of news that comes to us on radio, year in and year out, from a single source. Here may I say to the noble Viscount that it is in the morning when you want the radio news. You do not get television news at exactly the same time."
  Then Lord Eccles used words which even for him seem to be somewhat strong:
  "I often think that because the B.B.C. radio news suits me so well and suits other more or less well educated middle-class listeners, it must mean that it does not suit the much larger part of the population who do not have the same vocabulary or the same interests as, say, the Members of both Houses of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 471.]
  I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has it in mind that educated, middle-class people like Lord Eccles should continue to listen to the B.B.C. and that commercial radio should, as it were, provide one-syllable news broadcasts for the plebs. It would not be wholly inappropriate if the right hon. Gentleman were to breathe one or two gentle words of disapproval or dissociation from the sentiments expressed by his noble Friend in another place.
  To justify a national news service of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind, the amount of news that will have to be broadcast will need to be very great. Mr. Hughie Green has recently been giving voice to some of his views upon the sort of news he would like to hear commercial radio stations broadcasting. He said:
  "We will give the public the news they want to hear."

  417
  I am not quite sure what that means but it is ominous. He then said:
  "We cannot afford to educate. We will be commercial from beginning to end."
  I am bound to say that if this is really the way in which potential or prospective operators of this service see the responsibility of putting out the news, then it is the most fatuous statement of all.
  Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Hughie Green has also said that the news service must be provided and presented by actors and not real people as this would give a more exciting presentation?
  Mr. Richard: It only illustrates——
  Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst rose——
  Mr. Richard: I have given way a great deal. The hon. Gentleman has views which I have no doubt he is bursting to express. I hope he will have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It seems that there is a sentence in the Pilkington Report which aptly and appropriately——
  Mr. Gorst: Ah !
  Mr. Richard: It is a very good sentence, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows it and expected it to be quoted at him. It is very apt when we think of Mr. Green and "We'll give the public the things they want." Pilkington said this:
  "Those who say they will give the public what it wants begin by under-estimating public taste and end up by debauching it."
  These statements by potential operators, such as Mr. Green, are really saying "What the public wants equals what we reckon we can give it cheaply so that we can make the maximum amount of profit."
  I had intended to say one or two words about the Press but I am conscious of the fact that I have detained the House long enough. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) will deal with this in winding up.
  Let me sum up our objections to this White Paper. First, I think it is imprecise and vague in its most important details; namely, the way in which control is to be exercised, and the relationship
  418
  between the I.B.A. and the programme companies. Secondly, this White Paper has all the hallmarks of an enforced compromise between what I believe the right hon. Gentleman knew the service really demanded—namely, a national network with a strong public service commitment, even if financed by advertising, and, therefore, a real alternative to the B.B.C.—and the Cabinet's perception of how to fulfil what was in essence a very foolish pre-election pledge.
  Mr. Chataway: This, as I understand it, is the kernel of the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection. What kind of national network, in the sense that this is not a national network, is he advocating in place of what the White Paper proposes?
  Mr. Richard: What I am saying is that the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put to the Cabinet—and which leaked like a sieve up and down Fleet Street—would have been very much better than the ones the Cabinet overruled and produced in this White Paper.
  Mr. Chataway: Monstrous !
  Mr. Richard: It may be monstrous but it is true.
  Our third objection to this White Paper is that the structure it proposes cannot cater for minority interests. Although majority interests ought to be catered for and ought to have priority, nevertheless minority interests are entitled to be considered. All the pressures are in the opposite direction, away from catering for minority interests, in the direction of maximising audiences. Fourthly, this is a waste of what is a precious national asset; namely, the available wavelengths. We are not well off for wavelengths in this country. We shall have to renegotiate the Copenhagen Convention at some time, and to waste wavelengths in this way is, in our view, quite wrong.
  Finally, I do not believe that the structure proposed in the White Paper is in any way genuinely local. It will not provide the nice, cosy, local picture which Lord Eccles tried to paint in another place. It will not answer what he called the central question; namely: Will it re-invigorate local communities? I do not believe it will. In essence our attack on the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper

  419
  is that it is basically a trivialisation of broadcasting. Therefore, we shall vote against it tonight.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), it might be thought that everyone on this side of the House has an interest to declare. The only interest that I have to declare is that of a person who has worked in radio and television for 15 years. During that time I developed a great deal of respect and affection for these media, and I am concerned about their future and the future of the people who work in them.
  I welcome the Government's proposal in principle to introduce an alternative service of radio broadcasting. The word "alternative" was very much in use in the 1950s, both here and in another place, when we were considering the introduction of commercial television. Much has happened since, not all of it commendable. After all, one of our main criticisms of television is that the two principal services are not true alternatives at all. They are too similar in content and approach to the public and programming.
  It is clear that the White Paper shows the Government's anxiety to avoid the same kind of mistaken development in radio. I wonder whether we have gone far enough in defining the different rôles that the Government expect the B.B.C. and the new I.B.A. to play. The proposed commercial radio network will have to secure a sizeable audience to survive. We must do more than hope that the B.B.C. will not ape whatever tactics the new radio companies may devise. We know that when I.T.V. began the B.B.C. surreptitiously changed its motto to "Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor". We hope very much that this kind of development will not happen again.
  Mr. Richard: Translation, please.
  Mr. Roberts: "I see the better and follow the worst".
  We hope that this kind of development will not happen again to the B.B.C. on the introduction of commercial radio. Both Parliament and the public value the service which the B.B.C. alone can provide, because it is, or should be, unaffected
  420
  by viewing and listening figures. I urge this most strongly in the interests of the public and of broadcasting.
  We have heard a lot this afternoon about giving the people what they want. I stress that there is scope for the B.B.C. to give people more of what they ought to have, even if the I.B.A. services give the people what they want. Let us not forget that Shakespeare gave the people what they wanted, but he also gave them what they had not dreamed of. There is scope for both the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. to give the public what they have not dreamed of.
  I want to concentrate briefly on two aspects of the Government's proposals. The first has to do with the relationship between radio and television. I understand and approve of the Government's proposal that the alternative radio service should be the responsibility of the Independent Television Authority, which is to be transformed into the new Independent Broadcasting Authority. This is a sensible proposal, and I feel sure that the new I.B.A. will do the job well, but we should be forewarned against developing too close a link between television and radio in practice, because there is and will be a tendency to regard radio as the poor relation of television. Radio is a distinctive medium with its own potential excellence. Its economics are different, its methods less cumbersome. It is my considered view that in practice the new radio service should be allowed as much freedom as possible to develop on its own and, especially, be free of television influences, which will tend to dominate it.
  Those of us who worked in B.B.C. radio during the period when the B.B.C. was developing its television services will know that, despite protestations and denials at the time, radio suffered "Cinderella" treatment. I, therefore, do not relish the prospect of the existing I.T.V. contractors having any stake whatsoever in the new radio companies. The independent television contractors' influence can only militate against competition both in advertising and in programme content. There is no real need, as there may be with the Press, for participation by the independent television contractors.
  The White Paper suggests three alternative ways of securing a national radio news service, one of which is that it should be provided by Independent

  421
  Television News. Although I am sure I.T.N. could do the job very well—I have the highest regard for I.T.N.—I object to this in principle and favour the setting up of a separate independent radio news service which will exploit the linked potentialities of radio, unhampered by television considerations. There is no other medium which can bring news quicker to the public, and, given professional people dedicated to this task with dynamic organisation behind them, the news service will quickly gain authority, respect and affection. We need more independent sources of news and a greater variety of comment and commentators. I regard this variety as the best safeguard we have for our democratic processes, and as an essential part of those processes.
  Secondly, the Government are not very specific in their proposals for Scotland and Wales. I hope that this does not mean that the advent of the alternative service to Scotland and Wales will be unduly delayed. My right hon. Friend may have a proposal for an alternative to the national services on Radio 4 in Scotland and Wales. We must not miss a great opportunity to add to the variety of community life in our national regions. I can speak only for Wales in this context, but I am sure the same is true of Scotland.
  Wales has at least four conurbations capable of supporting viable radio companies, two centred in the South at Cardiff and Swansea, and possibly two in the North at Wrexham and Llanddudno. All these areas have special characteristics and a special contribution to make to Welsh life. The people in these areas feel that they have not been fully represented and reflected in the broadcasting media in the past. I am not arguing against a Welsh network, but I hope that it would not be dominated either by the South or by the North and that parity would be given to contributions from all parts of the area.
  Mr. Buchan: With respect, the White Paper was clear on that point. There will be no such station suggested for Scotland, nor will there be a B.B.C. local radio station for Scotland. The answer, quite specifically, was to use Radio 4, as at present. The answer is "None".
  Mr. Roberts: I understand that there will be, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be contributing to the debate.
  I end by stressing the importance of radio and television to Wales in connection with the survival of the Welsh language. I pay tribute to the work already done by B.B.C. radio and television, and by I.T.V., in the promotion of the language. We very much hope, too, that the new alternative service for radio will make its contribution to the survival of the most ancient spoken language of this land.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister referred to discussion about the ideal number of commercial local radio stations. For my part, the ideal number would be nil. I as strongly in favour of public service broadcasting in principle. Its motive is to serve the public. The motive of those who argue so strongly in favour of commercial local radio is to line their own pockets, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) pointed out.
  On the Minister's own argument, the existing 20 stations of the B.B.C. are not enough. There is disappointment that for the time being there are to be only 20 public service local radio stations instead of the 40 originally planned.
  Mr. Buchan: And none in Scotland.
  Mr. Morris: There are many criticisms which can be advanced on behalf of Wales and Scotland, and there are many English regions which feel strongly on this matter.
  The Minister missed the opportunity today to pay a well-deserved tribute to the existing local stations of the B.B.C. I expected him to say that they have been remarkably successful since their inception. Local public service broadcasting from its beginnings has become increasingly broadcasting of a very high standard.
  I hope that the Minister will remedy what I regard as a major gap in his speech and will pay a timely and just tribute to the excellent work which has been done by the B.B.C. through its existing local stations. At present, not more than about one-third of radio set owners

  423
  are equipped to receive v.h.f. It is, therefore, very important that the B.B.C's. local stations should have the use of supporting medium-wave frequencies as soon as possible so that the B.B.C. may immediately extend its local service to those living within the respective coverage areas who are not yet equipped with v.h.f. receivers.
  In reply to a Parliamentary Question on 31st March asking when he expected
  "the British Broadcasting Corporation Radio London service to receive … the medium-wave back-up transmission facilities".
  the Minister said:
  "It is too soon to say. But I envisage that the provision of medium frequency back-up for B.B.C. local radio stations will keep broadly in step with the commencement of the I.B.A.'s service as its stations come on the air."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 410–11.]
  The effect of this will be that a very large number of people who could have access to B.B.C. local radio programmes will be deprived of them for a considerable time. They will be so deprived for much longer than would be the case if medium frequencies were allocated to the stations which are already fully operational as soon as they become available. I ask the Minister to reconsider the position.
  One further matter of real importance that I wish to raise with the Minister is the White Paper's comments on the rôle of B.B.C. local radio in the dual system. It will continue, in the words of the White Paper, to
  "attach first importance to serving a wide variety of minority audiences, including local schools and colleges".
  It will not exclude such broadcasts from peak listening hours.
  As the House knows well, the B.B.C's plans for local radio have always emphasised that form of public service, but B.B.C. local radio must not cease to cater for larger audiences. Competition will not be genuine if commercial radio virtually ignores minorities and B.B.C. local radio has to deal with nothing else. So the B.B.C., in my view and that of many other hon. Members, must not allow itself to be elbowed out of the way at peak listening hours or deterred from providing proper community services to the large audiences that are
  424
  available at certain times of the day. Nor should the B.B.C. abandon the minority interests which it has cultivated at those times of the day when a maximum audience is potentially available, even though they may be generally thought of as minority listening periods for radio.
  We shall be watching the right hon. Gentleman very carefully on this deeply sensitive part of the White Paper. Nor shall we be alone in this. To their honour, there are right hon. and hon. Members opposite who not only respect public service broadcasting but also wish to see it prosper. In recent debates there have been several right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have detached themselves from the commercialism that is associated with other right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
  I apologise to the House in advance if I am not here for part of the rest of the debate. I must leave the House to address a national meeting on disablement, but I will return as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will address himself seriously to the points I have raised with him.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: Like my hon. Friends, I begin by declaring that I have no interest whatsoever and that my enthusiasm for commercial radio could fairly be described as excessively moderate. None the less, I shall support my right hon. Friend, but I want to raise with him a number of uncertainties which I think I have discovered from reading his White Paper.
  First, my right hon. Friend has called for a widespread debate upon news in commercial radio. Ever since the publication of the White Paper I have scoured the newspapers, but I have seen no evidence of such a debate. Indeed, I hoped that I would be asked by some editor to make my own contribution to this subject, but, alas, there has been no such request.
  One suggestion which has been made is that commercial radio will be obliged to accept a service such as I.T.N. Like everyone else who has spoken so far, I believe that I.T.N.'s record in broadcasting is unparalleled. Another suggestion—which is more sympathetically regarded

  425
  by the commercial radio lobby—is that commercial radio should have access to national and international news from news agencies on the basis of rip and read, as this would be less expensive and would impose a lesser burden upon commercial radio's finances in the early stages.
  In an effort to carry this non-existent debate a stage further, may I ask why there is this curious obsession with national and international news? Were I to be unfortunate enough to be driving in a motor car with the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in the vicinity of Scunthorpe or in any of the 59 other areas, I should like to hear details of municipal scandals, not of national and international crises.
  It is a curious view which my right hon. Friends holds, and which perhaps we all share, that commercial operators—for this is what they are—should be obliged to bore us at regular intervals with national and international news. This view should be challenged.
  I must quarrel, too, with my right hon. Friend in his admiration for William Hardcastle. One can have several views about Hardcastle. I do not share my right hon. Friend's admiration for the sort of approach which has now become current on B.B.C. radio and the way in which it treats the news. I do not like it. I like my news straight, especially on radio. I fear that whether we have an I.T.N. or, indeed, a newsagency solution to the news problem on commercial radio, we shall be bored to death with all these views of people whom we have no wish to hear expressing opinions on the wave-lengths, as they do at the moment.
  Hardcastle is bad enough. For a long time we had Anthony Howard, an excellent journalist whom I read every week in the New Statesman. He appeared on Sundays, but I made certain that he did not come between me and the roast beef of old England.
  Leaving news on one side, what about the whole concept of commercial radio making excessive profits? How does my right hon. Friend define "excessive profits", and how, once he has stumbled upon a definition, does he intend to go about restricting them? I hope that my right hon. Friend does not fall into the error that the previous Administration
  426
  made of slapping a levy upon commercial radio but will, instead, immediately license more stations so as to introduce into this sphere an element of increased competition.
  The uncertainties in the White Paper are legion. What is to happen about needle time? When will my right hon. Friend sit down with the Musicians' Union? When will some agreement be reached? Manx Radio has an agreement to have six hours' needle time a day. I am told that the six hours is the minimum figure that any viable commercial radio station should need.
  I come, then, to the I.B.A. In my view, the I.B.A. should not be the spokesman for commercial radio but the watchdog of the public interest. It should not repeat the mistakes of the I.TA. which for far too long has been locking stable doors.
  My hon. Friend has put the B.B.C. local radio stations in a very curious position by suggesting to them that they have to concentrate——
  Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman says that the I.B.A. should not repeat the I.T.A.'s mistake of bolting the stable door after the horse has gone. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember the two quotations which I put to the Minister from Lord Eccles and Lord Denham in which they said clearly that the control of the I.B.A. over commercial stations should be ex post facto, after the programmes have gone out. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is desirable?
  Mr. Critchley: That is not an unreasonable suggestion about the way in which the output of commercial radio might be monitored. However, I think there is general agreement between those who have thought about the I.T.A. that it has had a history of shutting the stable door both in terms of violence on television, to which it has reacted far too late and once an offence has been committed, and in terms of bias.
  To return to my point about the unnatural restrictions which my right hon. Friend has placed upon the B.B.C.'s local radio stations, he seems to suggest that they are not to compete and that they are to limit themselves in some degree to providing the kind of minority programmes which no one wants to hear. But the B.B.C. is highly competitive. It

  427
  is the most competitive of all the broadcasting authorities. The way in which the B.B.C. has reacted to the challenge of Independent television has been marvellous and incredible. It is a very sanguine view to expect the B.B.C.'s local radio stations not to compete with commercial radio stations in the same areas.
  There will be a natural desire on the part of the B.B.C. to compete. In addition, it has access to nationally-raised licence-fee money which it can use as it wishes to meet any challenge in any given area. Were it to fear that competition in any area threatened to become excessive, it could use its licence money to concentrate on that area. The real point is that the commercial radio stations possibly should be protected against the degree of competition which, if it wished, the B.B.C. would be able to deploy against them.
  There must be a middle way between the strictures of Hughie Green and the Whiggery of the 1976 Group. I always thought that the Whigs were attractive people until I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. At the end of the day, if my hon. Friend manages to find a middle way between two such awful extremes he will have my support.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I have no doubt that the Minister is feeling that with friends like the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) he has little need of enemies on this side of the House. I noticed him wince a little as he listened to what his hon. Friend was saying. I have some sympathy for him since I played a slightly critical rôle, though I hope not so sharply, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were in office.
  Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst rose——
  Mr. Jenkins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. However, I hope he will allow me to get at least a few words out of the way before I do so. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman in mind for a later intervention if he can possess his soul in patience for a while.
  Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman will probably give my hon. Friend what he wants !
  Mr. Jenkins: There is an evident lack of enthusiasm for the White Paper which has made itself felt on the benches opposite as well as on this side of the House. The problem stems from the fact that it is extremely difficult for Governments to form a coherent philosophy on what they should do about broadcasting. The Minister is in the unfortunate position of having been forced to change his mind, and to bring forward proposals about which he has not been able to convince us that he is wholehearted. When my party was in office, we had a different method. When the Government found Ministers who did not share its views, we used to change the Ministers. The party opposite makes Ministers change their minds. The Minister in this case is in a difficult position, and we have considerable sympathy for him. He is bringing forward proposals in which he has no doubt worked himself up to believe. He has had some difficulty in getting there.
  The uncertainty about what the Government should do shows through in the White Paper, and the media have seen it. The Financial Times has described the White Paper as "vague and imprecise", and so it is. That is why the Minister tried to persuade my hon. and learned Friend that he was a member of the Government and that it was his White Paper. The Minister talked about my hon. and learned Friend's policy. However, I must explain to the right hon. Gentleman that he is a member of the Government, it is his policy, and we are discussing his White Paper.
  Mr. Richard: Whether he likes it or not.
  Mr. Jenkins: Yes, whether he likes it or not. Therefore, I propose to talk about the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper and not about the theroetical policy which no doubt my hon. and learned Friend one of these days will follow when he succeeds to the right hon. Gentleman's position.
  As I say, the problem stems clearly from the uncertainty of the Government about what they want to do. They gave an election pledge without working out how they proposed to implement it. They have still not made up their minds about what they want to do.
  I ought perhaps in passing to refer to the problems that my right hon. and hon.

  429
  Friends faced when they were in office, since they are relevant to the current problems. There were differences of opinion on our side about these matters. The 1966 White Paper proposed a plan of local broadcasting which in practice has not proved to be quite as local as was intended. The reason is that there was no detailed working out of the finances that were proposed for the local stations. Consequently, when the B.B.C. was put in charge of local radio, the local radio stations did not entirely fulfil the plans put forward in the 1966 White Paper. It was hoped, for example, that they would play a wide cultural rôle in local communities. They have fulfilled a very important rôle, but it has not been a cultural one. They have not engaged performers of even local importance. The employment that they have given has been mostly in terms of news and local current affairs. They have undoubtedly contributed to the community, better in some areas than in others, but they have not done what the 1966 White Paper hoped they would do.
  The difficulty in the present White Paper is to discover what the Government hope to do other than provide a lucrative sideline for their friends who are already well off. In the first paragraph of the White Paper there is a reference to the advantage of more than one form of employment. I am all for that, since I have an interest in the amount of employment provided by this medium and in performers generally. As hon. Members know, I have a connection of long standing with British Actors Equity Association, and I am not unconcerned about employment. What type of employment is commercial radio likely to supply?
  Although I am concerned about employment, I recognise that it cannot be the primary consideration. However, I put it a top second. The public must come first. What plan is being put forward in the White Paper? What will it do for the public? Will it provide real competition with an alternative service? Is it a genuine alternative service of radio broadcasting or is that mere verbiage? In the White Paper we do not get a great deal of support for the hope that this will be an alternative which will make a real contribution to the public interest. Will it extend the boundaries of broadcasting? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite
  430
  who are most in favour of it ready to admit that it will do no such thing, that it will not examine new possibilities of broadcasting?
  Will it provide real competition? Will it be a real service? Will it enlarge the experience of anybody who listens to it? Will it provide a genuine degree of employment? Will it provide a wide range of output for a variety of tastes? These are the real questions. Will those who listen to these stations discover on them a worth-while degree of choice? The answer to these questions is: will it hell !
  Mr. Proudfoot: Surely the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say that the pirates increased the audience by 25 per cent. and that 25 per cent. has been lost.
  Mr. Jenkins: I think that statistics about the increase of audience by pirate radio are suspect. If the hon. Gentleman imagines that it is possible for any legal radio service to do the kind of thing which the pirates were doing illegally, he is mistaken and in for a great disappointment.
  I remind the House that it is not only the Musicians Union which is concerned, but the record companies. There is a collective interest to make sure that the radio stations do not undermine not only the basis upon which the Musicians Union rests but the basis upon which British music rests. Therefore, it is not merely a trade union interest to make sure that the needle time agreements are not breached; there is a wide general interest.
  In my view, it is inevitable that any addition made to any one of the media affects the others. This is relevant to something said by the hon. Member for Conway. I agree that the arrival of commercial television had an impact upon the B.B.C. I believe that on the whole it had a good impact; it also had some bad effects. It had the effect of making the B.B.C. a bit over-conscious of the number of people watching; it became over-concerned with the charts.
  I do not say that the arrival of commercial television was damaging to the B.B.C. I take the opposite view. But the question arises whether, because that happened with commercial television, we are entitled to assume that a similar

  431
  generally beneficial effect will arise from what is proposed in the White Paper. There is no evidence to show that we can expect that effect.
  The modification of the media applies not only in broadcasting, but elsewhere. The arrival of The Sun newspaper, the disappearance of the Daily Sketch and the maiming of the Daily Mail will affect not only the national dailies, but indirectly, in time, radio and television. They will affect not only their advertising revenue, but subtly their presentation and outlook. Therefore, we shall make a mistake if we do not think of the media as a whole.
  My regret about the proposal contained in the White Paper is similar to that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). A particular section has been taken out of context when in fact the time is ripe for an examination not only of the broadcasting media, but of the whole media of public information and entertainment. Until we take this broad look at the whole scene we are likely to come to wrong conclusions about the various parts of it. If I were asked to say over the last few years where successive governments have gone wrong in their appraisal of these issues, my answer would be that no one has ever recognised that our media of information and entertainment are a collective whole and cannot be looked at objectively and usefully except as a collective whole. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about this proposal. We cannot ask them to withdraw the White Paper, because we would not know what it was they were withdrawing; but we can ask them to take a fresh, wider and more complete look at it and to set up, if not a Royal Commission, at least a Departmental Committee. If they prefer to call it a Departmental Committee, or describe it by some other phraseology, we are not worried, so long as it is a high-powered and real examination which extends over the whole sphere.
  The impact of I.T.V. upon B.B.C. television was not wholly good. It brought about an obsession with audience ratings and the wretched idea of programme matching, so that the question at a certain time of the day is which Western one will see, rescued to some extent by the arrival of B.B.C.2 for those who can get it.
  432
  What distresses me, and probably some hon. Gentlemen opposite from the remarks which they have made, is the rather irritating adolescence which characterises the presenter, as he is now called, with his insulting bogus enthusiasm and apparent ignorance of the very existence of such things as values. I fear that the arrival of commercial radio will not take us away from, but will accentuate, this development of presentation performance. It worries me to think that just as the B.B.C. reacted badly in some ways to the arrival of commercial television, so the arrival of commercial radio may have the effect of sharpening the descent into jollification of presentation which some of us find extremely irksome and hard to bear, whoever does it.
  The history of legislation about the media suggests that we in this House propose certain laws, that we carry them into legislation, and are rather surprised, after a few years, that what we proposed in the law has not been carried out in effect. We find that commercial forces which operate in these areas have a habit of moving things in the direction in which they wish to go. Therefore, whatever is proposed in the White Paper has to be backed by pretty tight legislation if the Government wish their proposals to be fulfilled and carried out.
  It is interesting to recall—many people may have forgotten—that it was originally thought that I.T.V. should primarily be a regional organisation. We have heard it said in this House that the regional stations still possess a substantial regional loyalty. But the degree of networking which takes place has ensured that the network programme is the norm and the regional programme is the rarity, which is the opposite to what was originally proposed. It was originally believed that the regional programme would be the norm and that the network programme would be the unusual.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The reason for the regional programme not being the norm is entirely due to lack of money which prevents the regional programmes taking more hours. It is nothing to do with what they want to do; they just have not got the money to do any more broadcasting.
  Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is accepting my point, but standing the argument on its head. He is saying that more

  433
  money can be made on a network programme than on a regional programme. That is true. Television companies have sometimes found themselves in difficulty, and they are now going through a more difficult time than in the past, but huge fortunes have been made out of television, and surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that this is a question of lack of funds. That is far from being the case.
  I now propose to return to the White Paper. The Government's proposals, in so far as it is possible to understand them, fall short of what some of us expected from the right hon. Gentleman. I have little hope for the type of project which the Government have put before us in the White Paper. It is difficult for local stations to make the sort of impact which the White Paper suggests, and I share the view that the idea that local radio will concern itself with national and international news is something that we should not even want.
  That illustrates the confusion in the White Paper. There is national thinking behind these local radio stations. It is proposed to have 60 local radio stations, but it is interesting to note that although the White Paper refers to B.B.C. local radio, it refers not to I.R.B. local radio, but to I.R.B. radio. These stations are being thought of as a network before they start. I am sure that the commercial gentlemen who will bring these stations into being think about them as a network, because they cannot think about them in any other way. The reason is that the advertising that will finance these stations will be national rather than local.
  That is the sort of problem which the right hon. Gentleman has to consider when he introduces his legislation. He has to ask, "What do we want here? Are we creating a national commercial network under another guise? Are we going to introduce the sort of legislation that will provide a genuine alternative at local level?" I doubt whether it can be done. The White Paper will not produce a local radio service. If anything, it will introduce a national advertising chain.
  It may employ some musicians. I hope that it will. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) will have something to say about this. I
  434
  say that it may employ some musicians because I doubt whether commercial radio will get enough needle time unless it agrees to do so. Collectively, therefore, there may be some employment for musicians.
  I do not think that the new stations will be pirates legalised, because what the pirates were doing will not be permitted. If local radio is not local, but is centrally controlled and financed, the Government will not have faced the real problem.
  Commercial radio cannot be local radio because the advertising to finance it must seek a national market. Therefore, just as the previous Government failed to fulfil the full intention of their White Paper, so I wonder in what degree it will be possible for this Government to fulfil any part of the intention of their White Paper. I wonder whether it will get off the ground at all.
  There are one or two other problems. The first is that advertising is not infinitely extendable, and expansion in one medium is sometimes undertaken at the cost of contraction in another. If, as is suggested in the White Paper, the compensation that is given to local newspapers which feel themselves threatened by the arrival of commercial radio, is an interest in the new medium, if they are told that they can have a share in the local commercial radio station, all that we shall succeed in doing is reducing the number of sources from which the public get their information. That seems to me to be reducing freedom. It seems astonishing that the White Paper proposes that the local Press should be given a statutory right to abrogate the most essential competition of all—the competition of ideas.
  Competition in communications, and in the arts, is the most essential form of competition. It is this form of competition which the Government say shall, by law, be allowed to be eroded. Local papers can come in and say, "We shall have a single voice, one on the radio, and one in the local paper, but it shall be ours". The Minister shakes his head. The White Paper says that there is to be a degree of control, but I think that that will be got round fairly easily, and if the Minister would like to see precisely how it can be got round—I shall not take up the time of the House by elaborating on this—he should look at the Financial

  435
  Times, which spells out fairly clearly how these protections can be avoided, and how local papers which are part of national chains are likely to establish command of what, in turn, will become a national radio chain. If we are not careful, the net result will be that our total body of information will come with a less varied voice, and I suggest that variety of voice and variety of source are of the essence.
  Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman does not want commercial radio anyway. There can be no question of what we are proposing producing a more limited voice than he would like to see.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am coming to that. I shall, in my final words, suggest a real alternative to the B.B.C. programme. I do not think that the Government's proposal is an alternative. It seems to me to be an irrelevance.
  There is a possibility of a real alternative, and this was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in his article in the New Statesman, to which the Minister referred. Not everyone may wish to agree with every word of my right hon. Friend's article. I have quarrelled with my right hon. Friend on more than one occasion, but in this article—I had some discussion with him about it—he made a good point when describing what had happened in the early days of television. He drew attention to the fact that at one time is was the Labour Party's view that there should be a single financial pool, consisting of the revenue from advertising, and licence revenue, and that from that pool should be financed both the broadcasting authorities.
  My right hon. Friend also drew attention to something to which I have drawn attention more than once, because it is the key to the whole problem. It is the recommendation of the Pilkington Committee that the advertising revenue should go, not to the programme companies, but to the authority. I think that we should look at that plan and draw it into the commercial radio situation.
  We should look at the possibility of having an independent broadcasting authority which could be the recipient of the total advertising revenue, which
  436
  could have responsibility and discharge it, which would have the duty of preserving variety in radio, and which would have the job of redistributing and making sure that programmes were comparable, over the whole range with B.B.C. programmes. If that were done, we might have what the White Paper says is an alternative radio service, but is not. I believe that any other Committee which examines this sphere is likely to return to this recommendation and that of the Pilkington Committee. The separation of the source of revenue from the control of programmes is of the essence.
  It is not necessary for us to put forward a detailed alternative to the White Paper. I circulated some recommendations of mine to the Communications Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party some time ago, and I have implied that these were not far removed from the proposals which my right hon. Friend made in his New Statesman article.
  In short, all broadcasting—radio and television—should be the responsibility of non-profit-making bodies like the B.B.C., but a controlled advertisement element should not be excluded from among the sources of income available to the media. Further, this matter cannot be considered properly unless the media are considered together.
  That is why the Government should withdraw the White Paper, reconstitute the Annan Committee or one like it and charge it with the duty of examining the organisations in this area, their revenue, and the means of public information and entertainment. In the meantime, since the White Paper is totally irrelevant to this task, I trust that the House will vote against it.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. John Gorst: In the normal course of the proceedings of the House, it is usual to declare an interest in a subject. In pursuance of that, I should like to point out that for more than 10 years I have been pressing for the introduction of commercial local radio and that for more than half that time I have been Secretary of the Local Radio Association. Nevertheless, I hope that this does not mean that what I say will be taken as reflecting the views of that association, although our views may at many points coincide.

  437
  I should like to welcome—the Labour Party would be surprised if I were not—at least three things in the White Paper. The first is that it provides an alternative to the B.B.C. I hope that, in doing so, it will not erode the excellent service which has been provided by the B.B.C. for so many years. Second, I welcome enthusiastically the acceptance of the principle that we should have an alternative which is commercial. Third, I welcome the obvious fact that my right hon. Friend has a mind which is open to argument and suggestions for improvement. So I hope that some of my remarks will fall on fertile ground.
  I should like to examine what, in my view—I do not suggest that there are not plenty of other opinions on this subject—local commercial radio is for, and the major aspects which seem to call for comment in the White Paper, and to propose some questions which require answers, even if they may be awkward questions.
  The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), referring to my hon. Friends the Members for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), suggested that with friends like that we did not need any contribution from him. I might point out that with friends like Mr. Hughie Green we do not need anyone from the Opposition either.
  It is reasonable that anyone considering road conditions should mention the dangers of having cars on them and also the advantages of cars. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that hon. Members opposite should concern themselves with standards and with what they see as the dangers and the horrors of commercial radio—in so far as they have ever heard it. But I hope that they will forgive me if I concentrate on what I believe to be the true nature of local commercial radio and its advantages and do not show so much concern about the dangers, which are left in very safe hands with the Opposition.
  There is a popular misconseption that commercial local radio is an ugly, audio wallpaper which is to be hoisted on unwilling and sensitive members of the public by hard-boiled, greedy businessmen, solely for profit——
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member could not have said it better.
  Mr. Gorst:—that it will be tasteless, squalid—as the Leader of the Opposition once called it—undecorous and valueless to the community. But the reality, if hon. Members were able to study rather more than cursorily the performance in other countries, is not infrequently very different from this.
  Community news and information in general, supported by music, is often to be found—if it is not the rule—certainly in those areas of foreign countries with commercial radio stations. Indeed, it is axiomatic that all stations producing bad programmes do not make profits and that sub-standard programmes do not make substantial profits. Indeed, the reverse is true: a broad based and comprehensive social service invariably reaps financial rewards.
  In studying the performance of both good and bad stations recently in Canada, which is a much better example than the United States because it has a public service, State-owned broadcasting system, it is clear that in order to succeed the ingredient for commercial success—I heard this time and again from both large and small stations—is based on two factors. The first is involvement with the community and the second is concern and care for the affairs of that community.
  One might wonder how this involvement and concern are demonstrated. One way is through news. Contrary to the expectations of many people, news value goes in the order, first local news, then regional news, then national news and then international news. All things being equal, local news will be the lead story in any news bulletin.
  A second way is community contact. By this I mean not only open line interviews with listening members of the public——
  Mr. Neil McBride: The Minister said that news should be personalised. I do not know what the Minister meant, but does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Gorst: In many instances the personalisation may taken the form of the personality of the reporter on the local scene. This is welcome when it happens

  439
  because it reveals the concern and involvement of the station with the local community.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: The hon. Gentleman said that the first priority in this form of broadcasting would be local news. How does he know that?
  Mr. Gorst: Because I have seen it happen. One can hear local radio stations throughout the United States, Canada and Australia and be certain of this. The same is true of local newspapers. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman think of a local newspaper that could survive on news stories concerned solely with national or international affairs? The local event captures the headlines and thereby captures the readers. The same applies to local radio.
  The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made great play with the public service content of commercial radio. One station in Canada donated 23,335 free advertisements of a public service nature in 1969 and increased the number to 26,686 last year. The value in free advertising time, if it must be quantified, was 1,670,000 dollars, or £700,000, and this is not untypical of large and small stations throughout Canada.
  The content of any local radio station will include music. Much has been said about the possibility of it being nasty, cheap pop, with many local stations demanding 100 per cent. needle time. Hon. Members may be interested in this comment by a successful Canadian local radio station:
  "Music is complementary to everything else and not a reason in itself. If the news is heavy, we try to make the music lighter and more fun—and at all times the music tries to reflect or counterpoint the mood of the station and the listener."
  That results in a variety of music which moves from the classical, through the middle-of-the-road—what some might call "sweet music"—to what I have referred to as "acid rock". By this means stations are able to acquire an identity, varying from the serious to the all news and on to the less serious—in other words, from "foreground" stations, which require concentration in listening, to "background" stations.
  The basis on which any plan for commercial local radio in this or any country
  440
  must rest is obviously the question of the availability of frequencies. In this connection, I would like to know from where my right hon. Friend's advice has come. For many years the B.B.C. and Post Office have been opposed to the setting up of commercial radio. Have they been the source of his advice?
  Why has there been this death-bed repentance from the B.B.C. which has enabled it only now to find the necessary medium-wave frequencies? Has the advice on which my right hon. Friend's plans have been based been determined more to prevent more than 60 stations from coming into existence than to facilitate his plans?
  This whole question of frequencies is vital because dependent on it is not merely the size of the audiences which these stations will have, not to mention the range and number of stations, but, most important, the extent to which there will be competition between them. In my view, competition between a B.B.C. local radio station and a commercial radio station is incomplete. It may be competition for listeners, but it can never be competition for advertising.
  We should, when considering how many stations we should have, consider the number of stations in other countries, and the comparable figures seem extraordinary. The United States has, for a population of 196 million, 6,263 local radio stations. In the Commonwealth, New Zealand, with a population of 2·7 million, has 28 stations; Australia, with a population of 11·9 million, has 146 stations; and Canada, with a population of only 21 million, has 388 stations.
  Mr. Whitehead: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is under an obligation to say what the association of which he is secretary now regards as the viable number of stations for this country. This number has varied as his association has grown older and wiser. Does it now consider that, in the different conditions of Europe, these stations could receive backing on the medium-wave?
  Mr. Gorst: I will come to the question of viability shortly.
  Leaving aside Manchester, London, Birmingham and Glasgow—the major centres of population—the proposal to provide up to 60 local stations will result

  441
  in our having a sort of macro-regional situation. The average population per station will be between 300,000 and 8 million. In my view, populations of this size are too large to be meaningful in terms of local radio. They could certainly be described as regional, and while I would not argue against regional radio, stations catering for populations of this size cannot be called local in character.
  In the United States the average population per station is 33,846, and in Canada it is 58,474. In the view of the Local Radio Association, with which I am connected, the starting point, at least from the frequency planning point of view, has been suggested at a minimum of 70,000. It is clear, from a study of how and from where the advertising to support local stations comes, that a station serving a population of 150,000 or fewer will be primarily dependent on local advertising.
  A station serving a population of more than that will, if it is at the bottom of the rating league, be likely to get the majority of its advertising from local sources, but any station serving a population of over 150,000—and in this country it might be a population of over 250,000—will undoubtedly have more national than local advertising, and from that point of view it will be regional or national in character. It will certainly not be local.
  I should like to look at the possible advertising revenue and make a very rough calculation, because on this basis some very important conclusions will have to be drawn. Taking some 16 countries, world wide, in which there is commercial radio, the proportion of advertising expenditure devoted to commercial radio tends to be about 10 per cent. of the gross advertising expenditure. During the most recent year for which gross advertising figures in Britain are available, the expenditure here was £535 million, so on this basis it might be assumed that £53 million would be spent on a fully developed commercial radio system. However, initially we are told that only 70 per cent. of the population is to be covered, so the potential, therefore, is not to be £53 million but, say, £37 million. If one allows a further reduction because local radio will be, as I have suggested, regional radio, about 45 per cent. of the
  442
  £37 million will be coming from national sources. I fix on the figure of 45 per cent. because it is clear from studying the figures in other countries that this is approximately the ratio of national advertising expenditure to local advertising expenditure on the medium. That, therefore, cuts the possible expenditure on commercial radio in this country to £16½ million.
  However, there will undoubtedly be a number of large regional advertisers who may get a look in. On the basis, again, of what has happened in other countries, it would seem that regional advertisers might take up about a quarter. Therefore, one has about £20 million, perhaps £25 million, that might be available for spending on the 60 commercial radio stations in Britain.
  Whether or not hon. Members care to accept these figures, if anything like this happens we shall see that a very large sum of money, perhaps £300,000 to £400,000 a year, will be available on average to each station—considerably more for some, possibly slightly less for others.
  Faced with that sort of income and the sort of expenditure on commercial local radio—assuming that it were the same as the B.B.C., in other words, £100,000 a year—what will my right hon. Friend do about the excessive profits? Whether we find a satisfactory definition of excessive profits or not, £200,000 to £300,000 a year profit could, by anyone's judgment, be regarded as excessive.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend's answer will not be that we will have to have a levy, as we have seen in commercial television, but that we will have more competition between stations. I hope that he will say that v.h.f.-only stations will be permitted and that, as is the case throughout the North American continent, they will be v.h.f.-stereo stations. I hope that he will also say that we will have infinitely more stations and that they will be serving infinitely smaller communities.
  Mr. Whitehead: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the White Paper has said that there will be medium-wave back-up for all these stations. Commercial profit lies with the transistor audience and so on. Does he seriously believe that once it has got its hands into that gravy bowl any commercial

  443
  radio station would give it up voluntarily and go back to v.h.f. only?
  Mr. Gorst: I believe that the thickness of the gravy to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not be served out in quite that liberal a proportion.
  I come now to the subject of the I.B.A. itself. I have only one observation on this. From the contents of the White Paper it seems that far too many decisions will be left to the I.B.A. It may well be argued that there is a great deal of detail that is purely administrative in character. But a great deal of that administrative detail is also political in character. It is the political matters which this House ought to be discussing. For example, if 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom will not be covered by these stations, that is a political matter of great interest to 30 per cent. of our population. But the I.B.A. will apparently be the judge of which parts of the country will or will not be able to have commercial local radio, which areas are to be selected, and whether certain areas will be grouped together or separate. These are administrative matters, but I suggest that my right hon. Friend will get an awful lot of Parliamentary Questions in due course as to why there is not a radio station at Scunthorpe or wherever it may be.
  Questions such as the limitation of hours and the limitation of the amount of advertising are administrative matters. But they are also limitations on the right to communicate, and this is another reason why the House should also be discussing such matters.
  I come to the central news organisation. I do not believe that any of the three choices offered in the White Paper are in the least acceptable. The function of local radio is to highlight local matters. Why impose an expensive national structure which is appropriate to a national service? Radio is a medium for hot news. Warm news, if I may coin a phrase, belongs to the pictorial and printed media. Radio needs hot news, and not only in the morning; it has to be different hot news at noon, in the afternoon and at night. It has to be updated all the time. "Man Dies", is hot news, but the effect of his death upon his family and information about where he was born and so
  444
  on is warm news which belongs to the newspapers.
  In Canada, nine out of ten people first hear major and international news on the radio. It may be 20 years since Canadian newspapers regarded it as their job to get news scoops. They leave that to radio. This is one of the prime responsibilities of the radio medium. So why impose what is basic to commercial success, namely, the provision of a news service? Why impose it legislatively when it will be good business anyhow? Without a good news service, local radio stations in other parts of the world fold up. Above all, why impose a national and international news service on a system which is parochial by its nature, or ought to be parochial if it is to be called "local".
  Mr. Chataway: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. Since he is expressing admiration for some of the aspects of North American commercial radio and a number of the American stations, would he not agree that the best local stations in the United States draw their national and international news from such first-class news organisations as C.B.S., N.B.C. and Westinghouse? Would he not want to see local stations here with equal access to news services of that kind much more than to the rip-and-read services?
  Mr. Gorst: I would agree with that. The only area in which I would disagree with my right hon. Friend is as to whether these sources should be imposed on the franchise holder or whether he should be free to choose the arrangements he makes. I do not see why a station operator should not go to the Press Association, Reuters or any of the other news agencies. It would not be possible in any bulletin to contain more than the news headlines and it is the rôle of radio to give those headlines. The Press will follow with the details. This can come from a rip-and-read service without detracting from the quality of the service, because the quality involves immediacy, flexibility and accuracy.
  My right hon. Friend and the Government are rightly concerned with the effect of these proposals on newspapers. The Press has a valuable contribution to make. I have always been one of those who have urged that they should be involved up to the point of there being

  445
  no monopoly of the media communications, but that is different from saying that the Press should be involved because they have a contribution to make. It is a very different thing to give them a right as is outlined in the White Paper:
  "… local newspapers with a circulation which is significant in relation to the population of a local station's transmission area will have the right to acquire an interest in it, whether or not they form part of the company awarded the contract."
  I fear that we shall create, not a right, but a privilege. I should like to mention some of the questions which arise. What will be the cost of purchasing this right? Who will decide at what price the right is to be exercised? Will it be the seller, the authority, or the newspaper seeking to acquire it? Will it be transferable and, if so, on what conditions? When can the option be exercised—before the process of application, during it or afterwards; and, if afterwards, for how long? If this right and privilege is to be accorded to the Press, why not to the cinema whose advertising will be affected? Why not to the billboard owners? Why not to the television companies? Why not to the musicians? After all, if work opportunities lie significantly within a station's transmission area the musicians' livelihoods will be affected. Why should they not have a right to acquire an interest? I hope my right hon. Friend will look carefully at this new right which is being conferred upon the Press. It is certainly not a right which was conferred on the Press at the time when television was first opened up to competition.
  There is another point on the subject of rights which I should like my right hon. Friend to bear in mind. This is the adverse effect it is already having on a number of people who, in a very modest way, have an interest in applying for a franchise merely in one isolated area. Most of the arrangements in the case of the people to whom I am referring have been established for some time, and for reasons we all understand, have included a local newspaper group, but these consortia are now finding that their arrangements are coming unstuck. The previously mild Pressmen are now regarding themselves as the aldermen of radio. The Press lords, indeed even the Press squirearchy, have become the self-appointed second-tier radio station selectariat. They
  446
  are standing aside and saying, "We will pick and choose who are to be our colleagues because the thing cannot go ahead without us." They are choosing, sifting, appointing and dictating terms. In a short space of time we shall find that the I.B.A. will inherit a fait accompli. The I.B.A. will be told who is to be the successful applicant for Radio Scunthorpe.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: What is to prevent a consortia putting in for the franchise of one of these stations and saying, "We have not tied ourselves up with the local Press. We are going to provide a first-rate service". If the right hon. Gentleman gives them the franchise, why cannot they come in?
  Mr. Gorst: Look at the White Paper.
  Mr. Chataway: What my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has suggested is possible and intended under the White Paper. Just as the winning franchise for Yorkshire Television was subsequently required to include the Yorkshire Post because the I.T.A. believed that the Yorkshire Post should be involved, so in this case it is envisaged, that the winning franchise would thereafter be required to release a certain proportion of the equity to local newspapers.
  Mr. Gorst: I hope that what my hon. Friend says is exactly how the matter will work out, but there is a strong feeling abroad among the less powerful people who wish to be involved in local radio that Messrs. "Associated-Thomson-Beaverbrook" have already got the situation sewn-up.
  On the subject of media, one wonders how the television companies will do. Despite the assurances that have been given, it is hard to resist the feeling that the Newcastle Radio Ltd. of the future will be a mixture of Thomson and Tyne-Tees or that the Voice of London will be our old friends Father Thames married to Associated Newspapers or somebody similar. Equally, it is very hard to believe that Birmingham Broadcasting Ltd. will not be our old friends A.T.V.-cum-Post. Will these notional tie-ups precede the I.B.A.? The newspaper dominance which is now beginning to be felt at this stage will continue, in my view, as long as the rights issue mentioned in the White Paper remains a part

  447
  of the proposals. By all means let the Press and television take part in this new medium, but let it do so on its merits and not as of right.
  Mr. Proudfoot: Would my hon. Friend also agree that certain companies are able to hide what can be called market research in getting ready to apply for licences, whereas the absolute beginners in the field, the small people in other parts of the country, would have to use their own capital to undertake the same research?
  Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am grateful to him.
  I should like to turn to the unanswered questions. First, there is the question of needle time. Even if music is to support news and not news to support music, there must be a solution to the problem of needle time and it is a solution that is required before we have to consider legislation—just in case, as a long-stop, it is necessary to legislate on this matter. I urge my right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to how the matter is to be dealt with. I also urge him not to leave it to the I.B.A. to negotiate on behalf of programme contractors.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a back-bencher to make a winding-up speech so early in the debate? The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for 40 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; but it is a point.
  Mr. Gorst: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion as rapidly as I can. Nevertheless, it might be helpful if I were to enumerate the unanswered questions.
  On the question of hardware, there is no explanation of why it is necessary for the I.B.A. to own a transmitter when, in mobile radio, it is not necessary for the Post Office to own transmitters. I hope the answer will not be that the B.B.C. needs all the best medium wave sites because this will leave out, for example, what happens to v.h.f., which may well be in the hands of private owners. If
  448
  my right hon. Friend already knows the sites, perhaps he could tell us which areas they will serve, although I understand that this is a matter to be left to the I.B.A.
  Can he also tell us how much advertising will be permitted on the new medium? Is it to be six minutes, as on independent television, nine minutes as permitted in the Isle of Man; or will it be up to a maximum of 16 minutes, as is the case in other parts of the world? Unless we have an answer on this subject, it will be difficult for anyone to do any sums to know whether it is worth making an application for a franchise.
  What precisely does the White Paper mean by limitation of the number of stations in which any one person can have an interest?
  Finally, I would deal with the suggestion which is sometimes heard that commercial radio is a pollution of the ether; that it is some form of evil public nuisance. This country is a democracy. In a democracy people have the right to choose whether leisure will be spent culturally or less culturally. One man's poison is another man's pleasure. If radio is a pollutant, it is the only known form of pollution which can be eradicated at the flick of a switch.
  I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they live and let live; that they let listen or just switch off.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) if I do not follow him in detail, or perhaps quite so much in length, into the points he made. I take very much the lesson of what happens when one runs out of needle time in the House.
  The Times, on the appearance of the White Paper, described it as a bad case for a bad policy. I very much regret that that description can also be applied to the speech of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in opening the debate. It seemed to me that he was attempting to throw the onus of proof on some alternative system—and it was an interesting slip that he asked us to justify an alternative commercial system, when we have no intention of doing any such

  449
  thing—rather than defending the White Paper.
  None of us on this side is necessarily wedded to the present set-up of sound broadcasting, nor to the present monopoly of the B.B.C But we particularly feel that in this area, with rapid technological change, there is a need to make haste slowly. That is why many people involved in broadcasting, who were especially concerned about the aspects of change which were rapidly altering the whole structure of broadcasting technology, pressed for a committee of inquiry, and I speak as someone who was professionally broadcasting for over 10 years before entering the House. That is why we welcomed the death-bed repentance of the previous Government in setting up the Annan Committee. That may have been very late in the day, but I prefer repentance on the death bed to a betrayal from the cradle, which is what we have had from the present Government. One of the most foolish and short-sighted actions of the right hon. Gentleman was so peremptorily to wind up the Annan Committee.
  We are not looking merely at the future structure of television—whether the present system of commercial television is viable, what future form the B.B.C. should have, is the B.B.C. now too large, is it employing the licence as it should? We are also looking at the whole disposition of radio. The question of television and the renegotiation of the Copenhagen Agreements for wavelengths all must come to a head by 1976.
  Therefore, it is absurd to echo, as the right hon. Gentleman did, the opinions of the Prime Minister, speaking in the debate on the proposals, "Broadcasting in the Seventies", that there was no need for a committee of inquiry, that we should not always be pulling up the tree to look at the roots. That is not in the ruthless, abrasive, radical tradition that we are told this Government are attempting to set. The machinery of central Government and great Departments of State appears to be overhauled and knocked about every day of the week, but the system of broadcasting and everything to do with it, and with that scarce public asset of the wavelengths is sacrosanct, at least when it looks as though some people will be able to get in on this scene to make a profit. We deplore that. The White
  450
  Paper fortifies our belief that argument, discussion and investigation should have come before the ideology of profit and notions of private cupidity in this matter.
  What is wrong with the White Paper? As many on this side have said, the assumption that competition provides all the virtues, and has done so in television, which is mentioned in the introduction, seems to us to be dubious. There should be other forms of competition. As we were challenged by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall mention later just what they might be.
  We are also somewhat shattered to see that the White Paper assumes—and this is news for the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts)—that there will not be the further 20 local radio stations for the B.B.C., and, therefore, the minority services so extolled in the White Paper and so recommended to the B.B.C. are not to be extended to the Principality of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—or Cornwall, as the hon. Member for Hendon, North said in one of his more powerful remarks. We feel that the B.B.C. is thus not only being deprived of producing its minority service all over the country but also unfairly deprived of extending the advantages of back-up on the medium wave.
  I take the view of Mr. Hughie Green that medium wave is important. That is not the view now expressed by the hon. Member for Hendon, North, though some of his publications take that view. The medium wave should not be kept as it is until such time as the commercial stations are in being. There is suspicion on this side of the House. It may be that the commercial stations will be launched on the medium waves first. I should not like that to happen. We want to see those facilities which I believe are already available utilised for medium-wave transmission by the B.B.C. local radio stations. I believe that there is already at Derby a low-power medium-wave transmitter awaiting assembly, and that at Leeds there is a low-power medium-wave Third Programme booster station which is not used. That unused transmitter could be switched to the medium wave now.
  We are told that we must wait for international applications and negotiations. But what we are really waiting for is for the commercial stations to get on

  451
  the air. With due respect to the hon. Member for Hendon, North, we are slightly suspicious of the motives of some of those who want to get on the air in the commercial network so quickly.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) extolled the virtues of competition. I want to quote a pamphlet on commercial radio published by that excellent organisation which has good premises and usually muddled conclusions, the Bow Group. The pamphlet quoted one of the leading figures in the campaign for commercial radio as saying:
  "Paternalistic systems are all designed to prevent people who like pap from getting it. The vast majority of listeners are morons."
  That, in essence, is the alarming philosophy of many of the people who are wanting to get into commercial radio, who have put up a great deal of money and have put a great deal of time into investigating the most feasible commercial propositions for commercial broadcasting.
  One thing that we would like to see, therefore, is a much clearer definition from the Minister than he has given so far—and this applies to Lord Denham as well—of precisely what the network situation is to be. Is it to be a situation in which the back-up facilities and syndicated facilities being assembled by Mr. Hughie Green and his associates are to provide the sustaining flow of programmes, so that only a modicum of local news and effort will be provided by the various radio stations? The White Paper is not specific enough about this.
  I hope to show that there is not the endless fountain of revenue in the commercial set-up which is believed by some of those who wish to get into it. I believe that once they are in a position of financial squeeze, there will be great pressure on the network system from people like Mr. Green for what he calls the "patronage system"—which is just another name for sponsorship, which has been a deplorable system wherever it has occurred. I want to see much stronger guarantees that we shall not eventually have a "patronage system".
  The hon. Member for Hendon, North talked optimistically of a figure of advertising revenue approaching £35 million. I do not believe it will be anything like that. I believe there is grave doubt
  452
  whether it will even come to £10 million—perhaps even £5 million or £6 million. The Financial Times, which is a newspaper more concerned with keeping the gravy train on the rails than with its destination, has referred to a figure of 25p per thousand. The hon. Gentleman quoted no figure between 10p and 25p or so which would give us the revenue he suggested from six minutes an hour for advertising, which perhaps we would find more acceptable than the 12 minutes an hour which gives the lucrative revenue in Canada. On that basis, the small town station would gross about £27,000 annually, and that is not the sort of revenue on which one can run anything like a decent local service.
  Mr. Gorst: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I referred to a figure between £20 million and £25 million after doing the subtractions—not £35 million.
  Mr. Whitehead: I apologise for the mishearing. I still feel that the hon. Gentleman is greatly exaggerating the possible revenue.
  When we look at the kind of proposals being assembled for this new medium of local radio, we see that what is involved is quite different from the B.B.C.'s local radio stations, which cost roughly £100,000 each to run annually. The local radio station in Derby, which has just begun, has a staff of 23 and has on the whole a balanced output. Yet even that is operating on a shoe-string, as the main union at the B.B.C., the Association of Broadcasting Staffs, never ceases to point out. These stations do not pay fees and operate on a low scale in terms of what I think operating costs should be. For commercial radio stations a much lower operating level with far fewer people is proposed. What is involved is not the kind of station which could be used for the balanced programmes which in an ideal world the hon. Member for Hendon, North would like to see.
  I want to quote the brochure recently issued by the Marconi Company. I believe that the Pye Group has issued a similar circular. The Marconi brochure says, in its introduction to the basic set which it is offering for under £5,000, including all the accessories and bits and pieces,
  "Basically the broadcasting time will probably be devoted to records and announcements

  453
  with minimum programme staff. It is essentially a one-man operation of programmes. With their high quality, design and performance, our machines are robust enough for the disc-jockey type of operation."
  Is that what we really want? It is obvious that that is what the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) wants. But I do not believe it is the kind of ideal being presented to the House by other hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. Obviously, some of the larger centres will have stations on the scale of the B.B.C.'s stations, but for a radio station at, for example, Penzance, one would not expect to employ 23 people. Yet surely some of these smaller stations would be just as good and balanced as the larger.
  Mr. Whitehead: We shall learn what "Radio Brighouse" will do from the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough.
  I want to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, North, in his extolling of the commercial radio station par excellence. I do not believe that any station can be run in a proper manner and give a proper balance on the basis of a disc jockey rushing around doing everything, perhaps with a trained chimpanzee putting on the records. Even Manx Radio operates on conditions which are not acceptable in this country or to the union. It has been operating on minimum needle time. Its example is not a healthy one for its audience or for any areas with 100,000 people or fewer. I do not believe the money is there.
  We have been painted a picture of a helicopter hovering over traffic and giving reports. I wonder whether hon. Members know how much it costs to hire and maintain a helicopter in operation. I do not, in any case, think Mr. Hughie Green will be in a helicopter over the traffic giving reports. Doubtless, he will be in a studio assembling an array of talent for his syndicated programmes to the network.
  Again I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, North, but when we come to the question of the new service I remind the House that he said that with Mr. Hughie Green as a friend one does not need enemies. But he is inextricably
  454
  wedded in this business to Mr. Green. They are propagandists in the same cause.
  Mr. Gorst: I am going to get a divorce.
  Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman may be tired of Mr. Green but what we are trying to see is that Mr. Green's concept of local radio is not extended to the country. I quote Mr. Green's proposals in which he poured scorn on the idea of I.T.N. He said:
  "I.T.N. is a pale imitation of the B.B.C."
  Surely all of us agree that one of the things which have undoubtedly been a success in Independent Television is the I.T.N. One of the reasons for its success is that it has been largely independent of the programme companies and, therefore, not dependent on the profit motive. It is dependent on the direct administration only of the I.T.A. It has not been dependent on the companies themselves and on their concern with revenue, the maximising of profits and so on.
  Mr. Green wants a system of syndicated news presented by actors. He feels that actors will be able to "ham" it up a lot more and make the news more exciting. He says that conventional British news reading lacks urgency and drama. If we are really talking about competition here, it is not urgency and drama which are wanted but genuine alternatives of hard news services, whether they be the local services which the hon. Gentleman was talking about or national services.
  I do not believe we shall ever get this if this unfortunate White Paper is translated into legislation, unless the first of the three choices which the right hon. Gentleman outlined today—that is, for something like I.T.N.—is followed and not some stitched together, rip and pull service, put together by the news agencies which are available to the local newspapers.
  Here I come to another flaw in the notion of competition as presented in the White Paper. That is that if we are to have the local newspapers brought into this business, if local newspapers are to have a mandatory right to a share of the control over the other competing source of local news in an area, then we automatically destroy competition in

  455
  news-getting and news presentation from the start. Those of us who are concerned, as some of us are, about the bias of many local newspapers—I do not have any particular ones in mind—would be very concerned if the alternative source of news from the local radio station in the area were to be dependent upon control from the local newspaper.
  Mr. Chataway: Does the hon. Member think that national newspapers which have minority stakes in television, just as local newspapers would have here, have been able to influence programme content, current affairs and so on?
  Mr. Whitehead: No, because I.T.N. is a separate organisation. But there is great reason for concern about the kind of influence which some people have tried to exert over the television companies from their position as Press magnates. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we last clashed in this House on the issue of the controlling interest in London Weekend Television, which was being sought by Mr. Rupert Murdoch of the Sun newspaper. Of course there are grounds for concern here.
  If I had to take a specific example, according to the White Paper the Beaverbrook Press would be allowed, because it owns the local newspaper in London, the Evening Standard, to buy into a London station. If it were buying into a London news service station I would be somewhat alarmed. The result, it seems, would be an undue degree of accretion of power, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has been presenting a model of competition.
  Most of us have some notion of what we hope for from better alternatives. If there is to be a commercial system, we would like it to be a commercial system following the famous recommendation No. 43 of the Pilkington Report so that central control was exercised over national advertising, in this case by the I.B.A. We would like the I.B.A. to be a broker for national advertising. We would like to see local radio associations which were able to exert direct control over each individual local commercial station, which I fear the authority will not be able to do.
  456
  In passing, I pay a small tribute to the I.T.A. and say that under its new Director-General it has exerted itself rather more sharply than was ever the case in the past. It is undoubtedly true that the whole story of Independent Television, as I have seen it from the inside, has been one long story of the Authority always two or three jumps behind those in the companies who were trying to put profit before programmes, or, in other words, were cutting corners in such a way that the Authority constantly tried to intervene, was constantly brushed off and was never able to make the right intervention in time. I do not want to see that happen to the I.B.A.
  Other plans have been put forward. There is one which has been devised by Birmingham University, and a similar scheme has since been aired by Cambridge University, for university stations financed partly by advertising and partly by the kind of revenue they might receive from the sale of their programmes elsewhere, given the kind of outlook that would be possible in a town like Cambridge, covering the whole range of the town and the university.
  I have just come back from a visit to the Netherlands; I spent the weekend studying the Dutch system. There are advantages there. In some ways the Dutch system comes very close to some of the things my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has been talking about, dealing with local interest groups and giving more access to the media without filtering through a broadcasting élite. If there was a genuine concern for experiment in the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman is bringing before the House he would set aside at least some of these franchises for genuine experiment, for transmitters and studios owned by the I.B.A. and rented out to these various interests and culture groups, on an experimental basis so that they could put over the sort of programmes they wanted, genuinely widening the experience of that area.
  Their Lordships, in another place, have tried to avert their eyes from the awful logic of profit maximisation. Lord Eccles has told us that because he likes the B.B.C. it is almost certain that the masses will not. Lord Denham has told us that he goes out to make the coffee

  457
  when the advertisements come on. They therefore see no harm in the system. Lord Hailsham has been quoted by my hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate as giving what, in all our debates in this House and in another place on the question of competition and the dangers of the intrusion of advertisements, is probably the classic definition of the dangers of the latter. We are living in a world of technological explosion and widening affluence. This is influencing broadcasting, and it is rightly said on both sides of the House that there should be wider diversification.
  1 do not think a diversity of culture necessarily comes from a diversification of profits, by the forces of commerce always providing the only criteria of competition, which I regret to say has been the view time after time on the other side of the House. We want to see wider outlets for self-financing local radio. We want to see its standards watched and guided by the I.B.A. in a way which I do not think will be possible under this White Paper. That would provide a healthy new strand in the plurality of our democracy.
  It is in that spirit that I beg the Government to think again about this White Paper, which The Times has described as a:
  "… proposal … based on diverting advertising revenue from information to entertainment media. It is ironic that a Government whose very name implies a desire to preserve cultural values should so firmly insist on so undesirable a waste of money."
  A long time has passed since the minority report of Beveridge, and it would be wholly out of order for me to raise that now—this trickle of the competitive ideal which began there and which has no become a mighty torrent with such proposals as this. We do not want it to be diverted purely into a cascade of private gain. Even for this Government, and certainly for the right hon. Gentleman, the posture of being a hard-faced man is difficult to maintain all the time. I would be sorry if the Government forgot that they were dealing with a public asset which should not be approached solely by the ideology of private greed.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The speech of the hon. Member for
  458
  Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) had a slight pre-1956 vintage about it, in that many of the complaints and suspicions he voiced about commercial radio were the kind of doubts and suspicions that people on his side of the House raised at the time Independent Television came into being. Subsequent events have shown many of those fears to be largely groundless.
  I give a warm welcome to the White Paper and my right hon. Friend's speech. It was a good start to our discussions which will put the bones on this structure of commercial radio. I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his discussions with the B.B.C., during which it seemed the B.B.C. discovered frequencies on the medium wave for a long time it had been denying were available. This in itself is a step forward.
  It is clear that, following the growth of television, radio took very much a back seat in the B.B.C. Things have been changing recently, perhaps under the impetus of commercial radio, perhaps for other reasons. Undoubtedly there are signs of new life.
  I have not heard many programmes of the local B.B.C. stations; the only station I can hear is London. They do not attract me as much as do the B.B.C. national programmes, and I suspect that Radio London does not have as large a share of the London audience as it should have. This reinforces my doubts about whether the B.B.C. is the ideal body to run local radio. The B.B.C. has a different approach. If I remember correctly, the B.B.C. in its evidence to the Pilkington Committee said that there was no great demand for local radio in this country, but, if there were, the B.B.C. should run it. That is not exactly a growth attitude.
  The decision of the Government to break the B.B.C. monopoly in sound radio is basically right. The question is whether the Government's proposals are in themselves the right answer. If the result is a commercial system dominated by pop music, the Government will have failed, and we must ensure that that does not happen. There is the opportunity for commercial radio, broadcasting from 60 stations, to achieve a diversity and a mixture which will give a new dimension to radio, and to broadcast programmes

  459
  which will be listened to by the housewife, the motorist with a car radio and the teenager. This will give a new dimension to local life, including local news, local advertisements and local personalities. But high standards must be maintained.
  The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked whether we on this side of the House expected a broad cross-section of community life to be reflected in commercial radio. My answer is, "Yes, we do." Not only is this good business, but it is good for the listener. If the experience of Radio Manx is reflected generally in the country, the programmes should be extremely popular with the listeners, and the I.B.A. will be there as a long-stop.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) asked why it was necessary for national news to be broadcast on local radio. This was my initial reaction; but the answer is that if local commercial radio does not broadcast national news, audiences will at certain times of the day switch to another channel. Furthermore, it is desirable to broadcast national and international news to provide a balanced programme and fill the time schedules. There should be a balance between local and national news, but the most important part of commercial radio will be producing good local news programmes.
  I am attracted by the proposal in the White Paper for an all-news station in London, and perhaps in Manchester. I have heard similar programmes in New York which are balanced between news, current affairs discussions and current affairs talks. These programmes are repeated during the day. This gives a new dimension to news coverage and additional opportunities for people who work in the medium.
  We have heard during the debate various assessments of William Hardcastle and his programme. Some hon. Members have expressed criticism of and resevations about the William Hardcastle type of programme. I admire it because it has given a new approach to news, but my right hon. Friend is right in saying that William Hardcastle must not have the sole monopoly of this type of programme.
  460
  That is why I welcome the all-news radio station broadcasting the views of various people, and I feel sure this would be welcomed by the public. On many occasions I have been infuriated by Hardcastle's programmes, but I nevertheless recognise that they are immensely popular with the public, and have increased the audience at that time of the day.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about William Hardcastle and the "World at One" programme. Does he know of any programme companies which are presently setting themselves up as producing programmes of this kind? If he does, will he say which they are?
  Mr. Mills: There are two answers to that. It is not for Parliament to lay down in legislation what programme companies can and cannot do on this point. I envisage that there might be all-news programmes, extracts from which might be taped by local stations and slotted into their own news programmes at their convenience, or they might switch over at a certain time to the all-news programme to take the news. Those are two alternatives; there may be others.
  I apologise for repeating the phrase "new dimension in news" but it expresses what I feel very well. Local stations will provide diversity. There may be a growth of syndicated programmes in the form of plays, short stories, serials, light entertainment. It will be possible to produce these programmes cheaply and to syndicate them on tape for distribution to the programme companies when required.
  I am pleased that the White Paper emphasises that the stations must be truly local and not just dressed-up versions of national units. I am glad that we are not to have a national commercial radio station which would merely be a carbon copy of Radio 1 and Radio 2.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North raised several pertinent points about the press, and we shall have to think carefully about this. However, I feel it is basically right to allow local newspapers to be involved in a local radio station. Probably the best way of doing this is to give them the form of option suggested in the White Paper.

  461
  The local Press can help by supplying local news. It will be affected financially to a much greater extent than any of the other bodies referred to by my hon. Friend.
  It is important to ensure that we do not overload local stations with overheads and unnecessary expenses. We want a "Mini-minor", not necessarily a "Rolls-Royce", set-up. It is easy for Parliament, which tends to think in national terms, to impose on local stations demands which will escalate costs. We must not impose unnecessarily heavy I.B.A. charges and too many rules as to the method of operation.
  I did an interview in the United States. At the end of the programme the interviewer switched to reading the advertisement. In fact, he made it up as he went along. I believe that it will be important to encourage such informality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members throw up their hands in horror at the idea of informality.
  Mr. McBride: I thought it was only in Ireland that they did that.
  Mr. Mills: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has made a joke !
  Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously advocating informality such that the news commentator steps over from the editorial columns to the advertising feature without identifying that it is an advertising feature? This is the nadir of the whole concept of bringing advertising into the mass media.
  Mr. Mills: I do not want to see two people sitting side by side in a studio, one saying, "I am the man who reads the advertisements" and the other saying, "I do the interviewing", because this duplicates costs. In the United States an interviewer would say, "Now there is an advertising break" and he would read the advertisement. It should not be necessary to have every advertisement approved in advance by a central body. This would add to the cost. The interviewer in the United States must keep within certain prescribed guide lines as to advertisements or he would be in trouble if he does not keep within them. Parliament must not attempt to dot every "i" and cross every "t" as to the method of operating these stations.
  462
  Two big questions remain unanswered. The first is the problem of needle time and the position of the Performing Rights Society and of the Musicians' Union. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the secretary of the Musicians' Union has promised that there will be a reasonably constructive approach. The details must be worked out, but we cannot allow the whole concept of commercial radio to be held back by the activities of any such body.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: I do not think that either the Minister or the hon. Gentleman would seek to mislead the House. The National Executive Committee of the Musicians' Union has stated clearly that it is opposed to the whole principle of commercial radio, and has been over the years. The Minister referred earlier to one sentence in a memorandum which was approved by the National Executive Committee and which says:
  "We shall apply the same criteria to the negotiation of rates for commercial broadcasting as we do to other fields of employment."
  I would not want the hon. Gentleman to remain under the impression that the union to which I belong has taken a stance different from that which it has taken over the years, which has been one of opposition to the introduction of commercial radio.
  Mr. Mills: I am glad to hear that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman can also assure us that, as I understood my right hon. Friend to say, although the union may not be enthusiastic about the concept it will nevertheless not stand in the way of this development but will talk and do a deal.
  The second unanswered question concerns the powers of the I.B.A. I fully understand that a White Paper cannot spell out such matters too precisely, but Parliament will want the details much more precisely in the Bill. The I.B.A. must not be in the position of being able to take decisions which the Minister himself should take.
  I strongly welcome the introduction of commercial radio in Britain. I have no personal interest in it. I believe that commercial radio or community radio or local radio can give a new lease of life to broadcasting; and I wish it well.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: I shall comment later on the question of needle time raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).
  I begin my speech, as other hon. Members have begun theirs, by declaring an interest, albeit not a financial one. For a number of years I was a working musician and was, as I still am, a paid-up member of the Musicians' Union. Indeed, that union sponsors my presence in the House.
  Therefore, during the debate I shall attempt to reflect the interests of the musical profession and of the Musicians' Union on the subject of the White Paper and on the general questions which are involved in any consideration of whether, and if so when, commercial radio should be introduced in Britain.
  Musicians are the producers of the largest single element in sound broadcasting. Sound broadcasting could not exist without the product of the musician, whether it be on a gramophone record, a tape or played live. I am sorry that the Minister will not be here—I say at once that I quite understand his reasons for leaving—to listen to the views of the organisation which represents the whole of the musical profession in Britain.
  I say at the outset, as I did in a brief intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, that over the years the Musicians' Union has been strongly opposed to the principle of commercial radio. That remains the position today as we debate the White Paper. I should also make it clear that, though the Minister implied that the union was not objecting to the introduction of commercial radio, that is not the case. As would any responsible authority, the union has made it plain that it will treat the negotiation of rates with any future commercial radio authority or radio station in the same way as it would treat negotiations with any other employer.
  Contrary to statements which have been made outside this House and which are known to a number of hon. Members, the Musicians' Union has done no deal and has no agreement with any would-be commercial radio operator, should the Government introduce legislation on the subject.
  464
  I should explain the reasons why historically and today the Musicians' Union is opposed to the concept of commercial radio. There are, first, the reasons given at the outset of the debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). Since a number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I shall not take up time by repeating them.
  Another specific reason why that union has taken up the attitude that it has towards commercial radio based on income from advertising is that it has made and continues to make on a running basis an assessment of the consequences of the introduction of commercial radio. No commercial radio system in the world, including Canada, to which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) referred, offers any substantial degree of employment for musicians——
  Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst rose——
  Mr. O'Malley: No, I shall not give way now. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me in due course. It is not only the situation overseas, about which the union has fully informed itself, that gives concern. There are also the statements and attitudes, both overt and underlying, of a number of people which disturb us. Among them are the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot).
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North let the cat out of the bag. A lot of would-be operators want to run commercial stations on the cheap. That is why they want virtually nothing other than gramophone records for the music that they propose to broadcast. That is why the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough want commercial radio operators to have what is virtually a free hand about needle time. They do not want any standards or central control. Their motive is a simple one. They are concerned not with standards but with the maximisation of profit. I know that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough lost money on his pirate radio venture. It may be that he thinks that he will get it back by means of a commercial radio station. However, we

  465
  should not kid each other about the purposes and underlying reason for hon. Members who are involved in would-be projects taking the attitude that they do.
  Mr. Gorst: When the hon. Gentleman refers to Canada, he is mistaken. I have seen and heard in Canada a talent library of records produced by a non-profit-making organisation especially for commercial radio in Canada and having very much in mind the giving of employment to musicians. Certainly I concede the necessity to ensure that fair and reasonable arrangements are made to protect the livelihoods of musicians in this country.
  Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman is known to be connected with the Local Radio Association. I can hardly see a way of squaring that declared intention, which is also the declared intention of the pamphlet produced by the Local Radio Association, with the desire of would-be commercial radio operators to have virtually unlimited needle time.
  When hon. Gentlemen opposite discuss the North American radio market, it becomes clear that they know nothing about it. I have discussed the subject of radio in the United States and Canada with union officials who operate in those countries. They do not want the same rosy view. I accept that the position is infinitely worse in the United States than in Canada. However, it bears no relation to the kind of employment opportunities offered by the B.B.C., and that is one reason why the Musicians' Union has always opposed the introduction of commercial radio. It has made its assessment of the consequences from what has happened overseas and from statements made by would-be commercial radio operators.
  If anyone is capable of letting the cat out of the bag, it is the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. He is quite blunt about it. He must cause a great deal of worry to commercial radio operators. At a recent seminar, I understand that he made it plain that, if necessary, he intends to take on the Musicians' Union. He has said that he will break the union's monopoly powers. That is an example of the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are anxious to see the introduction of commercial radio.
  Another reason why the Musicians' Union takes the view that it does is that
  466
  it has seen, as anyone can see, the large numbers of estimates made by various organisations, individuals and Press correspondents of the finances of commercial radio stations on the pattern envisaged in the White Paper. It is clear from estimates such as that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) referred that it is possible to set up a commercial radio station, with all the necessary equipment, for £5,000, failing which Pye will supply a caravan in which it will be possible to operate with one man and a dog for much the same figure—[Interruption.] I always welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough in our debates, because he never seeks to hide anything.
  We see the desire of people to move into this business with a small capital investment. Then we are told that the operating costs of a station will be between £50,000 and £75,000 a year. We see the size of stations envisaged by the Local Radio Association, of which the hon. Member for Hendon, North is the secretary. Seeing those facts, it becomes perfectly clear that there will be no money left for the employment of musicians. There cannot be. We have all the evidence of the B.B.C.s local stations. We always knew that, on the level of income that the B.B.C. had, there would be virtually no live employment for musicians in local radio. It is to be hoped that the situation will improve. It was a gesture of good will on the part of the Musicians' Union to agree in the first place to the B.B.C. setting up local stations and the tapping of the national network. That was done on the understanding that at some time in the future there would be employment opportunities for musicians. However, on the kind of capital expenditure envisaged, there will be no money available for that purpose.
  We do not need to do many sums to realise that as these local radio stations will have to make copyright payments to the Performing Rights Society, the P.P.L. and other organisations, they will have nothing left for the employment of performers. The hon. Member for Hendon, North indicated this clearly when in an unguarded moment—he is a somewhat different animal from the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough—he said that musicians in various areas would find

  467
  that their livelihoods would be affected by the introduction of commercial radio stations. The Musician's Union is capable of making this kind of assessment, and it agrees.
  The third reason that the union is opposed to commercial radio is that the White Paper gives little reason for it to change its mind. The Minister, as every Member of Parliament and every broadcasting correspondent in London knows, has already been defeated by outside pressures and by the commercial pressures of his own back benchers.
  I have been concerned with putting down Motions in this House. I know why Motions appear asking the House to take note of White Papers rather than to approve them. I have gone through this kind of exercise when in Government. The reason is clear. The Minister is having trouble with his own back benchers. The trouble is coming from hon. Members like those for Hendon, North and for Brighouse and Spenborough, who have been saying, "We are not having this kind of thing." It is evident that that is what has happened.
  This afternoon the Minister—I say this in a kindly manner—gave a good imitation of a confident man presenting his own proposals instead of proposals imposed upon him by the Cabinet and by the pressures of hon. Gentlemen opposite, not one who had been humiliated by his Cabinet in turning his proposals down. Therefore, because the White Paper is so vague and the Motion is on the "take note" basis rather than approving it, which is the more normal process, we can have no confidence that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to withstand the pressures to which he is already obviously and manifestly subject. None of my fears about commercial radio is allayed by pious statements in the White Paper when I realise the underlying situation and pressures.
  The Government have resolved to introduce commercial radio, perhaps on the pattern laid down in the White Paper. But I should not be surprised to see a Bill which differs significantly from the White Paper, because I suspect that the Minister will be pushed around in the next few months by some of his hon. Friends and some of the commercial
  468
  pressure groups. In those circumstances, the Musicians' Union will take all possible steps in its power to protect the interests of the musical profession, interests which reflect to a large extent the public interest, too.
  The B.B.C., as a major user of music, has publicly acknowledged its responsibility to maintain musical standards and to play a rôle in the maintenance of a musical profession through the employment of 500 members of staff orchestras, by agreeing to provide a substantial amount of casual employment, and by setting up the training orchestra in Bristol. We expect a similar response from any other organisation wanting to set up in the broadcasting sphere.
  The profession is and has been facing a period of great difficulty because of technological change. We should not hide our heads in the sand and object to technological change. That is not a useful or a desirable attitude. However, the House should bear in mind, when considering the musical profession and how it can be affected by the introduction of commercial radio, that the development of broadcasting has meant a decline in local audiences and live music halls with the closure of theatres all over the country. There have been problems as a result of the development of broadcasting because of the extended use of recorded music, whether by gramophone records or on tape. Therefore, over the years—this is a continuing process—there has been a sharp decline in the employment available in, for example, hotels, ballrooms and restaurants.
  If we regard recording or session musicians in London as the cream of the profession and at the top of a pyramid resting on a broad base of other musicians, during the whole of the postwar period, and indeed before, there has been a narrowing of the base. As an ex-employer of musicians, I find that in some areas when I look for brass players, trumpet and trombone players, they are the same people I should have got 20 years ago. They are going bald and getting older. The young ones are not coming along to take their place. Therefore, simply from the point of view of broadcasting standards, there is a need for employment opportunities wherever they can be found to maintain this broad base in order to get the cream of the session

  469
  musicians who turn out the best music we can produce.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: Surely this is not a good argument. The fact is that all these younger musicians and younger audiences prefer something else. I know that the hon. Gentleman's party is deeply addicted to the tradition of brass bands, and so on, but times are changing. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly argue that the total number of musicians is falling.
  Mr. O'Malley: I do not want to be unkind or arrogant, but the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he knows nothing about the entertainment business. The situation is not as he described. If he is talking about groups—I saw the whole business growing up—there is enormous pressure on the activities of live musicians of this kind of all standards because of the growth of discotheques, and so on. The problem is that a live group, if we are talking of pop music, cannot normally make the same kind of noise that we get from that same group on a record because of the development of the techniques of discontinuous recording.
  The base is narrowing. The B.B.C. recognises the problem and has acknowledged that it has a responsibility and is trying to help. Therefore, we would take the view as a musical profession that commercial radio operators should have a similar responsibility. We would expect employment opportunities from them with specially produced material for use on their programmes. We would expect employment opportunities not only in London, but throughout the whole country. This would help to maintain a broader based profession from which the highest standard players will eventually develop and from which the best of the gramophone records are developed.
  Mr. Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would be fair, reasonable and acceptable as employment opportunities to remove the opposition of the Musicians Union to commercial radio?
  Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman must think me very naïve. He knows that this is a matter for negotiation. However, I shall have something to say about
  470
  it. We would want employment opportunities. Versions of compensation which will pay one to keep off the air or give one a proportion of the take simply are not on. They are not a starter for negotiations. I suggest that commercial radio must show the same responsibility that the B.B.C. has shown about providing work.
  The ability to do that could be increased in several ways. First, the White Paper says in paragraph 12 that
  "the financial arrangement must be such as to attract broadcasters of ability, to support programmes of quality …"
  I agree with that. I hesitate to call these local radio stations, because they are sub-regional rather than local, but they will not be able to attract broadcasters of ability, or musical performers and actors of ability, to support programmes of quality unless they are big enough to provide themselves with the necessary finance to support such enterprises. The kind of small radio station referred to by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proud-foot) rules that out.
  Mr. Ernie Money: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the B.B.C.'s responsibility. At the moment the B.B.C. is unable to provide a service in some areas, either because they are "mush" areas, or for other reasons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rule out the possibility of a local station for places the size of Ipswich, where we cannot receive Radio 1. Many people are not getting any form of adequate broadcasting service.
  Mr. O'Malley: That is not a matter for me but for the Minister.
  Mr. Richard: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the fact that the B.B.C. has made available some wavelengths for possible commercial radio will make the situation worse, not better.
  Mr. O'Malley: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention.
  There is a need to lay down reasonable studio standards so that live performances can be recorded in the locality, whoever owns the studio. We should not allow to be developed a system under which all that is necessary is a caravan, £6,000

  471
  worth of capital equipment, a turntable and a microphone, and off someone goes. That is not enough, and the new broadcasting authority should lay down criteria and minima for studios.
  Third, it is inevitable that there will be national networking, even if it is discontinuous networking. The Musicians' Union feels that there should be written into the Bill an obligation for local radio stations, one way or another—and it may be partly through networking—to use a specified proportion of specially produced material under the provisions of the I.B.A.
  Lastly, my union takes a rather different view on the subject of advertising and sponsorship from that taken by many hon. Members of both sides of the House, and by many outside commentators. My union's view is:
  "Given that the Government is determined to introduce commercial radio and assuming that there will be satisfactory provisions to secure social responsibility in its operation, there seems to us to be no virtue in distinguishing between spot advertising and carefully controlled 'patronage'."
  I leave that with the Minister to consider, because I think that it will be the subject of a further discussion at a later stage.
  I now turn to the question of needle time. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have the mistaken impression that all that someone has to do is to negotiate with the Musicians' Union. That is not true. The negotiating body is Phonographic Performance Ltd., which represents the record companies, but there is consultation with the Musicians' Union on the subject. When, a few years ago, the B.B.C. wanted needle time increased, the matter was discussed at length with my union, and the B.B.C. gave substantial guarantees about live employment.
  The whole question of needle time is one of negotiation, but if the starting point is the local radio association's starting point of wanting unlimited needle time, of wanting to use music for 39 minutes in the hour, all off records, that would necessitate a 65 per cent. needle time agreements, and my union would fight it. It would be a lengthy fight, and a costly one, and I therefore tell the House that if someone who wants to get local radio stations off the ground starts with that attitude, there can be little progress.
  472
  The Minister has made it clear that he does not take that view about needle time. When speaking to the Commercial Radio Seminar on 27th April he made it plain that there would not be unlimited needle time, and that the aspirations of some of the commercial operators would remain unsatisfied.
  I think that I should explain why musicians take the view that they do. Most of them are paid a session fee for making a record, and that is all that they receive for it. They do not want compensation for the fact that they are not playing, but why should someone turn out, earn a session fee, make a record or tape, and then stand by and allow that record or tape to be used indiscriminately? Why should he have to listen to his recording being played while he is at home as an unemployed person? He may have to listen to a recording that he made 12 months ago or, in some cases, 15 or 20 years ago.
  I said earlier that the question of needle time is one of negotiation, but we must be quite clear about who will be negotiating. It will not be the Minister. One hon. Gentleman suggested that it ought to be, but it will not, and it should be written into the Bill very clearly that the negotiations will take place between the bodies concerned with the copyright on the one hand, and the broadcasting authority on the other, for the simple reason that the broadcasting authority will have to consider wider criteria than merely making a fast buck.
  The broadcasting authority has to consider the whole question of social responsibility, and Lord Denham said on 19th May, 1971:
  "… I imagine that negotiations would be conducted either by the I.B.A., on behalf of programme companies, or by a representative body of the stations …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 510.]
  I hope that Lord Denham will make it quite clear to the Minister that we want the Bill to ensure that responsibility for negotiations on this matter rests with the broadcasting authority, rather than with the stations concerned.
  I doubt whether, in the long term, even if the Minister stands up to the pressures under which he is under now, commercial radio will respect either public interest, or the interests of the musical profession. The motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite are narrow. I do not blame them for that,

  473
  but the fact is that they are concerned with how much they can make, rather than with what they can give.
  If the Government persist with these proposals, my union will look for real safeguards to be written into the Bill, to avoid the kind of situation that we see in many other parts of the world. As the representative of the musical profession, the Musicians' Union will fight in any way that it can to avoid being swamped by commercial interests.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: It has given me great pleasure to nod vigorous agreement every time hon. Members opposite have talked about people lining their pockets. That is only another expression for economic growth. Among those lining their pockets are the tax man, the Musicians' Union and Equity, among others.
  I was a radio pirate, and I was delighted to be one because we have helped to break the B.B.C. monopoly. I hate monopoly, and State monopolies are always much the worst. I greet the White Paper on only one score—that my right hon. Friend is breaking a monopoly. But he is hedged in by the engines of restriction and monopoly, among which are the B.B.C., N.P.A., G.P.O., P.P.L., P.P.C., M.U., P.R.S., I.T.V., Equity, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. These are the people who have been putting pressure on the Minister. Before the war the Director-General of the B.B.C. put it more plainly in a letter to The Times that monopoly was not in the interests of the people employed in the industry, and that includes musicians.
  No fortunes will be made in commercial radio and there will be no licences to print money. The White Paper makes sure of that. But what disturbs me is that the White Paper suggests that commercial radio stations should operate in areas by themselves and not with commercial competition. Commercial stations should compete against commercial stations.
  I am worried about the newspaper idea. If I and some friends got together to apply for a licence and the local paper decided that it wanted it, it could probably get in at zero cost, because the White Paper says so. I am also disturbed at the idea that the I.T.V. companies
  474
  should be able to get in on the Act. An anti-trust case is going on in America at the moment because one company has a collection of radio stations, television stations and newspapers in one area. As I said, I am against monopolies.
  An incredible amount of nonsense is talked about wavelengths. My right hon. Friend admits that he knows nothing about this subject. I have talked to some top executives of the B.B.C. and places like that who freely admit that they know nothing about it either. They all take their advice from the G.P.O. and the B.B.C. itself—both nationalised monopolies. I suggest that they they do not get the straight talking that they should from those people. Only in the last few months, as the Minister said, the B.B.C., when facing the possible threat of losing one of their channels, suddenly discovered other wavelengths. My right hon. Friend should bring in American, German or Japanese consultants to tell him the truth on wavelengths. I cannot believe that the air is different over America from what it is here.
  The hon, and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said that in America he got 12 stations just by twiddling the knob. He could have got 20 television stations, one of which would be programmed entirely in Spanish and another would give the stock market results 12 hours a day.
  I hate everybody's local paper but my own. I would hate everybody's local radio station but my own. Anyone who returns from America with the idea that commercial radio stinks has not thought the thing through. There are any amount of wavelengths. I would favour a two-tier system, with medium-wave systems, something like the L.R.A. is suggesting, so that in an area like Yorkshire there would be four stations on medium wave competing with each other.
  I should like to see a free entry into v.h.f., as in America. The papers show that one can now buy a v.h.f. set for £9, compared with the situation when the Labour Party were in power, when their P.M.G. used to say that such a set cost £16. It is calculated in Australia, Canada, and America that a community of 15,000 people can support a radio station. Hence the stations in caravans. It is a viable proposition.

  475
  Scunthorpe has been mentioned. I would willingly take on Scunthorpe. It has 101,000 people. We sold radio advertising in Scunthorpe. The chap is in the House today who sold advertising there. It is a jolly good area in which to sell advertising.
  Mr. Richard: Perhaps I over-mentioned Scunthorpe. Lest it be thought that I was singling out North Lincolnshire for any particular flavour of my remarks, may I say that such knowledge as I have of Scunthorpe leads me to believe that people who live there find it an extraordinarily pleasant and desirable place in which to live?
  Mr. Proudfoot: They buy radio time, and that is a pretty esoteric thing to sell.
  I hope that, before we have commercial radio, television is given freedom of hours. Television is a rigged market. It is totally distorted. The B.B.C. cannot afford to put television out any longer on its own, so I.T.V. is crippled. I beg my right hon. Friend to give freedom of hours to all the television companies, and let them please themselves and broadcast as long as the market will bear it.
  The pirates broke the monopoly, which was a service, but they did commercial radio a disservice, because everyone now imagines that commercial radio is all pop music. That has never been true, and it never will be true. If hon. Members would like some figures, a pop station will get 60 per cent. of the available audience, and it is a pretty good station to have, and a sweet music station will get 40 per cent.
  I have some statistics of what the pirates did for our exports of that creative product, pop music. This week, of the Top Fifty records in Britain, 18 are American. So much for the B.B.C. In America there are four English items in the Top Fifty. In 1967, when the pirates were on the air, there were only nine Americans in the British Top Fifty and 12 British records in the American Top Fifty. In other words, under the B.B.C. monopoly pop exports to America have dropped by 66 per cent. and American music here has increased by 100 per cent. If that does not worry hon. Members, I hope that it worries the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley),
  476
  who spoke for the Musicians' Union, because I believe in growth, and so should his union.
  Or take what the British songwriters have to say. While the pirates were on the air, the British portion of songs which went out over the B.B.C. was about 37·57 per cent., in 1969. The contribution by American songwriters was 52·6 per cent. Before the pirates came on the air, 60 per cent. of the output was American and 30 per cent. British, which rather lets the cat out of the bag when hon. Members talk about the countries of origin of the products that come over the air. Indeed, it is a wonder that they do not call it the A.B.C.—American Broadcasting Corporation—rather than the B.B.C.
  Consider what the pirates did to build up star names. Indeed, there have been no stars since they went off the air. Think of the Beatles, Humperdinck, Lulu, Cilla Black, the Rolling Stones, Dusty Springfield, Tom Jones, and Herman and the Hermits. No such star names have been created since the pirates disappeared. These boys and girls have been earning a lot of money for Britain in exports.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the people he has named strongly resented their records being played by the pirates and believe that the pirates did nothing for them? In other words, most of what he is saying is a farrago of nonsense.
  Mr. Proudfoot: From where does the hon. Gentleman think we got the records?
  Mr. Jenkins: You bought them.
  Mr. Proudfoot: That is not so. If the record companies did not send them to us, which they certainly did—thousands of records were sent to us free—the artists sent them to us. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I met on a David Frost programme and he knows that what I am saying is true.
  Mr. Jenkins Mr. Jenkins indicated dissent.
  Mr. Proudfoot: The B.B.C. and the G.P.O. managed to con this country into believing that there was some mystique about radio. In fact, there is nothing mysterious about it. There is no reason why radio stations should not

  477
  be bought and sold like any other commercial properties.
  With 6,000 radio stations in America, there has never been a recorded case of a licence being returned to a licensing authority. When a station has gone bankrupt—does not that sound healthy?—there has always been some character or company willing to buy it. This shows the virility of the American broadcasting system.
  The laws of libel, sedition and the official secrets legislation apply to broadcasting as to any other form of communication. It mystifies me to understand why the transmitters must be owned by the I.B.A. Are hon. Members aware that one can buy this equipment without any difficulty? I can produce a catalogue from which one can buy not just an entire radio station but a complete television complex, including the correct mast What worries me is that if my right hon. Friend intends to have 60 radio stations set up by the I.B.A., this will take far longer than he may envisage.
  We paid £5,000 for a 10 k.w. transmitter to put on a ship, and the transmitters envisaged in the White Paper will be nowhere as powerful as that. We have lost exports in this sphere. We have no real export trade in transmitters and allied equipment.
  I regret that the hon. Member for Rotherham is temporarily absent from the Chamber because I am sure that he would have been interested in my next remarks, which are about restrictive practices and monopolies in this business. We have the Mechanical Copyrights, Phonographical Society, Phonographic Performance Ltd. and the Performing Rights Society. These three bodies want to get about one-third of the revenue from the commercial radio stations which we are about to establish. Future licensees should bargain with them. This will be commercial bargaining, and the Minister and the I.B.A. should not be involved in it. From all points of view, the bargaining should be between the stations and these bodies.
  I wish to quote from a letter from the Performing Rights Society. It is a bit of an eye-opener. Dated 13th December, 1965, the letter gives the rates of offshore broadcasts. It says:
  478
  "The basic rate is 3·25 per cent., but in recognition of the high initial operating costs, the rate is subject to discount under which the effective royalty will be payable as follows:
  For the first two years the rate will be 1·625 per cent.;
  For the third year the rate will be 2·437 per cent.
  After that the full rate will be payable."
  This proves that, despite the restrictions and monopoly position to which the hon. Member for Rotherham referred, the Performing Rights Society is willing to do a deal in the market place. I wholeheartedly approve of that state of affairs.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Performing Rights Society and Phonographic Peformance Ltd. are two separate organisations and that one should not be confused with the other?
  Mr. Proudfoot: Yes. I agree with that immediately.
  As I have shown, these bodies are willing to deal. That is in the nature of man, and I applaud it.
  An interesting point relating to this letter from the P.R.S. is that when we said that we were willing to meet the cost which the society had quoted, we were told that while the P.R.S. would not acknowledge our payment, we would be given a receipt. It was the most weird arrangement of which I had heard, so we did not pay. After all, if the society would not acknowledge our payment, we did not see why we should pay, since we would be unable to prove why we had paid, despite the reference to a receipt. I trust that these bodies are aware that they could easily kill a goose which could lay only a leaden egg. Local papers should not worry. They are complementary. Advertising is complementary. I have bought advertising time on commercial radio and I have had to buy space in newspapers. From personal experience I can tell the House that one is totally complementary to the other, and any advertiser worth his salt would have to go on both media locally.
  The White Paper will probably stop the very small man from advertising. There is no doubt that it would be too expensive for him. Community radio is, in the end, the cottage industry of communications. The House may be amazed at the fact that the two Front Benches and myself

  479
  at present could run a radio station in a caravan. It may shatter hon. Members on the Front Benches that they would have to go out and sell their time. But it can be done and is being done in the world now, and these stations are giving a very good local service.
  The I.B.A. would be London-based. I see no need for it. The £3 million is sold down the Swanee. It is unnecessary. The rip-and-read method and local news gathering are there for all to have. The phone-in to the local station will be one of the most listened-to techniques of broadcasting on the local stations. Frankly, I am quite prepared to trust the people with the news. After all, we trust the Sun, the Mail, and even the Express. We trust the Daily Telegraph. I see no reason why we should not be able to let ourselves trust radio stations.
  I realised only the other week, listening to the B.B.C. news, how bad it could be at times. The B.B.C. was created by the politicans. It is a rigged market and the B.B.C. pays homage to the politicians' doors every day of its life. One has only to listen to the news to find that almost every item is political. There is no warm news, as my old Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said; there is no human interest at all.
  The I.B.A. would be London based. I can tell the House how much people love London-based news in Yorkshire. We are fed up with news from the B.B.C. which tells us where a sewer has burst or where there are roadworks in London. We do not want that news in the North, and I suspect that it is not wanted in the West Country either. We want local community radio.
  I turn now to the contentious part of my speech. I speak from a power base of a majority of 59 votes. I want to talk about immigrant radio. I speak about it with absolutely devout sincerity. I hate the fact that the B.B.C. ignores the immigrant communities in Britain. I have the facts and the figures to prove that. The cost of a radio service for immigrants to the people of Wolverhampton and Bradford would be zero if my right hon. Friend would allow them to operate v.h.f. stations commercially. It would cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing. There is a market there, and it is one that should be looked at.
  480
  Many Pakistanis, who speak a selection of about five different languages, are unable to read or write. They cannot even read their own newspapers. They have only one form of entertainment and it is expensive—7 shillings a time for a seat in the Pakistani cinemas. Some tune in to the B.B.C. for one half hour a week. They can tune in to Radio Moscow—and they do—for 16 hours. Radio Moscow has three separate channels, which give 16½ hours broadcasting in a week. If the Pakistanis do not like Radio Moscow they can tune in to Cairo, which puts out 16 hours. I can imagine the damage that that could do to relationships in our community. That needs thinking about. I am not blaming the B.B.C. for being evil. This just reflects the views of people who say, "I do not wish to give up my 30 hours of religious broadcasting", or 30 hours of recipes, or anything else. I am sorry for the chap at the top of the heap.
  The B.B.C. is really a lot of little empires together. For that reason one cannot get time for the immigrant community. Hon. Members who read their Sunday newspapers will have seen advertisements by a firm called Shopertunities advertising radios made in Russia from £9 to £14 a time. They are being bought in Bradford, and one hears on Radio Moscow requests from Pakistanis in Bradford asking for their favourites tunes. This is the glorious B.B.C. bringing the truth to the free peoples of the world.
  I also hope that my right hon. Friend will give v.h.f. stations to the universities. It might take some of the youngsters from the universities off the streets so that they can protest over the air instead. I believe that local business would stump up money for the caravans which have been mentioned for exactly that purpose. So why not give the universities their own radio stations?
  Hon. Members opposite talk about people lining their pockets. But I am idealistic about radio and I believe we have never used radio properly in this country. If hon. Members opposite want to talk about sponsored radio—and I am not particularly worried whether we get it or not—let me read a list of sponsored programmes that hon. Members listen to every day of the week from the B.B.C. The list includes Mecca's "Come

  481
  Dancing"; which is a sponsored programme; Mecca's "Miss World"; Gillette Cup cricket; the Star dancing championships; the Daily Express power boat race. And who pays for Cliff Michelmore's holidays abroad?—they are sponsored. But it is O.K. for the B.B.C. And it is the glorious B.B.C., the national monopoly, which the Opposition are pledged to keep going in perpetuity.
  Let us consider the amount of advertising on B.B.C. What about plugs for films? There is no needle time for the soundtrack of a film, and the Musicians' Union does not trouble the B.B.C. about that. Then, again, it is O.K. to advertise books, and also records. And we know that "payola" is being investigated at the moment.
  Every hon. Member has had letters complaining about a book from the Julian Press which contains photographs dealing with sex. My constituents have received circulars advertising this book. But 18 months ago on "Woman's Hour" on the B.B.C. that book, or a book exactly like it, got a half-hour plug. I happened to be sitting in my car at the time listening to my radio and I heard this plug with utter astonishment. It is O.K. for the B.B.C., but my constituents did not like the circulars very much.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman said that a plug was given to this book or one like it, and he must be more careful in his language. Was it a reputable book or a disreputable book? He must not carry on using such loose language in this House.
  Mr. Proudfoot: It was a book on the same topic as that which the Julian Press had advertised.
  The House will wonder what commercial radio would sound like if I had my way. Hon. Members should go out and ask the next American they meet about what happens in the United States. I asked a little old lady of 55 years of age, who was on my train recently and who came from a small American hick-town, how many radio stations the place had, and she told me four. I asked her what they were and she said "pop", "sweet music", "sport" and "news". She said that she could listen to the news 24 hours in a day. That is service. That is why I will line my pockets if I get the chance, because people will be willing
  482
  to pay for a service that people like myself will provide. That is what enterprise is.
  Then let us take religious programmes. Again in the United States these programmes run for 24 hours in a day. Some of these broadcasts come from pirate stations over the border in Mexico. Most of it is religious in content, and one advertisement that left me laughing went something like this:
  "Send one dollar for a real original portrait signed by John the Baptist."
  What the public got for their dollar was a photograph of a Mexican Indian, signed, "Juan Battista". I am not saying that that is right, but it makes life a little more colourful than it is in this country sometimes.
  If they have wives like mine, hon. Members' wives read the births, deaths and marriages column in the newspaper classified advertisements. I refuse to read them, because I might find myself there. But the women of this country do. Classified advertisements on very local, community radio are the radio counterpart of that column. People become involved.
  The radio station I ran lost about £60,000 because the Labour Party gave it the chop. That pleased one hon. Member opposite, and it certainly did not displease me and my friends, who lost that money. I was not worried, because it was a commercial risk. Radio 270, according to National Opinion Poll, had 4¼ million listeners. We had got around to selling space to people in Scunthorpe, at £2 for 30 seconds. This let in the little men, small shopkeepers, who are now buying space in the newspapers where they never advertised before.
  Mr. Whitehead: Apart from hearing of the death of John the Baptist in Bengali in the births, marriages and deaths service, how much of a sustained diet of pop music was there on Radio 270?
  Mr. Proudfoot: We were a Top 40 format station. It takes a whole day to play the top 40 records three times. [Laughter.] There is nothing wrong with the truth. It had adverts, weather news, news and disc-jockey chatter. Look at Radio 1 now. It is a rococo part of the B.B.C. It got stuck in the groove where the pirates left if four years ago, and has never moved. It is a pathetic period

  483
  piece. Hon. Members should check with their teenage sons and daughters to see what they think about it.
  Monopoly begets monopoly. The B.B.C. at one time had a list of "payola" for music publishers. I do not know whether it still has, but the facts can be dug out. The B.B.C. is a nationalised monopoly, and always in that situation there are dangers. I support the breaking of the monopoly, but that is about all that I support in the White Paper. If the Bill comes out the same, I shall seek to amend it in the ways I have suggested.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: It is inevitable after the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfood) that I will deal with some rather different matters from those I had intended to deal with. I am not sure that we have been listening to the voice of Toryism of 1971, but I have an awful feeling that we have listened to the voice of Toryism of 1975. I hope that the Minister has noted the kind of avenue he is going along.
  For well over an hour tonight the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and Brighouse and Spenborough converted the Chamber into a marketing place for their own commodities, and they have boasted about wishing to line their pockets. They have used their presence here, and will use their vote tonight. The hon. Member for Brig house and Spenborough is nodding assent. He must look at the matter seriously. I am extremely disturbed. I did not find the hon. Gentleman's speech as funny as other hon. Members did. We are debating an extremely serious question. The two hon. Gentlemen who have used so much time tonight will vote for lining their own pockets. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough boasted of it.
  Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst rose——
  Mr. Buchan: Why should I give way? The hon. Gentleman spoke for three quarters of an hour and has made many interventions.
  Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I would be lining my pocket.
  Mr. Buchan: I will expand on that a little. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken for 45 minutes.
  Mr. Gorst: With plenty of interruptions.
  Mr. Buchan: And the hon. Gentleman has made plenty since.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who boasted about being a pirate is the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough or for Brigand and Spendthrift. He was not talking about television or radio but about markets. "There is a good market here", he said. He said not a word about the content of the programmes, not a word about the music that has been produced in Western Europe over the past thousand years, not a word about speech and drama from Shakespeare onwards. To him, this is a good market.
  Mr. Proudfoot Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman nods again. I take it that he puts cash before Shakespeare and blue chips before "Chips with Everything". He does not care what comes out. His concept of a day's broadcasting is three times the 40 pop tunes. Is that really his idea of the use of television and radio? Is that what he wants to achieve?
  Mr. Proudfoot Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.
  Mr. Buchan: It is? Then why, in Heaven's name, cannot he go into soap and leave broadcasting to people with some care for human beings?
  Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the whole of my speech. I talked about format radio. Is not he aware that whether he wanted to turn to sweet music, pop music, news or religious programmes—whatever it might be—he would find it most of the day?
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman talked about sweet music because, he said, that is what the housewife wants and he and his friends will maximise the advertising revenue.
  Mr. Proudfoot Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman nods yet again. It is not to be music for the sake of music. It is to be sweet music because that is what the housewife wants.
  Mr. Gorst: Why should she not have it?
  Mr. Buchan: There is no reason why she should not have it, but at the moment I am discussing the rôle that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough will be performing in this House. His argument is not really that of having sweet music for the sake of sweet music. It is for profit for the sake of profit. He did not talk about profit and sweet music. He talked about cash. That is not just the voice of a freak. The Minister knows that the White Paper is going to lead him towards this challenge, and I believe he is afraid of it. I go further. The whole actions of the Tory Party in relation to museums, to education, to broadcasting and to the arts is that money is being put before the needs of the people. The Government even call the Minister for the Arts the Paymaster-General. Nothing is more characteristic of the Government than that.
  Mr. Gorst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would also be grateful if he would justify his suggestion that I shall be lining my pockets this evening.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has been working for years for the establishment of commercial radio. Does he deny that?
  Mr. Gorst: I deny that I will be lining my pockets in any way. I have no interest in any particular company. When the first stations come on the air, I shall have no concern with any of them at all.
  Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman says that as from this moment he will absolve himself from all interest, financial or otherwise, in the commercial radio lobby, I will be satisfied. But he will remain secretary of the Commercial Radio Association.
  Mr. Gorst: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is an official of the Musicians' Union.
  Mr. McBride: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) held the floor for far too long and he is now making tedious interruptions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): That is not a point of order.
  486
  On point of fact, there have been many long speeches from both sides in this debate.
  Mr. Buchan: You know me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my interest in this subject and that it is not a financial one. When I hear music dealt with as it has been tonight, I tend to react. I do not want to see it getting into the hands of people like the hon. Members opposite.
  There is no justification for the White Paper. There is no justification for the commercial radio lobby having this kind of field day in the House. I see nothing in the White Paper to suggest that the views of those opposed to commercialism in radio have been listened to. The White Paper says on page 5:
  "There has been great divergence in the opinions expressed, but of the widespread interest in the subject there can be no doubt …"
  It goes on:
  "… radio financed from advertisements must offer a truly public service."
  In other words, there is no sign, other than from those interested in advertising and money, of any real support whatever for commercial broadcasting as a proper vehicle for radio. Unless we can equate broadcasting with cash this cannot be accepted. I take a fundamentalist position and ask: what are we trying to do? If we are trying to make money then I wish that hon. Members opposite would get into the soap business and leave the decent things alone.
  I turn to the question of control. This is not so much a White Paper as a blank cheque. The I.B.A., we are told, will be able to control, not in advance, but after events. How will this work out? Are we to let those who are to operate this, the people behind the right hon. Gentleman, drive a coach and horses through the system for three years and at the end of that time is the I.B.A. to say, "You naughty boy"? This is the big distinction between what is proposed here and the control exercised by the I.T.A.
  The Minister has failed completely to distinguish between monopoly and commercial radio. He defended neither the local radio case nor the commercial radio case. He assumed that a local radio station was inevitably commercial. He

  487
  then proceeded to defend the concept of local stations to take us with him in accepting commercial radio stations. What he failed to defend was not the case for local radio stations, this is sufficiently proven; he failed to prove the case for commercialism. He let himself down badly.
  I want to deal with the Scottish situation. Scotland matters a great deal to those of us who live there. It matters more than the South-East of England does to those who live in the South-East of England. It is probably analogous to the Merseyside area in its attitude, probably more so. There is a sense of national identity and we cannot look at our music, song, speech, nor our radio and television in the way that pirate Members on the back benches opposite can. The Minister is allowing 20 radio stations in England. The suggestion put forward by Alasdair Milne, the Controller of the B.B.C. in Scotland, and the Scottish Council was for local radio stations on the lines of regional stations.
  The Highlands have a distinct culture, but clearly it is impossible to have a local station in Stornoway, Dingwall, or any of the tiny villages there. Let us have a local radio in the sense of these natural regions, with one in the Highlands concentrating on Highland life, helping to continue the great traditions of the Highlands—not a station playing the "Top 40" three times a day. Then there could be stations in the North-East, the greatest song area, one on Clydeside and one catering for the South-East and the Border. We are to get none of that. The Minister says that Radio 4 will continue to perform a regional function——
  Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman surprises me. In spite of his knowledge of Scotland, he apparently does not know that there is a national version of Radio 4, which is enormously appreciated in Scotland.
  Mr. Buchan: That is what I am saying. The Minister is telling me nothing new. I know the Scottish version of Radio 4, and that will continue. The Minister today argued the desirability of the local station—the desirability of commercial radio was put in by accident, taken in by the back door—but there will not be a local station in Scotland. Neither
  488
  will there be one in Wales. These are two areas which could exploit this marvellous medium, two areas with their own culture. These are the areas which will be deprived in order to line the pockets of the commercial lobby. Is this the voice of Toryism in 1975, or do we already hear it now in 1971?
  The third error which the Minister made——
  Mr. Money: The hon. Gentleman has talked about what local radio stations can do for a district. Will he consider the situation that arises from the sheer parochialism of the B.B.C? Our local radio comes from Norwich. It broadcasts 90 per cent. Norfolk news and 10 per cent. Suffolk or Ipswich news.
  Mr. Buchan: I cannot analyse a particular radio station in Norwich. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman brings in parochialism now. We have all agreed on the value of local radio, and the Minister painted the vision glorious of the butcher——
  Mr. Money: That is B.B.C.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not know what we are talking about. I thought the hon. Gentleman was talking about the B.B.C. local radio in Norwich and painting the prospect of using a helicopter for traffic control. Either a local radio is valuable or it is not. If it is valuable it is valuable because it is local and draws its strength from that. If the hon. Gentleman says that it does not work in this way or if it is working in this way and people are fed up with it, clearly more intelligence and more money must be applied. It is not the requirement that is wrong but the application, and I suspect somewhere along the line there is probably a failure of money coming to the B.B.C.
  There is only one defensible argument for advertising and that is income, and I discard that argument. The Minister defended advertising on the grounds of competition. The dispute is not on competition but on the question of commercialism. Hon. Gentlemen opposite when talking of competition can only think of financial competition. The money factor can be brought in, but there are other types of ownership. Is there any reason why there should not be a community of interest type of radio station involving,

  489
  for example, in the Glasgow area, the two universities, the municipalities, the trade unions and the chambers of commerce? Is there any reason why B.B.C. financing should not be supplemented from the rates? Can there not be competition of that kind?
  Is there any reason why interested bodies should not be able to run local radio stations? Should we say that that which has existed in our mass media from time immemorial is of itself right? Is it right that the ownership of our national Press should all be in separate, single hands? Is this necessarily a God-given situation? Might there not be the alternative that working journalists could have some control? The Minister was once a working journalist in the mass media. This is an attractive alternative. At Le Mans the working staff on a most distinguished newspaper have a direct control. So it is not God-given that the only alternative to competition is money.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman confuses me. I do not think that anyone is in any doubt. There can be competition without its being commercial. The reason the nation supports commercial competition is that it prevents the licence fee from rising: there can be extra service without an increase in the licence fee.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman should tell the Minister that, and he should have been here for the rest of the debate. I concede that there is that argument, but the argument that was advanced was as to the value of competition. It was based on the competition of the news service, it being said that a different news service would be valuable. I agree, but I suspect that what will happen is that 20 minutes after the B.B.C. news programme has finished the local radio station will use it. The local radio stations will cannibalise the B.B.C. news programmes.
  The whole thing is a phoney. It is designed to express the money greed of this Tory party—the meanest of all Governments, the kind of patronage and sneering that we have seen from the Paymaster-General in the House of Lords, and the kind of support that the Minister is getting from hon. Members
  490
  behind him. This is a greedy, mean, cash-minded Government. The sooner they go the better for the health of the country.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I should declare a perhaps rather tenuous interest, in that I am a consultant to a magazine publishing company which I suppose could go into the commercial radio field.
  In the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) we have listened to the authentic voice of Scottish puritanism echoing through the ages, and a pretty dismal voice it is. Given a choice between that and the outlook of my hon. Friend the Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), I would rather listen to my hon. Friend's voice and attitude at any time.
  For a start, I do not believe that the Scottish puritan record of devotion to the arts adds up to very much. But what I really disliked about the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West was his scorn for his own people. He said that they have a strong musical culture; and this is true. If commercial radio is to operate, surely it will appeal to such tastes. If the people of Scotland want their own music, they will get it on commercial radio, which is a flexible and responsive medium.
  The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) took very much the same attitude in his comments about Radio Scunthorpe. The hon. Gentleman had the tactical prudence to withdraw Scunthorpe from the argument rather late in the day, but throughout his speech he showed clearly that he thought that all that the people of Scunthorpe would want would be tripe and drivel. I do not believe that that is true.
  Broadly speaking, I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. I believe that he is right to take positive steps to break the monopoly. I am glad that he has called what might be described as the frequencies bluff. One of the rather sad things over the decades has been the way in which people have pretended that there has not been air space available for additional broadcasting. Some of the earlier commissions of inquiry on this subject carried on with this pretence. I

  491
  am very glad that my right hon. Friend has made clear that this is bluff.
  I am glad also, for that matter, that my right hon. Friend sacked the Annan Commission, because essentially the decisions that had to be taken were political and social decisions which should rightly be taken by the House of Commons and by the Government. I do not believe that the Annan Commission would have served any good purpose.
  I welcome these proposals also because they will do something to help to relieve the growing shortage of jobs among journalists—my own profession. I believe that when there is a full chain of commercial radio stations some of the journalists who are at present feeling the squeeze badly will find jobs there as news gatherers, feature writers, and so on.
  Contrary to what a number of my hon. Friends have said, I do not think that the new scheme will harm local newspapers. I do not go along completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough who said that commercial radio will take over the classified advertising which at present goes to local newspapers. I think that the small ads will continue to appear in local newspapers, and that that is where their strength lies.
  I welcome the White Paper because it gives real encouragement to the entrepreneurial spirit of which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, is a clear example. I see nothing wrong in starting a radio station with a small staff and the minimum of equipment, though I should prefer to see the equipment provided privately. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that it would not do to have just a turntable, an amplifier, and a handful of people looking after them. That is symptomatic of the views of the party opposite, and one easily visualises the sort of over-manning likely to result from the implementation of that approach. If it is to be the approach, we shall never have commercial radio. It has to be done on the cheap, and I see nothing wrong in that.
  Nor do I think much of the argument of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West who takes the view that local radio should be subsidised from the rates. His
  492
  right hon. and hon. Friends are always telling us that rates are regressive, as the Allen Report pointed out. The more one subsidises from the rates, the more one hits the poorer members of the population.
  However, all those points are peripheral ones. The real point is whether local radio can do something worth while and provide a form of broadcasting which will add to local community life. Can it enrich local community life and express the increasing extent to which people want to re-create the sense of community?
  I believe that the stations will try to be popular. They will have to attract audiences. However, in striving to be popular, I am sure that they will not turn their backs on the areas in which they operate. It is the job of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to make it clear to a local radio station that if it does not do its job properly towards the community, it will lose its licence. That must be the first criterion in the allocation and reallocation of contracts. I hope that the I.B.A. will be prepared to be tough and certainly tougher than the I.T.A. has been towards its programme contractors. If it is, I have no doubt that local radio can help enrich and enhance the life of the communities. It can do so in the provision of news. Clearly the provision of immediate news is one of the major jobs of local radio. It can also do so in the provision of feature material, or what we have heard described as "warm" news. I disagree that only "hot" news is appropriate to radio.
  Thinking back to an argument which recently heavily concerned my own constituency about the third London airport, it seems to me that the whole issue which involved people so much, with its succession of meetings and arguments, was a matter which a local radio programme could have handled to enormous effect. It could have done it in such a way that people were drawn into the argument. I admit that if a B.B.C. local station had existed, it could have done the same. There is no unique quality in this respect about commercial radio.
  The great, common sense merit of commercial local radio is that it can be provided without cost to the licence payer

  493
  or tax payer. If it can provide a worth while service of quality, I see no reason against using advertising revenue to finance it. It will promote a worthwhile source of local information, and information is one of the prime ingredients of radio today. Despite the scorn of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is no doubt that the kind of advertising which would be found on local radio is information which would be genuinely useful to the locality.
  I believe that my hon. Friend has made a very good start with the White Paper. I hope that he will not be deterred by the niggling, puritanical and, for the most part, inane criticisms of the Opposition.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: This is the first debate we have had on broadcasting for a very long time. It strikes me that it should be the first in a series of important discussions which should lead to the 1976 period when we discuss the B.B.C. and I.T.A. contracts.
  The discussion today has been on the narrow subject of local commercial radio. I hope the Minister will assure us that in the months ahead he will try to widen the debates a great deal more and will listen to people who have important views to express on broadcasting in the 1970s and and 1980s.
  We on this side of the House regard it as very serious that the Minister should have deprived the country of the information and the thinking that we could have from the Commission of Inquiry. We thought he was wrong to dismiss Lord Annan and his Commission before it even got off the ground. There is much room for thinking on the matter and the right hon. Gentleman has deprived the House and the country, not least himself, of a lot of useful information and important thinking on the whole range of the subject, not just on the technological aspects which were to occur some time after 1974. We hope that even at this stage the Minister will give further consideration to an inquiry and allow open debate throughout the country on the whole system of radio broadcasting and television.
  Today we should be discussing the whole future of communication, but we are discussing the comparatively narrow issue of commercial radio. Although the
  494
  right hon. Gentleman has dressed up the White Paper and given it a grand title, "An Alternative System of Radio Broadcasting", that is not what is in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It certainly was not in the mind of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot). He had a much narrower concept of an alternative system of radio broadcasting.
  No matter what lofty ideals the Minister may have, the White Paper—the first that many of us have seen, despite rumours which we have heard from other sources—was certainly in the minds of many of us when we heard the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough proclaim himself the pirate king of radio broadcasting in this country.
  Mr. Proudfoot: I never claimed to be a monarch. I was never the monarch of the air. I was on one of the smaller stations along with 60 friends.
  Mr. Mackenzie: If not the monarch, the hon. Gentleman was certainly the clown prince of the debate which we have had today. Having heard the hon. Gentleman, we see the White Paper as no more than a respectable way of trying to bring him ashore. The Minister did not attempt to do that terribly seriously today.
  I thought it funny when I listened to the debate in the House of Lords last week that when talking about pop pirates and local commercial radio and people like the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough the Government should dignify the whole debate by having it done by the Minister for the Arts no less. I am sure that it pleased the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough to be dignified in this way. Perhaps the Minister for the Arts was not really speaking as the Minister for the Arts, but, as was suggested rather cynically by some of my hon. Friends, in his capacity as Paymaster-General—a much more appropriate title for him to use when speaking on this subject.
  Even if we are talking only about commercial radio tonight, I, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends, feel that the White Paper fails to give us information on a whole range of topics about finance, who is to do the siting, who is to do the controlling, and so on. One has a

  495
  great deal of difficulty in believing that this little book is the product of 12 months of hard thinking on the part of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. No one can describe this as a weighty document.
  As my hon. Friend said, the noble Lord who wound up for the Government in the House of Lords described it as no more than a talking point. It is what might be described in any other Department as a Green Paper. But we know that the Minister is a comparatively sensitive man and I am sure that he would not want any thoughts which he had on broadcasting, particularly local commercial broadcasting, to be described as a Green Paper. So the comments about this White Paper today, in the House of Lords last week and in the newspapers over the last few months, should prove to the Minister that, if this document ever appeared as legislation it would be given a very dusty reception.
  Some hon. Members have said that radio is making a comeback in this country. We must ask ourselves what form this will take. There is a real desire for local radio. This was proved beyond all doubt by the remarks made by the B.B.C. and other organisations. Ian Trethowan of the B.B.C. has said that his audience research shows that at peak times local radio stations usually attract more v.h.f. listeners than Radio 4 and sometimes more than the other national networks.
  Like the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), I cannot hear local radio in my part of the world in Scotland, but I hear a little in London. But some of my hon. Friends with local radio in their areas pay a very high tribute to the service which the B.B.C. gives in local radio and to the skill, imagination and enthusiasm of many of the young people who man these stations.
  But, given this desire for local radio, there is a confusion, many people feel, in the Government's attitude to its method of operation. The B.B.C. have proved, by being a popular service, that they have created a demand for real community radio, reflecting the life of its area.
  There was an excellent quotation in last year's debate on broadcasting, from an article by Frank Gillard, whom many
  496
  people regard as the father of local radio in this country. In 1962, he said:
  "The one absolute essential of local radio will be the existence of a genuine, well-established community of interest over a wide range. On such a foundation would it be possible to build a worthwhile local radio service."
  That is a definition that I like. It matches my ideals of how local radio should operate—although I must concede that there is a demand for pop stations.
  The Minister unkindly told me and some of my hon. Friends the other day that one of the reasons that we do not like pop stations is that there is a substantial generation gap. I am sure that he did not mean it in too unkind a fashion. We are arguing that a local radio station is certainly not a pop station. We hope that the Minister will not get this whole business confused, as some of his hon. Friends have done in the past. It is a sad state of affairs that the right hon. Gentleman is not letting himself think about things other than the B.B.C., local radio and the sort of commercial radio that has been advocated by the hon. Member for How-den (Mr. Bryan) and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. The right hon. Gentleman should let his mind wander a little over the subject. Only then will we find the best way to use the frequencies that have been made available to us.
  The right hon. Gentleman is in the difficulty of having his options considerably narrowed. This results in part from the speech made by the Prime Minister in the broadcasting debate in 1969. On that occasion he said firmly—his terms were almost as extravagant as some of those used in this debate by some hon. Gentlemen opposite—that he was hell bent on breaking the monopoly of the B.B.C. This has hemmed down the Minister.
  The pledges made by the hon. Member for Howden have also tended to hem the right hon. Gentleman down. When he was the spokesman on this subject for the then Conservative Opposition—I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place—the hon. Member for Howden thought that one could cash in on the popularity of the pop pirates, especially among the younger voters. He thought that in addition to catching a lot of votes by appealing to the 18-year-olds, so

  497
  getting some electoral kudos, he could at the same time boost the morale of the commercial backers.
  That is the framework within which the Minister has been obliged to operate. He may not like it, just as he may not like the pledges that were made by his hon. Friend the Member for Howden, but he is stuck with it. That is why he has had to present this White Paper in such a peculiar fashion. I believe that had it not been for some of the statements made 18 months ago by the then Conservative Opposition spokesman on this subject, in addition to other comments made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly about breaking the B.B.C.'s monopoly, the right hon. Gentleman would have had other alternatives open to him.
  Mr. Chataway: Such as what?
  Mr. Mackenzie: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) wrote an article some time ago suggesting a series of local radio networks in a national broadcasting service. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) wondered whether local radio could not be operated through a local authority arrangement of some description. This is one alternative that could have been examined by the right hon. Gentleman. Not long ago a Labour P.M.G. tried to persuade local authorities to play a part in the whole business of community radio. Many of them rejected this idea, no doubt because they regarded it as a costly exercise.
  Last week the Secretary of State for the Environment introduced his new concept of regional government. I believe that within the framework of what he described as a new progressive form of local and regional government there might be a place for some sort of regional and local radio worked out by local authorities.
  These are only two possibilities. They have not been examined and we have not been able to seriously consider them in this debate. No alternatives are available to us because the Minister has been plugging ahead in a defensive way on a local commercial radio tack. We have tried to tell him that he could have commercial radio as well as local radio, but we do not believe that the two can go together.
  498
  That has also been the message from hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Interruption.]
  The right hon. Gentleman does not like to hear about Mr. Hughie Green. One of his colleagues condemned Mr. Green in eloquent terms. But it was Mr. Green who said that while backyard material was important it could not get audiences in the way that the mass entertainment shows could. There speaks the real voice of commercial radio in this country at present, and not necessarily the voice of the Minister. The voices of Hendon, of Brighouse and Spenborough and of Hughie Green are certainly much more important to the debate than what the Minister said in his very defensive speech.
  What will we get? Despite the protestations which we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite, protestations that we will have not just pop stations but something rather better than Radio Luxembourg and better than the pop stations in the United States, we shall get something, we are told, rather more like Radio Manx, the station which, we recall, was set up literally within the dying hours of the 1959–64 Conservative Government.
  Mr. Gorst: Blessed by the hon. Gentleman's side.
  Mr. Mackenzie: It was not blessed by us. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East was happily in a position to turn down an extension of the franchise, if my memory serves me right.
  A point worth making about Radio Manx is that it did not make very large profits, as many thought that it would in its initial stages. Now it does make profits.
  Mr. Gorst: Small ones.
  Mr. Mackenzie: It only makes profits—this is a point of interest to people employed in providing entertainment—because, as I read it from the Sunday Times of 28th July, it does so on the basis of the low earnings of its employees; low wages and certainly low costs.
  From reading the programme schedules, particularly the schedule enuniciated on Manx Radio only a year ago, there is no doubt that it got away with a great deal of rubbish on that particular programme.

  499
  The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is very conscious of Radio Manx because it was he who told the country at great length that it was Radio Manx which finally persuaded the Conservative to go in for commercial radio in a big way. He did that in the pamphlet published by the Local Radio Association, which said:
  "Finally the Conservative Opposition committed itself to support for commercial radio at its 1966 Party Conference in Blackpool. Undoubtedly, the Conservatives were helped towards this decision by the responsible and popular commercial station set up in the Isle of Man in 1964."
  If Radio Manx is to be the guide for local commercial radio in this country we are indeed in for a very ropey time in the local areas.
  Mr. Gorst: It is only fair to the people of the Isle of Man to record that they enjoy Manx Radio, and enjoy it much more than they enjoy listening to any of the other services which are either offered or have been offered in the past by pirates.
  Mr. Mackenzie: I shall not comment on the tastes of those who live on the Isle of Man. That is quite another matter. All I am saying is that from what I have read of the programme schedules it is not the sort of thing which I want to hear and certainly not the sort of thing which many people in Britain want to hear.
  Since the publication of the White Paper, the Minister has been at pains to tell us that we will not have a Radio Luxembourg or pop stations similar to those in America. Because of the I.B.A. we shall have a system of control which will produce higher standards. The Minister told the Beaverbrook conference that it would produce higher standards of music than that which we enjoy on the radio. But that does not seem to be the view of the companies—all three hundred of them who are in the rat race—who hope to operate these local radio stations. They know what they want and hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about this from their knowledge and interest in this matter. They are for the big audiences, for the big-spending teenagers and for the housewives. But if the Government go on as they have been for much longer, the housewives
  500
  will not have as much to spend as the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and his friends would hope.
  Let us take two or three of these organisations and see the sort of programme they want, despite what the Minister says. One of them is the Rank Organisation. It must be remembered that the Rank Organisation is close to the Minister and his friends since it made a substantial contribution to Conservative election funds only a year ago and therefore Rank's voice is important. Indeed, they have £10,000-worth of voice in the framing of broadcasting policy. Then there is the Local Radio Association which says that it will give the public the sound of music for 65 per cent. of the time, speech for 16½ per cent., news 8 per cent. and advertising 10 per cent. of the time. Mr. Hughie Green and his Commercial Broadcasting Consultants will give them 40 per cent. light entertainment and 8 per cent. news. That is what the companies will give, despite what the Minister may say. That is what the companies and the advertisers want because they believe it is good business. That is the most important thing with which the Minister has to concern himself.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is a man who believes that there is a mass audience for the commercial stations and that the minorities are for the B.B.C. The Prime Minister believes that, as in so many other spheres, the public service sector has to do the grind and the commercial interests are to have the cream. The Prime Minister in last year's debate proclaimed himself to be one of a very small minority, and one had the same sort of approach from Lord Eccles who spoke in the House of Lords the other day. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) quoted that speech, but since Lord Eccles is the Minister for the Arts and Paymaster-General it is worth quoting again. The noble Lord went on in rather lofty tones as follows:
  "I often think that because the B.B.C. radio news suits me so well and suits other more or less educated middle-class listeners, it must mean that it does not suit the much larger part of the population who do not have the same vocabulary or the same interests as the noble Lord …"—OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 471.]

  501
  I often wonder what the Government get up to in their spare time. Now we know. We have the Prime Minister listening to Bach, Beethoven and radio plays by Moliere, and we have Lord Eccles listening to middle-class news. This is the sort of nonsense we are getting from a senior member of the Government. It is the most arrogant stuff we have heard in a lifetime and goes no way to implement the Prime Minister's great desire to have one nation in this country.
  We feel that the White Paper cannot be the last word. It has been kicked around in the national newspapers, it has been given a cool welcome in the other place, and commercial companies like that run by Mr. Hughie Green have laughed at it. Even Conservative back benchers have bashed it all over the place and it seems that the document is not really an alternative plan for broadcasting at all. But that is what we expected after all the delays and all the leaks. The Minister's personal dilemma was neatly summed up by one journalist, who said that he had "inherited a slogan and not a policy". That is true, and there seems no doubt that he has had to grope around to find a compromise policy. He has failed to do this, and has also failed to unite his own colleagues, in the House of Lords and here, on the matter.
  Conservative hon. Members and their Friends have put forward many thoughts. Some are for 60 stations, and some are for 120. Some are for a radio free-for-all. There is only one thing they have in common. Like the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, they feel that there is a bob or two somewhere for someone, and if there is they are determined to be in on it, as the hon. Gentleman so frankly said today.
  The White Paper is not about an alternative form of broadcasting. It is not about people's entertainment or their education. It is about people's money and how that money can be most effectively transferred from their pockets into those of the hardware manufacturers, advertising agencies, and commercial interests. This is a pay-off. The Minister has missed a great opportunity to use the precious commodity of radio in the interests of the whole community, by making this just one more stop on the
  502
  gravy train started by this Government last July.
  9.41 p.m.
  Mr. Chataway: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on what I think was his first speech from the Dispatch Box—an extremely attractive speech which the House enjoyed. It masked what was undoubtedly a difficult dilemma, because both he and his hon. Friends were put here today to raise detailed points about the White Paper and indulge in a little generalised attack, but they were very careful not to commit themselves against commercial broadcasting. They were very careful to say that they were not in favour of the B.B.C. monopoly, but they would not say what it was they were in favour of.
  That is a straightforward plan, though it may be a little disappointing, because it is obvious what the Conservative Party has been doing. For a long time there has been an independent television system based upon regional stations, so we have argued for a commercial radio set-up based upon local stations. That proposal has been in existence for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to discuss and think about for a long time, though precious few have done so. It is no good their saying tonight, "If we had had a bit of time, we could have thought about whether it would be nice to have some stations run by the local authorities. This is a waste of precious frequencies." But what the Opposition want to do with the frequencies we do not know at the end of the debate.
  All we know is that we have found the frequencies for an additional broadcasting service. It is additional to all the services available now from the B.B.C.; we are not taking anything away from anyone. [Interruption.] Except money, says the right hon. Gentleman, because he is afraid that people will want to listen to what is presented by commercial radio. [Interruption.] He says that he is not afraid of that. If they do not want to listen, there will be no money taken away from anyone. [Interruption.] Now he says, "Don't be so silly." I wonder how he thinks commercial radio works. If people do not want to listen, people will not advertise,

  503
  and no one gets any money. The person who has invested in the station loses his money.
  We heard from the Opposition Front Bench speeches which, although attractive, revealed a sad timidity. It is an unheroic posture that the Opposition adopt. There have been no suggestions about what kind of alternative to the B.B.C. they want, if they want an alternative. But it has been a useful and good-humoured debate on the whole, although in extremely low key. It is remarkable that there is to be a vote, because in the main the benches opposite have been deserted.
  On this side, the great majority of my hon. Friends cannot see what the argument is about. That in a mixed system of broadcasting there should be a commercial alternative to the B.B.C. seems to the majority of us self-evident. I suspect that it seems so to the great majority of hon. Members opposite. Certainly, there has been no indication from their attendance today that the plan is opposed with any strength.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins Mr. Hugh Jenkins rose——
  Mr. Chataway: I have little time left.
  A number of hon. Members commented on the three alternatives put forward in the White Paper for the news service. There was general recognition, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Balfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and others, of the importance of a news service and a recognition that news bulks larger in radio than in television. One of the major benefits that one can look for in an alternative system of broadcasting is an alternative news service.
  I think, too, that there was agreement that the development, for good or evil—and there was some disagreement on both sides on this—of a more personalised presentation of news programmes, such as we have seen on "The World at One" and so on, makes it all the more important that there should be an alternative. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proud-foot), in his extremely attractive and amusing speech, that there was no necessity to lay down in legislation that
  504
  there should be a central news service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North argued, from his knowledge of North America, that the commercial stations were bound to afford a news service, international as well as local, because that is what the customers want and, therefore, it is not necessary to set up one central source.
  I believe, however, that it is right to follow the precedent of television, at least at the outset, in this respect, because if one is to build up a central source of international and national news for a service that is of sufficient calibre and does not simply provide a "rip-and-read" service but produces interviews and coverage such as the best North American news services do—the N.B.C., the C.B.S. and Westinghouse—it is right to concentrate resources.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North admired the North American all-news service—the W.I.N.S. in New York—and suggested that of the three alternatives of the White Paper, it was the right one to follow, but a number of hon. Members paid tribute to the I.T.N. and thought that the I.T.N. or its radio equivalent would be the right answer. It is interesting to note that in a number of speeches by hon. Members opposite in which there was denunciation of broadcasting financed by advertising there was tribute to the I.T.N.
  There was also argument about the number of stations that there should be. My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North and Brighouse and Spenborough argued for more than those proposed. They pointed out that there are 6,000 stations in the United States and 400 in Canada, and asked why there are, apparently, only the frequencies to have so few in the United Kingdom. The fundamental difference between our situation and that of Western Europe and the situation of Australia and New Zealand, which were also mentioned, is that in Western Europe there are a large number of high-powered stations in an area of dense population and there are far fewer frequencies available. In any event, my own feeling is that the number of frequencies that we have secured for the start of the independent radio service is sufficient.
  There can be little doubt that the first 20 or so stations catering for the larger

  505
  areas will be immediately viable and capable of putting on a good service. After that we have to proceed by trial and error to see what can be viable, and in what form, outside the major centres of population. My hon. Friends have dispelled many of the illusions that prevailed in various parts of the House that commercial broadcasting is necessarily concerned just with pop and would necessarily be simply a "Radio 1". In many parts of the world there is format radio, specialising in a vast variety of subjects, offering a considerable range of choice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) asked about the situation in Wales and Scotland. There, the national version of Radio 4 will continue. In addition, there will be independent radio stations under the I.B.A.
  There was an inquiry about whether B.B.C. local stations should have medium-frequency back-up. There were references to the plan advanced in the New Statesman nearly a year ago by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). This is the only bit of positive thinking that has come from the Opposition, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who was part-author of that plan.
  The plan suggested that Radio 1 and the local stations should be taken away from the B.B.C. and put into the alternative system, financed in part at least by advertising. A number of hon. Gentlemen argued that there ought to be more B.B.C. local stations, and, in particular, were protesting that there was no medium-frequency back-up immediately available. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we shall proceed with as much speed as possible to secure the necessary frequencies by international agreement and then draw up a comprehensive frequency plan which will take into account the needs of the commercial service and the B.B.C. local stations. This cannot be done until there is an indication of where the independent stations will be and until the frequencies are secured by international agreement.
  It was interesting to note that neither of the Opposition Front Bench speakers mentioned the local Press. This is an indication of the way in which apprehensions
  506
  about the effect of commercial radio upon the local and provincial Press have been dispelled.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Nonsense.
  Mr. Chataway: In both Opposition Front Bench speeches there was no suggestion that this would have a damaging effect upon the local Press.
  Mr. Mackenzie: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to realise that the time factor limited discussion. We were prepared to talk about this.
  Mr. Chataway: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have been prepared to talk about it but it was an indication of the importance attached to it.
  Mr. Whitehead Mr. Whitehead rose——
  Mr. Chataway: No, I cannot give way. The real issues in the debate were well posed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, sadly missed from this debate. I suspect that he has chosen not to appear. He came in very briefly but we did not see him for long. In the New Statesman article he said about the tactics of the Opposition:
  "We can oppose the Chataway plan in principle exactly as we did in 1954".
  He had previously explained that in 1954 they had lost a bit of ground because they had sought to preserve monopoly. He went on:
  "… or secondly we can offer only ritual opposition to the Bill, seeking to improve safeguards or we can try to work out a real alternative."
  There has been no attempt to work out a real alternative. There has been a muted suggestion from one or two back-benchers—from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for example—that perhaps the alternative is something along the lines of what was suggested by the Pilkington Committee on television. The central authority would be responsible for selling the advertising, and there would be a separation of advertising from programme production. Obviously, not much thought has been given to that. The idea that the central authority can sell local advertising in this set-up is not a very serious proposition. The idea of Lord Aylestone's men in Knightsbridge going round the grocers' shops in Scunthorpe selling advertising belies serious consideration.
  Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman will know that at the outset some of my hon. Friends and I asked him specifically to deal with the way in which the I.B.A. would control the programme companies. He was asked this at the beginning of the debate, but he has not told us. What is the answer?
  Mr. Chataway: The answer, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is that the I.B.A. will have the same range of controls over radio as it will have over television. In addition, there is the rolling three-year contract which, as the Opposition spokesman in the other House said, will give considerable additional powers. Control over radio is a great deal easier, because it is cheap to record every radio programme, and this gives the authority the power to look at any radio programme it wishes.
  There has been in this debate some splendid denunciation of the profit motive and of the lining of pockets—Clause 4 has really ridden again today—but it has not been made clear whether these fundamental objections to private greed and the profit motive apply only to radio or whether commercial television, too, incurs the wrath of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In my opening remarks I quoted one speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but there are several of his speeches from which one could quote. On the tenth anniversary of Independent Television he said:
  "Independent Television has become part of our national anatomy. More than that, it has
  become part of our national system, and part of our national way of life".
  Does that still represent the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite? We have not been told. Is there any particular feature of radio which makes it inappropriate to be financed by advertising? Is there something about television that makes it right to have commercial television, and something about radio that it makes it absolutely unthinkable for it to be financed by advertising? If there is, it has not been mentioned during this debate. No doubt hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been up against the time factor once more.
  There is at the end of this debate, therefore—and not only on our side—the conviction that commercial radio can provide a service that will be of real value and can for B.B.C. radio perform some of the same functions that commercial television performed for B.B.C. television. We believe that we shall see a revival of radio. In a number of countries radio has staged a comeback. At the end of the day we are left in total ignorance of the views of the Opposition, and we do not know whether or not they are in favour of commercial broadcasting, sound or television. I commend the White Paper to the House.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 247.

  Division No. 373.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Concannon, J. D.

  English, Michael

  Albu, Austen

  Conlan, Bernard

  Evans, Fred

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foot, Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cronin, John

  Ford, Ben

  Barnett, Joel

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Forrester, John

  Beaney, Alan

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davidson, Arthur

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Bidwell, Sidney

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Ginsburg, David

  BlenKinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Golding John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Booth, Albert

  Deakins, Eric

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Delargy, H. J.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dempsey, James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Doig, Peter

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Buchan, Norman

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hamling, William

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Driberg, Tom

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hardy, Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Eadie, Alex

  Harper, Joseph

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Coleman, Donald

  Ellis, Tom

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Horam, John

  Marquand, David

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Marsden, F.

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Sillars, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Mendelson, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Millan, Bruce

  Small, William

  Janner, Greville

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Spearing, Nigel

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stallard, A. w.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Moyle, Roland

  Steel, David

  John, Brynmor

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stoddart David (Swindon)

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

  Ogden, Eric

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oram, Bert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Swain, Thomas

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Oswald, Thomas

  Taverne, Dick

  Kelley, Richard

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Kerr, Russell

  Paget, R. T.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Lambie, David

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Tinn, James

  Lamond, James

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Tomney, Frank

  Lawson, George

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Torney, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pendry, Tom

  Urwin, T, W.

  Leonard, Dick

  Pentland, Norman

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Prescott, John

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Weitzman, David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Probert, Arthur

  White James (Glasgow Pollok)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rankin, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McBride, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Woof, Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Roper, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fidler, Michael

  Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Channon, Paul

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Clark William (Surrey, E.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Foster, Sir John

  Balniel, Lord

  Clegg, Walter

  Fowler, Norman

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fox, Marcus

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooke, Robert

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

  Benyon, W.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fry, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Gardner, Edward

  Blaker, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Body, Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bowden, Andrew

  Curran, Charles

  Gorst, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gower, Raymond

  Braine, Bernard

  Dean, Paul

  Gray, Hamish

  Bray, Ronald

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Green, Alan

  Brewis, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dixon, Piers

  Grylls, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Gummer, Selwyn

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bryan, Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Eden, Sir John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Buck, Antony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Burden, F. A.

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Havers, Michael

  510

  511

  Hay, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Simeons, Charles

  Hicks, Robert

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Higgins, Terence L.

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Moate, Roger

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

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

  Molyneaux, James

  Soref, Harold

  Holland, Philip

  Money, Ernie

  Spence, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Sproat, lain

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Monro, Hector

  Stainton, Keith

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  More, Jasper

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hunt, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stokes, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Mudd, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Murton, Oscar

  Sutcliffe, John

  James, David

  Neave, Airey

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Taylor Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Jessel, Toby

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Osborn, John

  Temple, John M.

  Jopling, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Percival, Ian

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

  Kilfedder, James

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Thompson Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Tilney, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  Trew, Peter

  Knox, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Lambton, Antony

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Lane, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Raison, Timothy

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Waddington, David

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Redmond, Robert

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

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

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Walters, Dennis

  Loveridge, John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Luce, R. N.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Weatherill Bernard

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ridsdale, Julian

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  McLaren, Martin

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  McMillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wilkinson, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Maddan, Martin

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Madel, David

  Rost, Peter

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Maginnis, John E.

  Royle, Anthony

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Worsley, Marcus

  Marten, Neil

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Mather, Carol

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mawby, Ray

  Sharpies, Richard

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Main Question put and agree to.

  Resolved,

  That this House takes note of the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No. 4636).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,

  That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Rating Bill, the Misuse of Drugs Bill and the Fire Precautions Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Monro.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  RATING BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  RATING BILL
    Clause 1

      EXTENSION OF DEFINITION OF "AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS" AND "AGRICULTURAL LAND" FOR PURPOSES OF DERATING IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out "or section" and insert:
      ",(buildings occupied in connection with beekeeping) or".
      10.13 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I must call the attention of the House to the fact that Privilege is involved in all three Lords Amendments to the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss them together. The others are:

    New Clause "A"

      BUILDINGS OCCUPIED IN CONNECTION WITH BEE-KEEPING
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, after Clause 2, in page 3, line 2, at end insert new Clause "A":
      "A. A building, other than a dwelling, is an agricultural building by virtue of this section if—

      (a) it is occupied by a person keeping bees and is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees; and

      (b) the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act for a building to be an agricultural building by virtue of that section."

    New Clause "B"

      BUILDINGS OCCUPIED IN CONNECTION WITH BEE-KEEPING
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, after Clause 4, in page 5, line 6, at end insert new Clause "B":
      514
      "B. Notwithstanding anything in section 7(2) of the Act of 1956, a building (other than a dwelling-house)—

      (a) which is occupied by a person keeping bees and which is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees, and

      (b) in respect of which the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (5) of section 4 of this Act for a building used as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) of that section to be a building to which that section applies,

      shall be treated as respects the year 1971–72 and subsequent years as agricultural lands and heritages for the purposes of section 7(3) of the Act of 195 6."
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Obviously it is better to take the three Amendments together, Mr. Speaker.
      The reason behind the Amendments is to extend the benefits of the Bill to the buildings of bee farmers.
      I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) and for Kings Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) for the assiduous way in which they have pursued the matter throughout the different stages of the Bill. I also thank the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) for his encouragement, in the earlier stages, that if we could bring forward an Amendment of this kind he would give it his support.
      I shall not detain the House long. After all, we are fulfilling undertakings which we gave on Report and on Second Reading in the House of Lords.
      Although the Amendments look somewhat long and complicated and, in proportion to the size of the Bill, of quite disproportionate length, they are necessary if we are to be certain of extending the benefits under the Bill to the buildings of bee farmers.
      I am very pleased about the Amendments. Honey is one of my favourite foods. I recommend it to other hon. Members. It is a healthy, nutritious food and well worth while. I am also an amateur bee keeper. As such, I cannot hope to benefit from the extension of the Bill, but I can understand that to those concerned in commercial bee keeping it is worth while.
      In this good spirit—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford will respond similarly—I commend the Amendments to the House.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. John E. B. Hill: May I add some congratulatory flowers to the Under-Secretary of State's honey? These Amendments are an end product of a question which I raised in an intervention in the winding-up speech on Second Reading. I did so because a constituent had come to me in person during the postal strike to give me a message just as I was leaving the country to come here for this debate.
      I am grateful to the Minister. This is a classic example of the responsiveness of Government and the procedures of Parliament to a point, however small, which is deemed to have some merit. That it has produced two new Clauses and the whole procedures of amendment in the other place is a measure of the Government's consideration. I express my thanks and those of the bee-keeping fraternity to the Under-Secretary and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and their respective draftsmen and advisers, for overcoming a tricky legal point.
      Mr. John Silkin: I am very happy to welcome these Amendments on behalf of the Opposition. It is right that they should all be taken together. It is a remarkable achievement by the Parliamentary draftsman that they have met this point. The Under-Secretary of State's speech was both witty and brief: mine at least will be brief.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.—[Special Entries.]

  MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
    Clause 9

      PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ETC. RELATING TO OPIUM
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 27, leave out from "Act" to "it" in line 28.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      If it is for the convenience of the House, perhaps we can discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendment No. 2 in page 7, line 33, leave out from "possession" to end of line 46 and insert:

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

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

      The second Amendment would make it clear that a person who owns an opium pipe or utensil as a collector's piece is not rendered liable to prosecution unless he used it or intended to use it for smoking opium or knowingly permitted another to have it for such a purpose. The other Amendment removes the statutory defence in relation to this, because it is felt that, with a much clearer definition, this would no longer be necessary.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19

      ATTEMPTS ETC. TO COMMIT OFFENCES
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 16, line 23, leave out from "any" to end of line 27 and insert:
      "other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence".
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Perhaps we might discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendments: No. 6, in Clause 25, page 20, line 1, leave out "19(1) or (2) or section 20(1)" and insert "19", No. 7, in page 20, line 7, leave out "section 19(1) or (2) or section 20(1)" and insert "that section" and No. 8, in Clause 25, page 20, leave out lines 11 to 22 and insert
      "means the offence under this Act to which the attempt or, as the case may be, the incitement or attempted incitement mentioned in section 19 was directed."
      Amendment No. 3 simplifies the drafting of Clause 19 by amalgamating the two subsections into the Clause, but makes no change of substance. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 in Clauses 19 and 20 respectively.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am very glad to be able to agree with the Minister of State that this is a substantial improvement in the presentation of the Clause. On 9th December last year, when we had Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and when many of us wished it godspeed, we little thought that it would be towards the end of May before we saw it returning from another place. But I understand that a great deal of industry has gone into the shaping of many of these Amendments. We readily concede that they improve the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 20

      OFFENCES RELATING TO THE DOING OF THINGS OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM
      Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (1).
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      During the passage of the Bill, research into the relevant treaty provisions—that is, Article 36 of the Penal Provisions of the United Nations Single Convention on
      518
      Narcotic Drugs, 1961—revealed that the reference to an "act preparatory to" goes back to a convention of 1936 for the suppression of traffic in illicit drugs.
      The words were intended to help those countries which had no developed juristic system to deal with attempts and conspiracies to commit offences. With the extension of modern systems of administration throughout the world, there is now less need for this kind of help than formerly. In any event, subsection (1) is not essential for the strict implementation of the Single Convention.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister. The words "act preparatory to" could have had very little, if any, meaning in English law. They certainly do not encompass an attempt or incitement, and I am sure that it was necessary that they should be exorcised.
      Question put and agreed to

    Clause 23

      POWERS TO SEARCH AND OBTAIN EVIDENCE
      Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 18, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
      "() conceals from a person acting in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) above any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are mentioned in that subsection; or
      () without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books or documents as are so mentioned where their production is demanded by a person in the exercise of his powers under that subsection."
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that the offence of concealing books, documents, stocks or drugs, or of failing to produce books or documents, relates solely to the situation where a constable or other authorised person exercises the powers of search of business premises conferred by Clause 23(1).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 25

      PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES
      Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 20, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment removes the provision requiring the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions—or, in Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General—before a case can be dealt with on indictment. We discussed this matter on Report, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) raised this point, as did the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). The result was this Amendment being tabled in another place.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Minister for this Amendment. It means that it is no longer necessary, before a prosecution on indictment is proceeded with, to have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that since 1923 it has been necessary in these cases to have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General.
      There is only one point in this context which I would be grateful if the Minister would consider. While we accept that things have changed greatly since 1923, when there were comparatively few drugs and poisons offences, the discretion that is rightly vested in chief officers of police is very wide. It is a discretion which I am sure the House will agree is, by and large, not abused, but every now and then a chief officer of police will, in a fallible world, perhaps in an act of aberration, bring about a prosecution in circumstances when it is wholly unreasonable to do so.
      I am sure that the House will have in mind a case which occurred some two or three years ago, when a person who was a clerk in holy orders was delivering an address in the pulpit on the dangers of drug abuse and held up a phial which contained a white powder. He was later prosecuted on account of that, and this
      520
      was the subject of a free pardon a year or two ago. I appreciate that this applies only to indictable offences, since it was never necessary to have this consent in relation to non-indictable prosecutions, nevertheless one can envisage a situation when, perhaps, a mistake might be made in the future and a prosecution on indictment brought, say, against the parents of a boy or a young man who habitually persists in smoking cannabis in the home. The parents are perhaps torn between motives, on the one hand, and trying to do that which is right by society and reporting the matter to the police, and, on the other hand, of not wishing to see their son incriminated.
      It would be right if the Home Office were to consider giving some guidance to chief officers of police in relation to family matters such as these, for such cases will probably be on the increase in the future.
      I do not expect the Minister to reply to that point now, but I should be grateful if he would bear it in mind.
      Mr. Sharples: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I reply to the hon. Gentleman? I should like to consider carefully the helpful suggestion which he has made.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 36

      MEANING OF "CORRESPONDING LAW"
      Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 25, line 32, leave out from "aforesaid" to "that" in line 34 and insert "to the effect".
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      If it is for the convenience of the House, perhaps we can discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 25, line 35, leave out from beginning to "evidence" and insert:
      "the law mentioned in the certificate shall be evidence and in Scotland sufficient".
      The effect of these Amendments is to remove from subsection (2) of Clause 36 the provision that a statement in a certificate given by the Government of another

      521
      country as to the effect of a "corresponding law" of that country shall be conclusive as to whether particular facts constitute an offence against it. As redrafted, the subsection continues to enable the statement to be tendered as evidence of the matters stated but will allow an accused person to contest it by calling expert witnesses. The certificate will continue to be conclusive as to whether an overseas law is a "corresponding law" in the sense described in subsection (1). There is also a corresponding section relating to Scotland.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 37

      INTERPRETATION
      Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 26, line 7, at end insert:
      ""corresponding law" has the meaning assigned by section 36(1) of this Act;"
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment simply adds for the sake of clarity and ease of reference a reference to "corresponding law" in the list of definitions in Clause 37. "Corresponding law" is defined in Clause 36.
      Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    CONTROLLED DRUGS
    Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 30, line 8, column 2, leave out "(dihydro-codeinone)".
    Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    522
    If it is for the convenience of the House, perhaps we can discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 32, line 11, column 1, after "Mephentermine" insert "Methaqualone".
    Amendment No. 13 is a technical one concerning the identity of the drug Hydrocodone. Since the Bill began its progress through Parliament, "Hydrocodone" has become the name approved for this drug by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission. In these circumstances it is unnecessary further to identify the drug by its chemical definition—which I do not attempt to pronounce to the House—in the list of controlled drugs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame !"] Amendment No. 14 adds "methaqualone" to the list of controlled drugs. It will be recalled that we had a debate on this when an Order was moved adding it to the existing powers.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 4

    PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES
    Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 40, column 2, line 11, at end insert:
    "(other than licence issued under regulations relating to addicts)".
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment to bring the words on page 40 that are descriptive of Clause 18(2) into line with those descriptive of Clause 18(1).
    Question put and agreed to.

  FIRE PRECAUTIONS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  FIRE PRECAUTIONS BILL
    Clause 8

      CHANGE OF CONDITIONS AFFECTING ADEQUACY OF CERTAIN MATTERS SPECIFIED IN FIRE CERTIFICATE, ETC.
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 11, line 17, at end insert:
      "or consists of premises of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection".
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
      Mr. Sharples: These Amendments were moved in another place by Lord Crowther and were accepted by the Government spokesman. They make considerable improvements to the drafting of Clause 8.
      Clause 8(1) of the Bill, as originally drafted, empowered the fire authority to inspect premises covered by a current fire certificate, and the building in which they were contained, for the purpose of ensuring that the means of escape had not become inadequate by reason of a change of conditions. In the case of dwellings, 24 hours' notice had to be given before the power of entry could be exercised of right: in all other cases, the only condition attaching to the inspection was that it had to be at a reasonable time.
      It was pointed out in another place that there could well be cases where a room or rooms in the various types of residential establishments covered by the Bill—hotels, boarding-houses, residential clubs and the like—could constitute the occupier's home. It was not suggested that a hotel bedroom occupied for a few nights could be so regarded, but there were often permanent residents who regarded their rooms as their home and kept their belongings there. It was considered that the privacy of such residents
      524
      should be respected in much the same way as if they were occupying a dwelling.
      It was in order to meet this point that the Amendments were moved in another place. So far as I know from the information that I have, there is no record of a fire inspector abusing his powers in a way that might be suggested.
      The effect of the Amendments is to give the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations, which will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, which particular premises or parts of premises, in addition to dwellings, shall be deemed to require 24 hours' notice before entry can be made as of right. This will mean that when we come to consult, say, the hotel industry about the application of the Bill to hotels, we can consider whether regulations are needed specifying that bedrooms, except in defined circumstances—for example, when they form part of the means of escape specified in the fire certificate—shall be subject to this proviso. This is a flexible provision, and the advantage is that the requirement for a particular occupancy can be precisely defined.
      I should add that these Amendments relate to inspections under Clause 8 in connection with changes in conditions: there is a similar proposal in subsection (5) of the new Clause 19 dealing with the general powers of inspectors, which we shall be discussing later.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the Minister of State has said, these are paving Amendments to the new Clause 19. We shall therefore raise the one or two points we have when we reach that Clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 11, line 23, leave out "occupier proposes".
      The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is to meet a point raised in Committee in the other place and clarifies the question of the responsibility laid on the occupier in relation to certain premises. I could explain the matter in detail if that is the wish of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think they will realise that this is a helpful provision. If they are prepared to accept it, I would recommend it to the House.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, but could he say a brief word about Amendment No. 9 which includes the phrase
      "proposes to begin to keep explosive or highly flammable materials"?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Under subsections (2)(a) and (b) we have left the obligation upon the occupier to give notice to the fire authority if it is proposed to make any changes. We believe that changes of the kind we envisage under subsection (2)(c) are very different, because the occupier of the certified premises would not necessarily know if some-one else in the same building were to begin storing large quantities of inflammable materials. The risk to the means of escape from certified premises could well be considerable. That is why we propose that the duty to notify this kind of change should rest not only on the occupier—where he is responsible—but also on any other occupier in the same building who has accepted contingent responsibilities under the fire certificate by virtue of Clause 6(5). Such a person, too, will now be under a duty to inform the fire authority direct of any change of the kind envisaged in subsection (2)(c) that he makes in his own part of the relevant building.
      Mr. Brynmor John: Is that the limit of the change envisaged by the use of the impersonal "it is proposed" in subsections (a) and (b) instead of "the occupier proposes"? It seems to open up a wider field of people proposing to do these things. I take it that the hon. Gentleman now means the people he has already described.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 12

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE REGULATIONS ABOUT FIRE PRECAUTIONS
      Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 20, line 25, leave out first "section" and insert "subsection".
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House to take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are purely technical Amendments that improve the Bill in relation to bringing into operation certain measures and also do some tidying up in relation to the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: We received large numbers of representations about the Cinematograph Act aspects when we first dealt with the Bill. The Minister of State was extremely co-operative and supplied us with explanations so that when cinema owners in our constituencies wrote to us we were able to give the Home Office view. I should not like to think that there would be the same amount of correspondence arising from the Amendments. Do I take the hon. Gentleman's assurance that they are severely technical, and that if we are asked about them we can use his words and say that no one need worry about them at all?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there is no change of substance in the Bill. We appreciate that there was considerable concern in the cinematograph trade on certain aspects of the Bill. Many of the fears were unfounded, and we were very glad to give certain assurances in Committee. There is no reason why the Amendments should give rise to any concern.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 19

      POWERS OF INSPECTORS
      Lords Amendment: No. 14, to leave out Clause 19 and insert the following new Clause:
      "19.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any of the following persons (in this section referred to as "inspectors") namely an inspector appointed under section 18 of this Act and a fire inspector, may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying this Act and regulations thereunder into effect and, in particular, shall, so far as may be necessary for that purpose, have power to do at any reasonable time any of the following things, namely—

      (a) to enter any such premises as are mentioned in subsection (2) below, and to inspect the whole or any part thereof and anything therein;

      (b) to make such inquiry as may be necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) below;

      (c) to require the production of, and to inspect, any fire certificate in force with respect to any premises or any copy of any such certificate;

      (d) to require any person having responsibilities in relation to any such premises as are referred to in paragraph (a) above (whether or not the owner or occupier of the premises or a person employed to work therein) to give him such facilities and assistance with respect to any matters or things to which the responsibilities of that person extend as are necessary for the purpose of enabling the inspector to exercise any of the powers conferred on him by this subsection.

      (2) The premises referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are the following, namely—

      (a) any premises requiring a fire certificate or to which any regulations made under section 12 of this Act apply;

      (b) any premises such as are mentioned in section 10(l)(a) of this Act;

      (c) any premises to which section 3 of this Act for the time being applies;

      (d) any premises not falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs which form part of a building comprising any premises so falling; and

      (e) any premises which the inspector has reasonable cause to believe to be premises falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs.

      (3) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(6) above are the following, namely—

      (a) to ascertain, as regards any premises, whether they fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) above;

      (b) to identify the owner or occupier of any premises falling within any of those paragraphs;

      528

      (c) to ascertain whether, in the case of any premises to which section 3 of this Act for the time being applies, any person has the overall management of the building constituting or comprising the premises and, if so, to identify that person;

      (d) to ascertain, as regards any premises falling within any of the said paragraphs (a) to (d), whether the provisions of this Act and regulations made under section 12 thereof are complied with, and, where a fire certificate is in force in respect of any such premises, whether the requirements imposed by the certificate are complied with.

      (4) An inspector shall, if so required when visiting any premises in the exercise of powers conferred by this section, produce to the occupier of the premises some duly authenticated document showing his authority.
      (5) In the case of premises used as a dwelling or premises of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, no power of entry conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercised as of right unless twenty-four hours' notice has been given to the occupier; and for the purposes of this subsection a description of premises may be framed in any of the ways mentioned in section 1(4) of this Act.
      (6) A person who—

      (a) intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise or performance of his powers or duties under this Act; or

      (b) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an inspector under subsection (l)(d) above,

      shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50."
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider, with this Amendment, Lords Amendments No. 15, and 16.
      Lords Amendment read a Second time..
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in the last line, to leave out '£50' and insert '£250'.
      Mr. Sharples: The House will recall that we had a considerable discussion in Committee on Clause 19. In the other place, Lord Crowther and Lord Foot both felt that the powers in the Clause went further than was strictly necessary. They felt that the powers of inspectors, as drafted, seemed to amount to an unwarrantable invasion of privacy in certain cases, and that the arrangements for interrogating staff and other persons by

      529
      inspectors under the Clause as drafted seemed to be unnecessarily intimidating, especially if a police constable were present. Specific powers were taken in the Clause for a police constable to be present with the inspector if that were required.
      As originally drafted, the Clause was based upon the precedent of Section 53 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1962. No complaints had arisen about its operation, and it was felt that one could rely on the experience and discretion of the fire service in exercising its powers. The new Clause still gives the inspector the powers that he needs, while removing those features of the original powers to which objection was made. Accordingly, the Government spokesman in another place accepted the Clause on behalf of the Government. In view of Lord Crowther's interest in the matter, assistance was given to him by the Home Office in the drafting of the Clause.
      The redesigned Clause omits those parts of the original Clause which dealt with the formal interrogation procedure and the provision relating to the presence of a police constable. It also provides, as do the Amendments which we have discussed under Clause 8, for premises other than dwellings to be brought as necessary, by means of regulations, within the rule that 24 hours' notice has to be given before the power of entry to such premises is exercised as of right.
      As to the formal interrogation procedure, the inspector still has power to make all necessary inquiries, even though a procedure is not prescribed. But, in practice, an inspector's inquiries are normally conducted in a spirit of friendliness and co-operation, and in the rare cases where someone wished to be obstructive, the chances are that, whether or not the formal interrogation procedure existed, such a person would persist in his obstinacy. In such a case, the new Clause provides ample grounds for proceedings by virtue of subsection (6). The other consideration is that the purpose of the interrogation procedure in the original Clause was to enable the inspector to arrive at the truth. The Amendment to Clause 22 takes care of this point by adding to paragraph (c) the offence of wilfully giving false information in reply to an inspector's inquiries.
      530
      10.45 p.m.
      It is only in rare cases that the inspector would exercise the power to take a police constable with him, but it must be admitted that in serious cases of obstruction the presence of a police officer might not be conclusive. If the owner of a shady night club, say, still refused to admit the inspector, albeit accompanied by a constable, then neither would have power to force his way in, and other means of enforcing the law would still have to be found. Little or nothing is lost, therefore, by dispensing with this provision. Under Clause 19 this power might well be otiose.
      In the context of the wide range of safety precautions which the fire authority can impose under the Bill, we are satisfied that the proposed modifications of the original Clause 19 will make no material difference in practice to the fire service in its enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. There is a consequential Amendment to Clause 20.
      One matter which I think I should mention in view of the interest of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in the original Clause is that I accepted an Amendment moved by him on a point which he raised. I think it fair to point out that the adoption of the new Clause will have the effect of removing the Amendment made to the present subsection (1) (d) on Report stage. This Amendment was designed, rightly, to restrict the classes of persons who could be interrogated. Those restrictions are no longer required in the absence of the formal interrogation procedure itself.
      This new Clause is regarded by the Government as wholly without prejudice to the powers of inspectors conferred by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, and the Factories Act, 1961. The differences are acceptable, however, because the Bill is concerned in part with private dwellings, a consideration which does not arise in connection with those two Acts.
      The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) seeks to increase the penalty referred to in the Lords Amendment for withholding information from an inspector from £50 to £250. The penalty which the hon. Member proposes is considerably more than is contained in equivalent legislation for offences of the same kind.

      531
      Substantial offences under the Bill are concerned with contravening requirements of the fire certificate or using premises without obtaining one. If any obstruction of an inspector led to such an offence, the penalties for that substantial offence would apply.
      I remind the House that there is a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction and an unlimited fine and /or imprisonment for up to two years on conviction on indictment. The Lords Amendment to Clause 22(l)(c) introduces the offence of deliberately giving false information to an inspector. This is a necessary consequence of removing the formal interrogation procedure from this Clause. The penalty of a fine of £400 for this offence is for a substantial offence, not of withholding information but of wilfully giving false information. The reason for the higher penalty is that deliberately false information could mislead an inspector into thinking that the means of escape were adequate in a material particular when they were not. The penalty in the Bill as it stands is probably the correct penalty in relation to the particular offence under Clause 19 having regard to equivalent penalties in other legislation and also the limited nature of the offences covered by this provision.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Our reason for tabling an Amendment on this point in Committee was that we thought that many of the fines in the Bill were too low. Changes were made. The hon. Gentleman has told us why because of the different arrangements under the law, culminating in indictment, it is not necessary to raise the fines here. This is not the sort of subject for a large-scale political argument. It is a matter of balance, and I know that he will have been advised.
      He will recall that in the Immigration Bill now being considered in Committee the point was made—yesterday or today I forget when because of the length of the sitting—that if we put too high a fine in the court of summary jurisdiction it leads to magistrates feeling rather tender because they think the sum is too high. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep an eye on these important matters, and I know that the fire services will.
      532
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) seems to be in the wrong House. It seems that we get further when we introduce Amendments in another place. This has arisen because of the interest taken in this by Lord Crowther, who has an interest in hotels. As he said, he had on his mind, maybe on his conscience, quite properly, the terrible fire at Saffron Waiden, at one of his hotels. I know from the quality of that group of hotels that this is something that would concern him. It was because of his feelings and consequent interest that this came up in another place.
      In what fundamental way does new Clause 19 alter the question of fire precautions and inspections in hotels? Is it a great change or a marginal one? Why was it thought necessary to have a completely new Clause? There is widespread interest in the question of fire safety in new hotels. The Minister of State and I have a vested interest as non-lawyers. It would be interesting to know the answer.
      Mr. John Tilney: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) referred to the fire at Saffron Waiden. A short time ago there was a fire in Norfolk Park. Had the Bill been enacted, would the damage that was caused to life in that fire have been prevented?
      Mr. John: In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), no undertaking was given by the Government in Committee for the immediate implementation of the Bill. So there would be two prerequisites: first, the passing of the Bill into law, and, secondly, its implementation by the Government, and the one does not necessarily follow on the other.
      I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that the Government moved slowly, like an avalanche at first, and then collapsed completely when the Clause was discussed in another place.
      My first concern is with the classes of people who can be interrogated by the fire inspectors, and not necessarily with the powers of the fire inspectors. We are dealing here with matters of life and death. The avoidance of fire precautions

      533
      can lead to avoidable death, and, therefore, fire inspectors should have a reasonable amount of power. Provided the people whom fire inspectors could question were sufficiently drawn, I was content with the original Clause. I read with some concern in paragraph (d) of the Amendment that the fire inspectors have power:
      "to require any person having responsibilities in relation to any such premises … (whether or not the owner or occupier of the premises or a person employed to work therein) …"
      Although this appears to reproduce the Government Amendment on Report, it is vaguer, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that.
      I appreciate the point made in another place about the intimidation of the police constable. It is not a view which is normally accepted in enacting legislation designed to deter, but I accept that the Government were willing to concede that point.
      In replying to the debates on Clause 19 the Minister said that inspectors would normally be drawn from fire brigades. To rob them of the presence of a police constable will put a much higher onus upon them, and place them in greater difficulty. They will have to be skilled not only in fire precautions but in matters of evidence and interrogation techniques which the presence of a police constable might avert. In the original Clause, both as it appeared before the Committee and after amendment on Report, the question of whether a person without reasonable excuse failed to comply with any requirement was subject to the proviso that the onus of proof that he had reasonable excuse lay upon him. That has been removed, and I wonder why. Provided we restrict the class of people who can be interrogated, I would not want to see the fire authorities—the inspectors—having themselves to discharge the onus of proof. I think that a person who fails to comply with any of the inspector's directions should have the onus of proof as to the reasonableness of his excuse placed upon him.
      I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at these matters carefully because otherwise he is going to have the charter for evasion which we spoke about on other Clauses and which we all want to avoid. We do not want this Bill to be evaded; we want its provisions to be implemented both in
      534
      the spirit and in the letter. I suppose it is now too late to alter the Amendment but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear these matters in mind in order to secure the proper working of the Bill.
      11.0 p.m.
      Mr. Sharples: I assure the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that I take very seriously the points he has made. The House respects the considerable amount of knowledge he has of this subject and the great interest he took in our earlier discussions on Clause 19.
      The Amendment was moved by a backbench peer in another place, and it is one which all of us, I am sure, agree with, in that the powers of the inspector, particularly when dealing with accommodation by private persons—whether it be hotel or private accommodation or any other kind—should be all that is necessary for him to carry out his duties but should not be greater or more formal or more intimidating than strictly necessary. It was with that in view that the Amendment was drafted, with assistance from the Home Office.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether or not the fire inspector would be concerned with matters of evidence. Any prosecution would, of course, be undertaken by the legal staff of the fire authority. Under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the onus of proof already rests with the defendant. That is why it was not considered necessary to write it into this Clause as redrafted.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) referred to the recent fire in London. My understanding is that the coroner has yet to complete his inquiries, and I think, therefore, that it would be inappropriate for me to make any specific comment about it. It would be in order to say, however, that premises of this kind in inner London are controlled at present as to means of escape by the London Buildings (Amendment) Act, 1939. The difference between the provisions of the existing legislation and the Bill is that the Bill is more comprehensive because it covers not only means of escape but matters such as alarms, the training of staff, the marking of escape routes and the obligation to inform the fire authorities of any material changes in or to the premises. Present legislation excludes a good many hotels from control, but my

      535
      hon. Friend is right that the speed at which we bring these provisions into force in relation to hotels and similar premises depends upon the orders being made.
      It is right, even after the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and I have been without rest for a considerable time, that, in view of recent events, we should give some urgency to this Measure. The hon. Member asked the important question: what fundamental difference does this make both to fire precautions and to the powers of inspectors? The answer is that it does not in any way weaken the fire precautions which can be required under the Bill and it does not weaken the powers of the inspectors to carry out the duties which we consider to be essential and which Parliament lays upon them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Amendment?
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 28

      POWER OF COUNTY COURT OR SHERIFF, WHERE NOTICE UNDER S. 3 IS IN FORCE, TO MODIFY AGREEMENTS AND LEASES AND APPORTION EXPENSES
      Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 31, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert:
      "to section 12 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971;"
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to take with this Amendment, Lords Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These Amendments are necessary because the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, a consolidating Measure, is now on the Statute Book. In fact, the Royal Assent was given to it
      536
      on 12th May. Therefore, these Amendments repeat, in terms of the 1971 Act, provisions which were already contained in the Bill in terms of the older Scottish rent legislation. These Amendments are purely consequential to the consolidation Measure having received the Royal Assent. The Act does not come into force until three months after it is passed, which will be 12th August, 1971. Therefore, there will be a transitional period during which the old Statutes have to remain in force. The Amendments are put in such a way that we retain the references at the same time to the older legislation. The two things have, so to speak, to run in harness together if they are to be effective. Obviously, we must keep the Bill up to date to keep pace with other legislation which has taken place since it was first introduced.
      Mr. William Ross: I hope that the House will notice that these Amendments were made necessary because of the expedition of Scottish Members in dealing with Bills.
      There will be no change in the effect of the Fire Precautions Bill, but these Amendments will be of considerable help to anyone who wants to study it. When I look at the original references and the part of the Schedule which applies to Scotland, it is the sorrow of my life that I was not a member of the Committee. It is such a jungle of jargon, with reference and cross-reference, that I defy anyone to read it and make any sense out of it.
      I hope that the proviso is not taken for granted and that we shall just let things ride until August so that everything will come in tidily and people will refer to the 1971 Act.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) concerning certain parts of the Bill is of the essence, and no one should appreciate that more than Scottish Members. I remember when we first started on this operation, when we were in Government, how the need was highlighted by certain fires in Scotland.
      I thank the Under-Secretary for his lucid explanation. I am glad that he has a voice. I hope that he has not been cheating too much while I have been in Scotland. I look forward to seeing him again tomorrow.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not defy himself to understand the original Schedule: he uses the long night watches to great effect. I am grateful for his tributes for the speed at which Scottish legislation goes through the House. No one knows better than he how to speed it, even though at times Bills of three or four Clauses take three or four months. I bow to his experience in these matters. I hope that his tribute to expedition will be carried forward. During his absence on important business, there was expedition in certain Committees. If he would be prepared to absent himself more frequently, we should get more Scottish legislation on to the Statute Book.
      But I agree that we want to see this on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government in preparation of the Bill. It is because we do not want to wait until the Rent Act comes into force on 12th August that we are running these two pieces in harness.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  CIVIL AVIATION [MONEY] (No. 2)
  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, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in pursuance of provisions of that Act relating to equipment for measuring noise in the vicinity of aerodromes.—[Mr. Channon.]

  NEWTON AYCLIFFE (INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT)
  Motion made, Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. David Reed: In seeking this debate on the industrial and commercial future of Newton Ayclifle New Town, my sole intention is to draw attention to certain problems in the town. I do not intend to imply any criticism of any organisations which have the varying degrees of responsibility for different problems. It is the number of those agencies which makes it difficult to apportion blame. This multiplicity has contributed to the uncertainty and unrest in the town.
  Few parts of Britain can be so well cared for with so many organisations looking after different aspects of the community. For a town of 25,000, there are two rural district councils, one urban district council, one county council, one parish council, not to mention the Development Corporation and the English Industrial Estates Corporation. There are far too many cooks in the Newton Aycliffe broth. One would have to be a constitutional expert simply to understand who does what in local government. In the long term, this crazy situation must be resolved, and this can only be done by some form of democratically-elected local government directly responsible to the residents.
  I am glad to say that in the meantime the Development Corporation has recognised the need for more information about the division of responsibilities and is doing something to get more information across to the residents. This is, at least for the time being, a step in the right direction.
  My concern is for the situation which exists in the town now, whoever is responsible for it. It is the failure to achieve the targets which were laid down in the master plan which particularly concerns me, for this failure has caused hardship to my constituents.
  This failure can be closely tied to one major cause, and that is the slow progress on the industrial estate. Indeed, the whole purpose of building Newton Aycliffe was connected with its industrial

  539
  potential. The master plan report, which was approved by the then Government in 1967, said:
  "It should be clearly understood that the raison d'être of Aycliffe New Town was the recognition of the growth potential of the Aycliffe Industrial Estate, and consequently the rapid growth of the New Town continues to be linked to the expansion of industry within the Darlington/Aycliffe growth point."
  I am convinced that there is still tremendous potential for this industrial estate. However, in the meantime, growth has simply not been fast enough. During the six years 1961 to 1966 the creation of new employment went quite smoothly, with the number of jobs almost doubling, from 4,500 to 9,000. But the following six years were a different story, and by March of this year the net increase over the 1966 figure was only 343. Between 1970 and 1971 the figure actually fell by 742 jobs, though special factors were involved.
  The fact remains that for almost six years the Aycliffe industrial estate has remained virtually stagnant, and it is already way behind the proposals in the master plan. The plan envisaged that by 1974 the working population in the new town would be 19,500, 15,000 of them on the industrial estate. It is an indication of the slow progress that in 1971, with less than four years to go to the target date, the industrial estate is 6,000 jobs behind its eventual target.
  Apart from the long-term implications of the slow progress in industrial terms, it is the spin-off effect of this on my constituents who are living in the town that is particularly worrying, for the slow progress on the industrial front has meant slow progress in other directions. Although this has been somewhat confused by the two revisions of the population target—these have increased the target population from 10,000 to 45,000—some indication of the slowness can be gained by a comparison of the master plan targets with what has actually been achieved.
  Consider, first, population. The year for which the latest figures are available is 1969–70. The target for that year was 26,122 people living in the new town. The Development Corporation's estimate of the actual population was 22,495. It can be seen, therefore, that on population
  540
  alone the new town is 20 per cent. behind its target figures.
  In housing the trend is similar. The target for 1969–70 was 7,402 houses. In fact, the achievement was 5,920 or 20 per cent. in arrears. The Development Corporation is now building only 300 houses, perhaps less, every year, though it is in a position, if the demand warranted, to double, treble or even quadruple that figure.
  Another indicator of progress is the shopping facilities that have been provided. They are a valuable indicator because they reflect the confidence that outside bodies, such as property developers and shop owners, place in the future of the Newton Aycliffe New Town.
  Again, there is slight confusion because the town centre plan has had to be revised to take account of the change in population targets. But the pace of development in respect of shopping has still been far too slow. The master plan target for 1974 was for 315,000 square feet of shopping space. By December of last year there was in existence only 115,600 square feet of shopping space. This means that just over one third of the potential has been realised with less than four years to go to the target date.
  This sort of slowness has also been illustrated in other respects—in the social, recreational and other facilities which are also lagging behind. I am glad to say that the local authorities and the Development Corporation are taking some steps to cope with the demand which already exists, and to a certain extent I am pleased to see that they are making progress in anticipation of future demand. But the overall effect of this slow growth has been a depressing influence on my constituents. That is what really concerns me at present.
  In Newton Aycliffe there is very little sense of community spirit or civic pride in the town. This is largely because there is not very much that the residents can be proud of at present. One resident even described the place to me as a "transit camp" to which people came simply because rented accommodation was available there; they had little desire to put down roots in the town or to make their future homes and careers there; even if they had those desires there was little chance to do so because there

  541
  was not much private housing available for sale.
  The present situation is that Newton Aycliffe needs a stimulus. Without a shot in the arm of some kind, there is little chance of the £16 million of taxpayers' money which has already been invested there achieving its aim of creating what I should hope would be a real community.
  Since it is the industrial estate which is the root cause of the problem, it is to that that I draw the Minister's attention. Paradoxically, it is the very success of the Labour Government's regional policies which contributed to the slow growth in Newton Aycliffe, because the creation of special development areas in nearby places has meant that they were able to offer a far better deal to new industries. This has had the effect of pulling industry away from Newton Aycliffe, even some existing industry and certainly some of the industry new to the North-East region as a whole.
  On unemployment figures alone, I appreciate that Newton Aycliffe does not merit special development area status at present. But it is worth bearing in mind that the industrial estate there serves a much wider area. I have had one estimate that over half the current working population on the industrial estate travels in from other places. I suggest that the unemployment figures themselves are not in this case the major criteria, and that Newton Aycliffe's very important rôle, in the sub-region which it serves, in itself demands that the town be given special development area status.
  I ask the Minister whether he can confer with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry about the possibility of transferring control of the industrial estate from the English Industrial Estates Corporation to Aycliffe Development Corporation. Again this is not meant as a criticism of the work that the Estates Corporation has done in the past. I suggest, however, that the Estates Corporation has had to have other priorities—particularly the estates which it looks after in special development areas. This is understandable and I accept it. But it is a bad planning principle for the industrial and urban development of any new town to be in separate hands when it is unnecessary for it to be so. I think this applies even
  542
  when the two organisations in Newton Aycliffe have built up a useful working relationship in day-to-day terms.
  Criticism has, however, been forthcoming of the Estates Corporation in two fields: one is its unwillingness to offer freehold sites to industry, because many industrialists look for the freehold of the site they are to develop; the other is the scale of rent it charges to tenants on the estate. The Development Corporation could and would be much more flexible in its approach to industry. I believe it would also be more vigorous in the promotion of the advantages of the industrial estate.
  The birth pangs of Newton Aycliffe have lasted for over 24 years, and simply by acceding to these two requests the Government could give it the boost it now needs if it is ever to develop into a mature town and what I hope will be a sensible, straightforward working community.
  11.26 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of Stale for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on raising this matter tonight, on the interest that he has shown since the General Election in the problems of Newton Aycliffe New Town, and on the many times he has raised this matter in the House since his election.
  I must confess that one of the more hopeless tasks I was given in the General Election was to campaign in Sedgefield in the hope that I might possibly succeed in securing that the hon. Member did not actually arrive in this House. Although, ideologically, I am sorry to see him here, I think we all recognise on personal grounds, that in the activities he has carried out for his constituency he has proved himself to be an exceedingly able Member. I assure him that what he has said will be carefully considered by the Government. We will bear in mind what he has said on this as on other occasions.
  I am replying to this debate because new towns largely fall within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Therefore, I am concerned about the industrial and commercial future of Newton Aycliffe. I very much hope to have the opportunity of visiting the town in the not too distant future. Though

  543
  I have visited many of the new towns, I have not yet visited Newton Aycliffe or Peterlee. However, I have had the chance of having some short discussions with the acting chairman, Mr. Appleton, about the problems of Newton Aycliffe, and I learnt a great deal from him and will bear all this in mind.
  The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the problems of Newton Aycliffe, and we will study with great interest the suggestions he makes, and I will come to two particular suggestions later. Some of what he says is the responsibility of other Departments, but I will make sure that the Ministers concerned see what the hon. Member has said.
  I shall give a slightly different picture from that to which the hon. Member drew attention. He spoke of the slow growth of Newton Aycliffe. But let us face the fact that a lot of good has happened there as well. The Corporation was established in 1947, and it was a purpose-built new town to provide accommodation for workers on the industrial estate there. We are now in 1971, and it is interesting to reflect that the population of Newton Aycliffe in 1947 was 60 and today it is 24,000, and it is eventually expected to rise to 45,000. During that period of time 6,000 new dwellings have been built and 9,000 jobs have been provided. Of course, there is a great deal more to do and we are only half way towards the eventual population target for the town. But a lot has been achieved. The town has had a busy past, and I believe it has an extremely busy future.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these points, because it is right that we should now review the methods we use for tackling the important tasks that confront us in Newton Aycliffe, and how they should best be accomplished. I appreciate the anomalies that the hon. Gentleman raised in regard to the industrial estate. Among English new towns Newton Aycliffe is in a unique position. The estate is outside the designated area. It is under the control of the English Industrial Estates Corporation, which is an agent for the Department of Trade and Industry. The Development Corporation builds the houses and deals with all the numerous new
  544
  town problems, but the estate provides jobs in industry for the inhabitants of the new town.
  I will raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Department now primarily responsible for the functioning of the estate, the hon. Gentleman's points about the disposal of freehold sites and the scale of rents in the estate.
  After the Second World War the former Royal Ordnance Factory became the site for the estate. Former Royal Ordnance factories are providing the basis for development of a number of new towns, but they are not the ideal basis for a modern industrial estate. A great deal of effort has gone into the estate. It comprises 570 acres and has 3½ million square feet of factory space. At the last count it gave employment to over 9,000 people. About £1 million has been spent on site clearance works, and some £4 million on building works. The Estates Corporation has demolished 26 miles of overhead steam pipes and equipped each factory with independent heating, as well as removing miles of redundant railway track and demolishing 730 buildings. It has had quite a formidable undertaking.
  It is true that employment on the estate has not changed much in the past two years, but in the past 10 years, as the hon. Gentleman knows from an answer to a Question he asked on 17th July last year, the numbers employed have more than doubled, from 4,500 in June, 1961, to over 9,000 today. During that period employment in manufacturing industry on the estate grew at an average annual rate of 570. I believe that there has been a remarkable transformation of the estate over the years, for which credit goes to those responsible for the estate.
  The hon. Gentleman would like to see the estate transferred to the new town Corporation. There are difficulties in this, but I will bear in mind what he says. Any proposals for a change would have to take account of the interests of the firms established on the estate and of their employees, the valuation of the land and buildings, and the basis for transfer. There are a number of implications for the Corporation, such as

  545
  whether a transfer would involve extending the designated area of the new town. All these would have to be gone into, and there would have to be many consultations.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the hon. Gentleman on 10th May, the two Secretaries of State concerned will certainly consider any representations he cares to make on the topic. I gladly repeat that assurance.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposes to hold a meeting next week of a number of interested parties, and I hope that after the meeting he will be in touch with us once again so that we may consider any suggestions he puts forward. I particularly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the single-mindedness with which a development corporation would be able to tackle these tasks; he fairly points out that if they were the responsibility of the Development Corporation it would be its single-minded task to get industry for the estate. I cannot give the exact assurance which the hon. Gentleman would like, but we shall consider any suggestions that he cares to put forward, and I hope that he will make further representations to us. If he does, we shall study them sympathetically. The situation is anomalous compared with that in any other English new town.
  The second matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is the possibility of special development area status. Obviously it would be impossible to give this status everywhere. To do so would defeat the purpose for which it was created. In many ways, Aycliffe is in a happier position than many nearby authorities which have been granted the status. There are real advantages in development area status, even without the special development additions. Perhaps I might remind the House that in development areas it is possible to get free depreciation, a 40 per cent. initial allowance on the construction cost of industrial buildings, rent-free periods on new projects, building grants of up to 45 per cent., loans, removal grants, assistance for key workers, training grants, and regional employment premium.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot, and, to be fair, did not, bass his suggestion that
  546
  Aycliffe should have special development area status on the rate of unemployment in the area. No one can pretend that the latest figures for Aycliffe are wholly satisfactory, but I am glad to say that the unemployment rate for the Darlington-Aycliffe travel-to-work area in May, 1971, was 3·2 per cent. That is marginally below the Great Britain rate of 3·3 per cent. and well below the Northern Region rate of 5·4 per cent. The corresponding figures for Peterlee and Washington are very much higher, both over 7 per cent.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman has suggested in the past that the unemployment problems of Newton Aycliffe are hidden, since the unemployment percentage rates are calculated for the Darlington-Aycliffe travel-to-work area but not for Aycliffe alone. This is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but it is a problem of definition which is very difficult to solve satisfactorily. The figures that I have given are the best available at present.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that industrial development certificates are freely available in the development areas, and in Newton Aycliffe itself, although it is a sad fact of life at the moment that there is too little mobile industry to go round when it comes to considering the problems of new and expanding towns. That is inescapable but, I hope, temporary. It is the responsibility of the regional offices of the Department for Trade and Industry to promote and steer industrialists to the assisted areas, and in the case of Aycliffe it is done by the Newcastle office.
  Since August, 1968, four new advance factories totalling over 140,000 square feet have been completed. What is more, 20,000 square feet of new purpose-built building has been completed in the last two years, and another 65,000 square feet has recently been authorised. Since January, 1966, eight firms have set up at Newton Aycliffe, giving employment to more than 600 people. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman special development area status, especially since the rate of unemployment at Newton Aycliffe is below the national average. I wish I could give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks, but I am sure he will appreciate that it would not be possible

  547
  in the circumstances to give special development area status to Newton Aycliffe.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of other points, not so much tonight but in past Questions and previous debates, and we are considering them. One specific matter concerns the importance that he attaches to having a sufficient number of local members on the Newton Aycliffe Corporation. Certainly we have that in mind. There are already two members with local knowledge, and, when my right hon. Friend reviews the membership of the Corporation, which he hopes to do during the course of this year, we shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  We shall also bear in mind what the hon. Member has said in the past about the rôle of local government, and I certainly note what he has said about the very large number of local authorities that are connected with the town of Newton Aycliffe. He will know, of course, that the Government have published a White Paper on the Reform of Local Government. If authorities wish to make representations to my right hon. Friend about the areas concerned, they should be made in the very near future. If the hon. Member has any such representations
  548
  to make, he should write to my right hon. Friend.
  I am very much concerned that all the new towns in the North should be a great success. I shall do everything in my power to achieve that. I hope to complete my visits to the new towns in the near future. We are determined to make a success of new towns such as Newton Aycliffe. I am sure that all Government Departments concerned will study what the hon. Member has said. If he cares to make more representations to us in the next few weeks, as I understand he has in mind, we shall be glad to consider them. We shall be glad to consider constructive suggestions such as he has made tonight which may add to the benefit and prosperity of Newton Aycliffe and help its industrial and commercial future. His remarks will be studied with great care. His concern for the wellbeing of his constituency is much appreciated. We shall do everything we can to help Newton Aycliffe to become more prosperous and to have a happy future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Motherwell Road, Bellshill (Pedestrians)
  Motherwell Road, Bellshill (Pedestrians)
  Forestry Policy
  Forestry Policy
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Nursery Schools, Lanarkshire
  Nursery Schools, Lanarkshire
  Multi-National Companies
  Multi-National Companies
  Guard Dogs
  Guard Dogs
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Edinburgh (Crime)
  Edinburgh (Crime)
  Pupil/Teacher Ratio
  Pupil/Teacher Ratio
  Council Houses (Lanarkshire)
  Council Houses (Lanarkshire)
  Drunkenness
  Drunkenness
  Museums
  Museums
  Winter Work Programme
  Winter Work Programme
  Railway Sidings
  Railway Sidings
  Education (Minor Works Grants)
  Education (Minor Works Grants)
  Local Government Boundaries
  Local Government Boundaries
  Buckie, Banff and Macduff (Motorised Fishing Vessels)
  Buckie, Banff and Macduff (Motorised Fishing Vessels)
  Handicapped Children (Inquiry)
  Handicapped Children (Inquiry)
  Drug and Vandalism Offences (Sentences)
  Drug and Vandalism Offences (Sentences)
  Edinburgh Airport
  Edinburgh Airport
  Private House Building
  Private House Building
  Unemployment and Prices
  Unemployment and Prices
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Ayrshire and Girvan (Visit)
  Ayrshire and Girvan (Visit)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Portobello Power Station (Fuelling)
  Portobello Power Station (Fuelling)
  Mentally Retarded Children (Corsbie Hall Private School)
  Mentally Retarded Children (Corsbie Hall Private School)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Theatres and Opera Houses (Television Programmes)
  Theatres and Opera Houses (Television Programmes)
  Giro
  Giro
  Local Radio Councils
  Local Radio Councils
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Tenancies (National Exchange Bureau)
  Council House Tenancies (National Exchange Bureau)
  Housing Programme (London)
  Housing Programme (London)
  Rent Collection
  Rent Collection
  Conurbation Housing Programmes
  Conurbation Housing Programmes
  Local Government Reorganisation (West Midlands)
  Local Government Reorganisation (West Midlands)
  Industrial Dereliction (Hull)
  Industrial Dereliction (Hull)
  National Water Authority
  National Water Authority
  Minister (Helicopter Flight)
  Minister (Helicopter Flight)
  Ravensbourne, Keston (Proposed Development)
  Ravensbourne, Keston (Proposed Development)
  Shortlands Golf Course, Bromley (Proposed Development)
  Shortlands Golf Course, Bromley (Proposed Development)
  Humber Bridge and South Humberside Study
  Humber Bridge and South Humberside Study
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Dundee (Assistance Status)
  Dundee (Assistance Status)
  Dundee (Trade Mission to Japan)
  Dundee (Trade Mission to Japan)
  Gas Meter Charges (Retirement Pensioners)
  Gas Meter Charges (Retirement Pensioners)
  Scotland (International Firms)
  Scotland (International Firms)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  U.N.C.T.A.D. Preferences Scheme
  U.N.C.T.A.D. Preferences Scheme
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
WALES
  M4, Tongwynlais-Capel Llanilterne
  M4, Tongwynlais-Capel Llanilterne
  Death Rate
  Death Rate
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Sterling Area (Transfer of Assets)
  Sterling Area (Transfer of Assets)
  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Motor Cars (Tariffs and Purchase Tax)
  Motor Cars (Tariffs and Purchase Tax)
  High Incomes (Tax Concessions)
  High Incomes (Tax Concessions)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Abortions (Charter Flights)
  Abortions (Charter Flights)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Deaf and Dumb Patients)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Deaf and Dumb Patients)
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Pig Production
  Pig Production
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Service and Diplomatic Service (Premature Retirement)
  Civil Service and Diplomatic Service (Premature Retirement)
  Answers to Questions
  Answers to Questions
  Civil Servants (Scotland)
  Civil Servants (Scotland)
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Admiralty Sailing Directions
  Admiralty Sailing Directions
  R.A.F. Syerston
  R.A.F. Syerston
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Voucher Scheme
  Employment Voucher Scheme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary and Secondary Education (Expenditure)
  Primary and Secondary Education (Expenditure)
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Glasgow (Redundancies)
  Glasgow (Redundancies)
  Epileptics Centre, Govan (Seaborn Industries)
  Epileptics Centre, Govan (Seaborn Industries)
  Fishermen and Agricultural, Textile and Distillery Workers (Banff)
  Fishermen and Agricultural, Textile and Distillery Workers (Banff)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  East Pakistan Students
  East Pakistan Students
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Frelimo (Private Donation)
  Frelimo (Private Donation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Zanzibar (Immigration Control)
  Zanzibar (Immigration Control)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Public Gallery (Disabled People in Wheelchairs)
  Public Gallery (Disabled People in Wheelchairs)

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.

LORD WIDGERY
Sir John Passmore Widgery, Knight, O.B.E., T.D., Lord Chief Justice of England, having been created Baron Widgery, of South Molton in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Parker of Waddington and the Lord Tangley.
The Lord Casey—Took the Oath.

SCHOOL MEALS: EFFECT OF INCREASED CHARGES
2.49 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the reduction in the number of children taking school meals following the increase in price to 12p.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, local education authorities are currently carrying out a count to provide information about the total numbers taking the school meal following the new arrangements for charging and remission. Authorities have been asked to submit their returns to the Department by June 11.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether the Government are also requesting L.E.A.s to supply them with figures for the increase in the number of free meals which are being made available to children? Also, are
1144
they satisfied at the present time that all the children entitled to free meals are getting them?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, we know the percentage which is paid for, and that which is free of charge. For instance, in September of last year—this, I think, is really the answer to the noble Lord's question—67·9 per cent. of the pupils present in maintained schools in England and Wales took the meal, 59·5 per cent. paid and 8·4 per cent. received it free of charge. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary, 80 per cent. of children who are entitled to the free meal take it up.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the greatest assets for the future of this country is its children, and that investment in man should be the prime factor before any materialistic outlook? Will he please see that, if possible. the present policy is reversed, because our children are some of the finest in the world as a result of the policies of both Governments over the years of supplying milk and meals to schools?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding the House of the importance of this subject. It is for that very reason that the new remissions are more generous than they have ever been before, adding on 75 new pence to every part of the remission scale. That is why we are conducting our researches in two parts, one now and another one in the autumn, and why an overseeing eye will be kept on the whole matter by COMA—the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy —which has a special sub-committee dealing with this subject.
BARONESS SUM MERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government realise that poor children, who are being deprived of meals and milk, must inevitably have their growth stunted and that that stunted condition is permanent? That is why so many parents are much smaller than the children of to-day. Will the noble Lord therefore take this matter very seriously?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I genuinely take it seriously, and, most particularly, because whatever the noble

1145
Baroness, with her profession and experience, says on a subject like this must certainly be taken to heart. But 1 think it would be right to remind the House that it is exceedingly difficult to get conclusive evidence on this subject. None the less, for the reasons which the noble Baroness has given, and in addition to the answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, the Government are in August making the Family Incomes Supplement an automatic passport to a free school meal.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who live in working class areas know that there has been a huge reduction in the number of children taking dinners, because they are now taking sandwiches to school instead of getting a good meal? Is he further aware that the reduction in the number of children taking meals will be calamitous when the Tory Government bring in their next increase for these meals, for which the charges are being increased in two stages?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to be a little careful before he jumps to conclusions. When the noble Lord's Party raised the price of the meal in 1968—and also because it was the summer time—there was a reduction in the take up. By the following September that reduction had been made up.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the generally high standard of health in our schools has been accepted, and that a good deal of it has been attributed to the provision of school meals and free milk? Is it really necessary to reduce the standard and, statistically, to find out whether it is necessary to increase it again?
LORD BELSTEAD: I am sorry, my Lords, but I did not quite hear the noble Lord's question. The standard of the meal is not being reduced. The nutritional value remains precisely the same.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, the nutritional value of something which people cannot afford to buy is not very good for them, is it?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, once again I would ask noble Lords to be a little careful before they jump to con-
1146
elusions. If the noble Lord would like evidence, I shall give him evidence. If there are two parents with four children, they can now earn 90 new pence—that is, 18s. net—per week more than they could have done before April, and still have full entitlement to free meals for all those four children. if there are two parents with four children, who have entitlement, they can now earn £1·35p. net—that is £1·7s. Od.—more than they could have earned before April, and still have entitlement to free meals for one child. We are really trying to do our best in the context of our policy, which is to reallocate resources, particularly towards the building of primary schools in some of the poorer areas of the country.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, when the noble Lord was so critical of my noble friends who brought to his attention the rise in the number of children taking sandwiches to school, had he before him the remarks of Sir William Alexander who also said:
" There is growing concern among local authorities over the effects of a sudden growth in the number of children bringing sandwiches to school."?
Will the noble Lord give us an assurance that in the inquiries which he is making the nutritional effects of the recent changes will be thoroughly studied?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to make sure that the Press and radio give the fullest possible publicity to his very satisfactory and encouraging reply.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this has been a responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security, who have conducted a widespread campaign through the mass media. I am most grateful to my noble friend for bringing this subject to our attention, because we feel that if this has not had the desired effect by the autumn it will be necessary to look at it once again.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would it not be advisable for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to delegate, as it were, the No. 2 in command

1147
—that is, the noble Lord himself—to travel the country and go to every region, in order to get the reactions to the policy of this Government in regard to school meals?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think that the last part of what the noble Lord said is very sound advice. If any members of Her Majesty's Government who are in the Department travel the countryside, it is their business to ask all concerned. This we shall most certainly be trying to do.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that from all over the country there are coming reports of record reductions—as high as 20 per cent., and frequently more—in the percentage of children taking meals? Also, is he aware that at Warley, in Worcestershire, 35 school meal helpers have been laid off as a result of the reduction in the number of children taking school meals?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to wait for the first stage of the survey to be completed in only a few weeks' time; and then, more importantly—and I referred, I hope courteously, to the experience under the previous Government—for the second stage of the survey, which is to come in the autumn. I think perhaps we have now covered the ground and gone a little wider than the original Question.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, except for one—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I think we are in danger of turning this Question into a debate. I do not want to come between my noble friend and your Lordships, because I think my noble friend has acquitted himself pretty well and does not need me to intervene. But as there are some 28 speakers to follow in the two debates, I feel that it would be right to pass on now to the next Question.

DRUGS: CONTROL MEASURES IN THE SERVICES
2.59 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Ques-
1148
tion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence they have on drug addiction in the Services and what steps they are taking to counteract this.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, drug addiction as such is extremely rare in the Services. All commanding officers and medical officers are aware of the dangers of drug taking. Comprehensive instructions on drugs were issued to the Services in 1969, and lectures are now given to new entrants on the dangers of drug taking. Specialist teams have recently been set up to visit Service establishments and to give lectures to officers and N.C.O.s on the whole question.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, I wonder whether I may ask him three supplementary questions. As the bad influences come generally from contact with United States troops in Germany, and as many of our units go from Germany to Northern Ireland, where lack of discipline and control on a Vietnam basis would be extremely disastrous, could the noble Earl possibly arrange for some isolation of our troops from these influences? Secondly, could Queen's Regulations be adequately amended to enable this self-inflicted wound to be dealt with adequately by court-martial? Lastly, would the Minister ensure (he has already given me a reply to this particular question) that all officers are trained in the recognition of these symptoms, and that there is no danger of incidents being swept under the carpet?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have no evidence that contact with United States troops in Germany has led, as the noble Lord alleged, I think, to any increase in the incidence of drug-taking in the Services. With regard to his point about courts-martial, the action taken upon the discovery of a person in possession of drugs, or being addicted to drugs, depends upon the circumstances in which such an offence is discovered. In the noble Lord's last supplementary question he asked whether adequate training was being given. I answered

1149
that partially in my original Answer, and I would merely re-emphasise it by telling the noble Lord that, for instance, on June 10 a special team for the R.A.F. is being set up which consists of a police officer, a medical officer and a Home Office representative, all of whom are, in their own specific ways, concerned with drug-taking. This team will be available to give talks to Staff officers at command and group level on all aspects of the effects of drugs.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether, in the lectures which are given to the troops, any guidance is given as to the 'varying toxic effects of different drugs?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should need notice of that specific question, but I will try to find out the answer and let the noble Baroness know.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the noble Earl see that the people who are to give the lectures to the troops are carefully briefed about the nature of those lectures? Because over 50 years ago, when we used to receive lectures in the Army about another social evil, the effect of the lectures was to encourage people to experiment in that particular evil, rather than to curb them.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, as one who has just returned from a visit to B.A.O.R., may I ask my noble friend whether it is not a fact that drug addiction in the Forces in Germany is virtually nil?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that would confirm the information which I have.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYNLords, with the permission of the House my noble friend Lord Windlesham will be making a Statement shortly after 3.30 p.m. on United Kingdom passport holders.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.4 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF L1STOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
ORDERED TO REPORT: —
That the Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
1. On 23rd July, 1970, the First Report from the House of Lords' Offices Committee was omitted by an oversight from the Order Paper and was taken, by leave of the House, without notice. In the course of the exchanges which followed on the Floor of the House, the Leader of the House undertook to refer the implications of this action to the Procedure Committee for consideration. The Committee have accordingly considered the concept of " Notice " and " Leave of the House ", and submit the following Report.
I. NOTICE
Standing Order 32
2. The Committee consider that Standing Order 32 needs amendment. At present it reads as follows: —
"No debate to take place on matters raised without notice.
32. Where is is intended to raise a discussion on a question, notice of the question should be given in the. Order Paper. If a statement be made, or a question asked, which does not appear on the Order Paper, but of which private notice has been given, such statement or question should not be made the occasion for immediate debate unless the House so order."
3. The drafting of this Standing Order presents difficulties of construction because:—

(i) the first sentence refers to a question of unspecified nature;

(ii) the second sentence is specifically confined to Statements and PNQs; and

(iii) the side note suggests a wider application which is often taken to include Motions.

It is not clear, therefore, whether the Standing Order refers merely to Statements and PNQs or more widely to Starred and Un-starred Questions and Motions.
4. The Committee consider that Starred Questions are satisfactorily governed by Standing Order 33 and that there is, therefore, no need for them to be brought within the ambit of Standing Order 32.
On the other hand, the Committee feel that the Standing Orders relating to notice ought to cover specifically Unstarred Questions and Motions as well as Statements and Private Notice Questions. Accordingly, they recommend the following two Standing Orders in

1151
replacement of the existing Standing Order 32, to be inserted after Standing Order 33:℄
33A. PNQs and Statements. Questions of which private notice has been given may be asked, and statements made, without notice given in the Order Paper but these should not be made the occasion for immediate debate, unless the House so order.
33B. Unstarred Questions and Motions. Questions which may give rise to discussion (known as Unstarred Questions) and Motions of which notice is required, shall appear on the Order Paper of the day on which they are to be taken.
In connection with the proposed new Standing Order 33B, the Committee recommend that a note should be inserted in the Companion to make it clear that when notice is required, its appearance on the Order Paper of the day is a minimum requirement. The Committee consider that, wherever possible, such notice should appear not only on the White Order Paper used in the House, but also in the Notices and Orders of the Day which are circulated with the Minutes of Proceedings.
Standing Order 37 ("Business of which notice is not necessary")
5. The Committee have considered whether clarification is needed of the types of business that can be taken without notice. They note that the business which the House in practice allows to be taken without notice includes the following:—

(a) Royal Assent;

(b) Obituary tributes and personal statements;

(c) Ministerial Statements, PNQs;

(d) Statements or Questions on business, procedure and privilege;

(e) Oath of Allegiance;

(f) Presentation of Public Petitions;

(g) Manuscript Amendments to Bills and to Motions;

(h) Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons;

(i) Business expressly authorised under Standing Order 37, namely:—

(i) Messages from the Crown (Standing Order 37(1));

(ii) Messages from the Commons and First Reading of Commons Bills (Standing Order 37(2) and (3));

(iii) Introduction of Lords Bills (Standing Order 37(3)).

(j) Motions relating to the conduct of the business of the House, for example:—

(i) Motions for the adjournment of a Debate, or of the House;

(ii) In Committee of the Whole House, Motions to adjourn the debate on an Amendment, to adjourn the Committee, or to resume the House;

(iii) The Motion "That leave be not given to ask a Question ";

(iv) The Motion " That the Noble Lord be no longer heard ";

1152

(v) The Closure;

(vi) The previous Question.

6. These examples divide broadly into three categories:—

(a) business which does not involve a decision of the House;

(b) business which is expressly authorised under Standing Order 37 to be taken without notice;

(c) Motions which are concerned with the conduct of the business of the House.

Of the items listed in paragraph 5 above, the only ones which do not fall into any of these categories are (g) Manuscript Amendments to Bills and Motions; and (h) Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons.
Manuscript Amendments are, by definition, business of which notice has not been given. Commons Amendments and Reasons are often taken on motion without notice (though it is usual to give notice by means of an italicized note and where possible the Amendment or Reason is printed pursuant to Standing Order 46) but are not amongst the items authorised by Standing Order 37 for that treatment. The Committee consider that Standing Order 37 should be amended to make provision for the consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons without notice.
The Committee recommend—

(i) That the list of items of business which can be taken without notice should he noted in the revised Companion, making it clear that such a list cannot be exhaustive;

(ii) That Standing Order 37 he amended so as to recognise that Commons Amendments and Reasons may be taken on Motion without notice.

Standing Order 37(5)
7. The Committee further recommend that at the end of Standing Order 37(5) in place of the words (" immediately after Starred Questions ") there should be inserted the words
(" at any time by leave of the House.")
Standing Order 78 ("Standing Orders not to be made or dispensed with without notice")
8. The Committee have considered whether any amendment is desirable to Standing Order 78, which reads as follows:
" 78. No Motion shall be granted for making any new Standing Order, or for dispensing with a Standing Order of the House, unless Notice shall have been given in the Order Paper to consider the said Motion "
The Committee are of the opinion that it is important to preserve the sanctity of this Standing Order which has existed for over 270 years for the express purpose of protecting its Members against snap decisions taken without notice. The House of Lords is a House of part-time Members who cannot be expected to attend every day and the minimum of one day's notice is an essential safeguard against the taking of Business of which they have no knowledge and to which they

1153
have no chance of objecting. If Leave of the House were accepted as a substitute for notice the purpose of Standing Order 78 would be defeated and the authority of all Standing Orders undermined. They therefore recommend that no amendment or qualification of Standing Order 78 should be made.
II. LEAVE OF THE HOUSE
9. The Committee recommend that Leave of the House, or of a Committee of the House, must be unanimous in those cases where, if Leave were granted. the House or Committee would be deprived of a Question which would otherwise have been put from the Woolsack or from the Chair; and that, in all other cases where Leave is sought, it is granted by a majority of the House and the objection of a single Peer does not suffice to withhold it.
10. The adoption of this principle would mean that Leave would be withheld if a single Lord objected in the following examples:—

(i) Leave to withdraw an amendment or a Motion which is before the House;

(ii) Leave to move Special Orders en bloc;

(iii) Leave to move amendments or clauses en bloc;

(iv) the motion that the Order of Commitment (or Re-Commitment) of a Bill be discharged;

(v) Leave to withdraw a Bill.

Leave would be withheld by a majority decision of the House, in the following instances:—

(a) Leave to ask Questions;

(b) Leave to make Ministerial or personal Statements;

(c) Leave to take business not on the Order Paper of which notice is not required;

(d) Leave to speak more than once to one Motion (see paragraph 13 below).

The Committee recommend that the above examples should be included in the revised Companion.
11. The Committee recommend a new Standing Order to govern Leave of the House: —
"Leave of the House.
29A. Leave of the House or of a Committee of the House must be unanimous in those cases where. if Leave were granted, the House or Committee would be deprived of a Question which would otherwise have been put from the Woolsack or the Chair. In all other cases where Leave is sought, it is granted by a majority of the House and the objection of a single Peer does not suffice to withhold it ''.
Standing Order 29
12. When a debate arises on a subject which is the special province of one particular Minister and there is a requirement both for a statement of Government policy early in the debate and also for the Minister to wind up for the Government at the end, it is customary for the House, in these circumstances, to allow the Minister to speak twice. This is, however, a clear contravention of Standing Order 29, which says:—
1154
" 29. No Lord is to speak twice to any motion, whether on a Bill or other matter (save only when the House is in Committee) except the Mover in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his speech (to new matter being introduced) and that not without the leave of the House first obtained."
13. The Committee are of the opinion that the custom of allowing a Minister to speak more than once with the Leave of the House in the circumstances described above should be continued and regularised and that a similar dispensation should be made for the Chairman of Committees (or his Deputy) and the Chairman of a Select Committee. Ministers have a special responsibility, since they owe a duty to the House to explain Government policy and to impart information. The Chairman of Committees, or of a Select Committee, may also need to speak more than once with the Leave of the House, e.g. in debate on a Private Bill, or on the Report of a Select Committee.
14. The Committee recommend that Standing Order 29 be redrafted as follows:—
" 29. No Lord is to speak more than once to any Motion, save only:—

(a) when the House is in Committee;

(b) the mover of a Motion in reply;

(c) with the Leave of the House, which may only be granted:—

(i) to a Lord to explain himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced) or

(ii) to the Chairman of Committees, or in his absence a Deputy Chairman, the Chairman of a Select Committee on the Report of such a Committee, or a Minister of the Crown."

THE EARL OF L1STOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS: WORKING OF 1970 ACT
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY rose to call attention to the working of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In three days' time it will be the first anniversary of the Royal Assent to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. We were grateful to the Government when, shortly after taking office, they introduced the constant

1155
attendance allowance, but I think it is fair to say that disabled people have been waiting and wondering. I do not know whether there will be an explosion in this House this afternoon, but what I hope is that there will be a " fall-out "—a fall-out of good will starting from this House, spreading through the Civil Service and into the town halls. Having listened to the Secretary of State in another place on Friday, I am myself convinced that he has the interests of disabled people at heart; and having listened to the Minister of State in this House about a year ago, I am quite sure he has the interests of disabled people at heart, too, because if your Lordships remember he was pressing the late Government for the introduction of dropped kerbs. I am hoping that we shall hear something from him about that later this afternoon.
My Lords, local authorities vary greatly in the amount of money they spend on disabled people. The figures were given in Hansard of another place on February 24. At the top of the league, or table, is Oldham, which spends £70 per registered disabled person, and at the bottom of the league is Salford, which spends only £3 although I do not think they will be able to keep that up for long with Mr. Alfred Morris in a neighbouring constituency! My own county of the North Riding spends (or spent, because these are the figures for 1969–70) £16 per registered disabled person; or, if you like to express it another way, five pence per head of the population. The Secretary of State said recently that he envisaged an annual growth rate of 9½ per cent. in the expenditure by local authorities on the sick and disabled, and I therefore suggest that it would be a fair question to ask our local authorities just how their estimates for the current year compare with those of the previous year.
It would be quite beyond me to try to review the whole of the working of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; so I should like just to concentrate on one or two aspects of it. First, I should like to say a word or two about access to public buildings, because this is particularly important for disabled people. This problem was highlighted recently when the film The Raging Moon, about disability, was shown at the ABC2 Cinema in the Tottenham Court Road,
1156
when neither the author, Peter Marshall, nor one of the stars, Michael Flanders, was able to attend the film showing because both of them were in wheelchairs and the cinema was inaccessible to those in wheelchairs.
Recently, a movable ramp has been invented by the Bath Institute of Medical Engineering. It is made of expanded metal and can be screwed down or taken up again within an hour. I believe there can be few local authorities who would not benefit from one of these ramps. Our friend who opened the batting in another place on Friday said that if there was a recipe for the disabled it was a touch of sympathy, a dash of understanding, a lot of imagination and the whole topped off with immediate, positive action. I would suggest that here is an opportunity for local authorities to show their good will. I would suggest that they get in touch with the Bath Institute at St. Martin's Hospital, Bath, to find out whether one of these ramps would meet their own requirements.
Talking of immediate positive action, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on his boldness in ordering 1,000 chemical closets—" a thousand decent, seemly, chemical closets" as he described them in the debate last Friday. He was referring to the fact that there are 200,000 households in this country which have a very severely or appreciably handicapped person without an inside W.C. I think this was a bold stroke on his part, and I hope very much that the local authorities will be equally bold in taking up the suggestion which I have made. Of course, suitable housing is a tremendous help to disabled people. I know this from my own experience. If I am left on my own, have to do the washing-up and cannot get my knees under the sink, I do not get on very fast. It is something of tremendous importance. I was very encouraged to see that in the six months after the passing of the Act, 27 local authorities had submitted housing schemes which include purpose-built accommodation for the disabled. This is a very real problem, one that obviously cannot be solved overnight and which will require a tremendous effort on the part of the local authorities assisted by the voluntary bodies. I have the honour to be the President of a housing association for this purpose, the St. Giles Housing Association.
There are two other matters on which I should like to touch. One which particularly affects disabled people is the sense of isolation we sometimes feel, a sense of lack of involvement in society, of being a little bit out of the main stream. Obviously, the best answer here is to have a job, but in this connection the figure at the moment of employable disabled people who are at the moment unemployed is 12·7 per cent. which is very much greater than the national average; and the tragedy is, of course, that in a time of difficulty when people are having 10 cut back a bit it is often the disabled people who suffer first. As lime goes on and we provide better training for disabled people, there are going to be more arid more disabled people with a skill. But what is the use of a skill if you cannot find work? I was very glad to hear in the debate on Friday that the Department of Employment and Productivity are already engaged in a survey of the whole problem of employment for disabled people. I should like to ask the Government when this survey will be completed, because this is a pressing problem at this time.
The other guard against a sense of isolation is social life. Again, I read in my Hansard for last Friday that a survey had shown that 7 per cent. of disabled people have no regular social contact with neighbours or friends. When you come down into the under 20 age group the figure is very much higher. 33 per cent. one in three, it appears, of disabled people under the age of 20 have no regular contact with their friends and neighbours. This, I would suggest, gives a tremendous opportunity for visiting by able-bodied young people, and I would commend those youth clubs who have gone out of their way to ask young disabled people to come into them and to join in their activities.
I should like to finish by saying this. I am sure that all disabled people want to be as independent as they possibly can and., if possible, to earn their own living, when of course—just as a matter of incidence—they will cost much less to the community. What we should like to ask from the Government and the local authorities is the right environment to enable us to do this. I beg to move for Papers
3.16 p.m.
MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): I know that the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. May I say with great respect to him how much I enjoyed listening to his speech, which was both eloquent and highly impressive. It is also a great pleasure, I am sure, to all your Lordships to see the " Mobile Bench " back in action again. The noble Lord was kind enough to say some nice things about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and me and I am very grateful to him. He asked me about my dropped kerbs, which have nothing to do with fallen arches, but are in fact the idea that I put forward at the time of the debate on the Bill, which was that there should be sloping kerbs at pedestrian crossings to help both those in wheelchairs and also those pushing perambulators. This is a matter for the Department of the Environment and I will ask my noble friend to reply when he winds up the debate. I am sure that the noble Viscount will feel very well satisfied that, despite the long labours of your Lordships, a great many noble Lords have put their names down to speak in this debate. I am particularly pleased to see my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne breaking silence after many years and I am very much looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
As the noble Viscount said, this is a most appropriate moment to review the effect of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It is almost a year since it came on the Statute Book and we are much better informed now since the publication of the recent survey of the handicapped and impaired in Great Britain published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The two parts of this survey already published contain a mass of statistical information and there is still another volume to come concerned with finance. It is certainly not easy to absorb all this information in a matter of a few weeks, but at the same time there are certain general findings of the survey which are immediately applicable to the consideration of this problem.

1159
I have not been long enough on these Government Benches to forget the time when I was sitting opposite and I can well remember then feeling how many shortcomings there were in our social services. I can remember how my colleagues and I demanded the expenditure of more money on various aspects of the services and I can also remember thinking how complacent the speeches were from the Government Front Benches. Now that I sit on this side of the House I hope sincerely to convince your Lordships that we are indeed far from complacent in this matter, that we recognise the serious problem that exists, that we know that with limited resources it cannot be solved by the passing of one Act and that we have a consistent and constructive policy which we have already started to implement.
The noble Lord quoted my right honourable friend's speech in another place last Friday and he put admirably the policy that we are pursuing. Quite simply, it is that whenever reasonably possible our aim should be to keep people as active as possible and to keep them at home. In this the dictates of humanity are often supported by the lessons of cost benefit. We have already announced various measures, all with the aim in view of assisting the handicapped to live at home. In cash terms, we are providing £30 million per annum extra for the payment of an invalidity allowance to the chronic sick and an attendance allowance to the very severely disabled. Apart from increasing old age pensions generally by £1 a week from next September, we have made special provision for the over 80s, we have improved the earnings rule for the wives of chronic sick persons and we have increased the benefit for dependant children of a chronically sick parent. In every case we have made it clear that this is only a beginning and that we hope to improve on these provisions, which at least demonstrate our deep concern for the disabled and the handicapped and which are intended to carry out our first priority of enabling people to manage on their own.
I think it worthy of note that we see here one of the advantages of the amalgation of two Ministries into the one
1160
Department of Health and Social Security; and I readily concede that this was achieved under the previous Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is able to strike a balance between cash and care and to ensure that both sides contribute to the solution of individual problems. But cash alone is not the whole answer. To help the handicapped to live at home there must be available other services provided by the local authorities, such as home helps, home nursing, meals-on-wheels, day centres, adaptation of housing and various facilities in the home which can be of such assistance to handicapped people. Of necessity, these are individual matters and must be left to the local authority to make an individual assessment. It is worth mentioning that although Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons' Act 1970 gave statutory form to local authority's powers, it did not introduce any new services; nor did it provide any money for their implementation. However, this Government have allocated additional financial resources to local authorities to enable them to carry out some of their responsibilities in this field.
In terms of capital, in this and the following two years the Government are making available loan sanction to enable local authorities to build 36 homes designed specially for the physically handicapped, 72 day centres for the physically handicapped, 31 combined day centres for the handicapped and elderly, together with a number of smaller capital projects. In terms of revenue we have accepted local authority proposals in the rate support grant negotiations which will add 12 per cent. to their expenditure this year and a further 12 per cent. next year. On top of these agreed amounts, an extra £11 million over two years has been added by the Government for the improvement of local authority health and personal social services, including Section 2 and related services which we wish to see improved. It is of course ultimately the responsibility of local authorities how they spend the money allocated to them, but we are confident that they will recognise the needs of the physically and mentally handicapped in their plans for spending this additional money.

1161
In the Hospital Service we have direct responsibility for the allocation of funds, and we have increased capital expenditure on services for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly by some £90 million over the next four years, and about £105 million additional revenue expenditure. As your Lordships are aware, we have also set aside an extra £3 million for special units for the young chronic sick. I am able to give the House some further information about the allocation of that money. We have so far allocated £1,304,000 to start 18 schemes in the present year This will provide a further 455 beds, a very considerable increase over the present provision of 28 units and 710 beds. There are also three schemes planned, to begin this year, which are being financed from the normal allocations, and we have asked Regional Hospital Boards to put in firm bids for schemes to start in the next three years which will take up the balance of the £3 million allocated.
In particular we wish to see a significant increase in the domiciliary services available to the handicapped. The O.P.C.S. survey draws attention to the need to increase the provision of home helps. At least twice as many are required to meet the needs of disabled housewives. It suggests that home nurses and health visitors, too, have a most important part to play, and although there are many other urgent calls on their time they make an important and valuable contribution in meeting the special health needs of the handicapped person living alone. There is need, too, for more homes, more training centres and more and better trained staff to run them. It is for such purposes that we have allocated additional funds to local authorities and we shall do our best to see that they are put to good use.
Preliminary study of the survey suggests that there are in England alone some one and a quarter million people of all ages living in their own homes who are handicapped to the extent that they need some help from others in carrying out at least some of the normal activities of daily life. Nearly half a million are so severely handicapped that most activities prove difficult for them while there is a smaller number, amounting perhaps to one-sixth of a million, who are very severely handicapped and cannot be left alone for more than a short period during
1162
the day. Most of these people are elderly and the majority of them are women. Perhaps the most striking figures in the survey are that there are 8,200 people very severely handicapped living alone and of these 8,000 are women and mostly old. It seems likely that a very high proportion of them are already receiving local authority services and one should never underrate the support given by families and by neighbours. Nevertheless, there appears at first sight to be a priority need here, and my right honourable friend has already announced that he is asking local authorities to take active steps within their own organisation and by consultation with general practitioners and voluntary bodies to ensure that very severely handicapped people who are living alone have all the help that they need.
The report of the survey shows that for Great Britain as a whole over 40 per cent. of all handicapped were at that time receiving local authority services. A higher proportion, some 50 per cent., of severely and very severely handicapped people were getting local authority services, and they were provided to as many as 70 per cent. of the severely and very severely handicapped living alone. This is not a negligible provision. It provides a very sound basis for further development.
I should like to say a word about Section 1 of the 1970 Act which will come into effect on October 1 next. We have been accused at various times of delaying the implementation of this section and of misinterpreting its meaning. As far as the delay is concerned, we need time to prepare guidance. Moreover, we have always felt that it was right, and indeed essential, to allow directors of social services to have time to organise their departments before embarking on any major new exercise of this sort. Indeed the time between now and October 1 is short enough. As for the meaning of the section itself, it was always accepted at the time of the passing of the Act, both in another place and here, that the main objective was to identify those in need of assistance and to put them in touch with the available services. Quite clearly, we want everybody within a local authority area to know the services that are available, and this is the object of Section 1(2) of the Act.
Moreover, the O.P.C.S. survey makes it quite clear that many of the disabled

1163
object to being registered and naturally their wishes must be respected. My Department is anxious to do all that it can to help, and we are engaged on the preparation of a booklet for wide distribution which would give guidance to handicapped people and their friends on how and where to seek help. I am sure that in this field in particular there is great scope for the harnessing of voluntary effort, and I believe it to be of the first importance that local authority staff faced with so many daunting problems should make the best possible use of the voluntary assistance available to them. While on the subject of the part that can be played by voluntary bodies, I find it impossible not to mention the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough —or Stella Reading, as she was better known to her very many friends. She epitomised the spirit of selfless service that inspires voluntary societies, and the W.R.V.S. stands as a worthy memorial to her massive achievements.
Quite clearly we also want local authorities to know what their problems are, and this they can best achieve by a local survey as envisaged under Section 1 of the Act. Near total identification may be a final step in a process which begins with local surveys, or a gradual process of identification may be carried out simultaneously with surveying and publicity work. But it is for authorities individually to determine what would be most helpful for them and most useful for handicapped people in their area; we should not wish them to divert many highly qualified people to the task of determining the level of need and hence diminishing the services for the people for which this Act provides.
My Lords, there are two particular matters to which I should like to refer. The survey shows that the chief cause of handicap is arthritis. There is a great deal of research being carried out into this condition but we are in touch with the Medical Research Council about the possibility of sponsoring additional research. I should emphasise that this is an extremely complex field and that it is not money which is the limiting factor so much as finding profitable research lines to pursue.
Secondly, a word about aids and equipment which are so obviously important
1164
in helping the handicapped to live at home. My right honourable friend has the whole question of aids and equipment for the disabled under review and this is one of the matters now being discussed with the local authority associations. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as well as the Secretary of State and I have recently visited the Disabled Living Foundation Exhibition and we are maintaining close contact with the voluntary bodies active in this field. Our task as we see it is to find ways of spreading information to those concerned about reliable aids.
I have been able to touch on only one or two matters covered by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and I fully realise that there are a number of other subjects covered in the Act to which your Lordships will wish to refer in the course of this debate. My noble friend Lord Sandford will do his best to answer some of those questions when he speaks at the end of the debate. I have no doubt that a good case will be made for devoting more resources to one or other aspect of the sections in the Act. Nevertheless, we have to realise that in the context of demands on total resources this Act covers only one portion of the population in need and there remain insistent demands to provide more facilities for the hospital service, the mentally ill, the old who are not handicapped, the homeless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts and a host of others. I would suggest to your Lordships that within the short time that this Government have been in power we have made a significant start in providing for the handicapped and that we have amply demonstrated our concern and our determination to devote greater resources to those who are most in need.
3.36 p.m.
LORD CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I propose to draw a veil over the number of years during which I have received delicate hints from some of my noble friends and some pretty indelicate ones from other quarters—that I should get to my feet and make my maiden speech. This long period of silence makes this experience no less unnerving, so I crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments. The reason that I have decided to take the plunge to-day is because this is a subject which interests

1165
me deeply and one in which I have a particular personal interest. What this Act sets out to achieve is a society in which the sick and disabled can live with dignity; a society in which they can find opportunity and the tools necessary to leading useful and satisfying lives, and where help is given with discretion. If all this is to be accomplished, it would seem to me that the prerequisites are understanding, good communications and of course money.
There are many points to be made as to how these ideals can be put into practice and noble Lords will have heard a great many, I am sure, but I should like to stress two, to my mind, vital ones —the utilisation of existing voluntary services and the means of communication. Ours is a country, I believe, without peer in its record and achievement of voluntary service, and I would suggest that we should seek to harness the know-how and considerable spadework of certain voluntary bodies concerned with the problems of the sick and disabled. It is possible that to derive maximum benefit from these bodies a survey should be carried out with the aim of investigating any overlap of activites, but the work already done by these bodies and which has been entirely financed by voluntary contributions would surely save the time and money of local councils. I would mention, for instance, the work of the Central Council for the Disabled, the original publication of a four volume loose-leaf book entitled Aids for the Disabled, financed entirely by the National Fund for Crippling Diseases and now known in many countries, and the work of the Disabled Living Foundation which I visited last week.
That Foundation, situated in Kensington High Street, has set up a permanent exhibition of a truly remarkable range of aids, many items being adaptations of standard manufactured articles, including not only wheelchairs, hoists, adjustable beds, crutches, sticks, portable ramps, handrails and so on. but also aids for washing, cooking, laundry, eating and drinking, reading, sewing and knitting and a host of other gadgets. All problems of the disabled are studied. be it housing, furniture, clothing, employment or recreation, and information concerning all these matters is easily obtainable from a sophisticated filing system known, I
1166
think, as Storage Retrieval. At the moment this service is entirely free to individuals, and, by subscription, to institutions such as local authorities, hospitals and voluntary organisations. In my view, this exhibition should be copied in other large cities. I believe that Lady Hamilton, who is the Chairman of the Disabled Living Foundation, would be happy to assist with her knowledge and experience in the setting up of similar establishments. Backed by the information service in London these exhibitions would be much cheaper to run than their prototype. They would, I believe, be invaluable in communicating what services and equipment are available.
Every effort should be made to communicate with the doctors and the disabled persons themselves. There are many who are not desperately disabled and who are philosophically learning to " live with it ". They could be greatly helped and their burdens made lighter. But how are we to reach these people? Surely, by the mass media. So much could be done by informative articles in the newspapers and magazines, and on the radio; even better, by television programmes showing a disabled person using these aids and equipment in his home. Such a programme would be immensely encouraging and helpful to the disabled, instructive for doctors and medical students and of great interest to other viewers. There are several noble Lords who hold commanding positions in the newspaper and television industries and I urgently appeal to them to use their influence in support of this concept.
My Lords, we all know how much greater is the response to this Act by some local authorities than by others. Some of them may, perhaps, think that an extra heavy burden has been put on their shoulders. I do not seek to minimise their task. Some of them have responded magnificently; but some show a very regrettable reluctance to act at all. In other cases disappointing performance probably stems from lack of knowledge to understand the problems, and lack of communication with bodies possessing that knowledge. Here, I would cite a personal experience, or rather the experience of my wife who, with the invaluable aid of Mr. Barran of the Automobile Association. conducted a virtually

1167
single-handed campaign on behalf of disabled drivers. She found all along the line the same story—complete lack of understanding of the actual problems involved and lack of any real direction from the top to those members of the police and wardens who have to carry out the provisions of the Traffic Acts. Finally, she saw Mr. Ainley. I think that then he was First Secretary at the Ministry of Transport. After listening courteously he said, with true understanding. " In other words, you want the spirit of the law extended to disabled persons and not the letter." Mr. Ainley promised to take up the matter with the relevant authorities, since when great progress has been made and much hardship avoided; and we both hope that many disabled drivers share my wife's gratitude to those who have tried to solve this problem.
Incidentally, my Lords, Section 21 of this Act, which deals with the subject of disabled drivers, is, I gather, to be implemented any day now. It will certainly be a relief when this occurs and when badges for disabled drivers issued by one authority are recognised by others. I should like to ask the local authorities to consider whether the appointment of liaison officers, either from themselves or through the voluntary services, would not be helpful in co-ordinating the activities of the statutory and voluntary organisations in their respective areas. If these liaison officers were to meet each other at regular intervals and report on progress, would they not help to raise the standard of services provided by the less enlightened? It is so much a question of human relationships, and 'therefore dependent upon a flexible attitude to individual cases and circumstances. The spirit of the Act rather than a rigid adherence to the letter of the law is what is really important. In this matter the criterion is that there are no criteria.
Turning for a moment, my Lords, to the matter of finance I do not think it can be too often repeated that what needs to be examined is net cost. A relatively small expenditure of ratepayers' money to assist a disabled person to live in his own 'home is preferable to the much larger cost to the taxpayer of maintaining him in hospital. Thorough co-operation between hospitals and local
1168
authorities could result in a very large net saving of money. From a financial point of view plans hammered out to release disabled persons and return them to their homes would, apart from being humane, ease the pressure on the hospitals and be financially prudent.
There is one small observation which I should like 'to make on the subject of Section 4, which deals with the means of access for the disabled to or within a building. It often imparcticable to provide lifts for all the people who visit a building. When this applies I think it would be kindly to display a notice indicating that the lift is for elderly and disabled persons. It is not unusual to see such persons patiently waiting to enter a lift while it is being used by young, able bodied people who could very easily use the stairs and be the better for the exercise. I have in mind such buildings as the Royal Festival Hall, with which your Lordships will be well acquainted, and which is one of the very few buildings in which entertainment and culture is provided and where lifts are installed.
Finally, my Lords, there is much to be done in the short term. I think that good communications and active cooperation between the statutory and voluntary organisations and the hospitals are all important. In the longer term, if we are to attain the high standard of service to which I am sure all noble Lords will aspire, we must not overlook the need for teaching the hospital ancillary services, the social welfare services and medical students about the special problems of the disabled. I am indeed grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: ADMISSION OF U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS
3.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place. It reads as follows:
" The Government have now completed their review of the position of United Kingdom passport holders. We

1169
have had discussions with Governments in East Africa with a view to facilitating more orderly movement of United Kingdom passport holders to this country and reducing the waiting time for vouchers. Discussions with the Government of Uganda were interrupted by the change of Government there, but have been resumed.
" The Government have decided to double the rate of entry of United Kingdom passport holders by the issue of 3,000, instead of 1.500. special vouchers a year for heads of households. This increase will take effect from June 1. In addition, over and above this there will be a once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers. These will be issued over the next six months.
" The Government have also decided at the same time to reduce the number of Commonwealth citizens entering this country to take up employment. They intend to cut from 4,000 to about 2,000 the annual rate of admission of employment voucher holders. My honourable friend is today circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the changes in the voucher scheme to effect this reduction. In brief, no more category A vouchers will he issued to independent Commonwealth countries (other than Malta) for unskilled or semi-skilled employment; and a reduction will be made in the issue of category B vouchers.
" I believe these steps will provide the best attainable solution of a difficult human problem of conflicting rights and interests which has long given concern to both sides of the House."
My Lords, that ends my right honourable friend's Statement. I have arranged for copies of the details of the changes in the voucher scheme to be placed in the Library of the House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. It deals, as he says. with an immensely difficult human problem—one far more, difficult, I think, than many commentators have been prepared to accept. In so far as the steps outlined in the Statement represent a contribution to the solution of the East African problem, we welcome them. May I ask the
1170
noble Lord three questions? First, have other Commonwealth countries been consulted over this change, and, if so, what has been their reaction? Secondly, since the noble Lord talks of consultation with Uganda and Kenya, may we take it that the increase in the rate of entry will not be offset by an increased pressure on those two countries? Thirdly, will the noble Lord make clear what will be the effect on this agreement of the Immigration Bill, if and when that reaches the Statute Book?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join on behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. We certainly welcome the decision to double the number of special vouchers for United Kingdom passport holders and we particularly welcome this announcement of a once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers, for which, as the noble Lord is aware, a number of Members of another place and Peers have been pressing for some time. I hope that it will meet cases of very real hardship.
I should like to ask two questions on the latter part of the Statement. The noble Lord said that the Government intend to cut from 4,000 to 2.000 the number of employment voucher holders to be admitted. I understand that at present the maximum is 8,500 but that only about 4,000 are being taken up, so does this not really mean that the maximum is to be reduced from 8,500 to 2,000? If that is so, I think the Statement has given a rather false impression, and that point needs to be clarified. Lastly, if this new legislation is to be put into operation at a comparatively early date, what is the point of making these changes with regard to the admission of employment voucher holders?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. I should like to thank both noble Lords for what I think has been, in general. a welcome for the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me about consultations with Commonwealth countries other than the parties directly concerned, in which I would include India, with whom we have had direct consultations. as well as the three African Governments. In answering this question, it is necessary to distinguish between numbers and policies. It has not been the policy of

1171
successive Governments to consult with other Commonwealth Governments on changes in the numbers admitted to this country under the voucher scheme. But where changes in policies are concerned, as in the Immigration Bill, there have been consultations with all the Commonwealth Governments over the new structure of control proposed in the Bill.
The noble Lord asked me about the phasing of the new arrangements in East Africa. I can tell him that we feel that, as a result of negotiations that have taken place, there is a reasonable prospect of regulating in a more orderly and systematic way the numbers of those wishing to leave East Africa and the numbers of special vouchers that are available.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked what will be the impact of the Immigration Bill on the scheme that I have announced to-day. The answer is that this is an interim scheme, a change in existing voucher arrangements relating to the control of Commonwealth immigration which have continued at varying levels since 1962. The Bill itself, as noble Lords will know, replaces the separate streams of control of aliens and Commonwealth citizens with a single system of control for all those who do not have the right of abode. There will be a work permit system for everyone in that category, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is working on that and will make a Statement in due course.
As to the numbers, this is a somewhat technical point but an important one. The noble Lord. Lord Wade, is quite right in saying that at present the total of vouchers for the Commonwealth is 8,500. For the last three years not more than 4,000 of these have been taken up by those who have come here to work, and we are now reducing that figure by approximately one half, to 2.000. The total number available under the interim scheme will be 2,700, and the details will be available in your Lordships' Library.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may 1 be allowed to congratulate my noble friend on this constructive contribution to dealing with an extraordinarily difficult problem and on the care-
1172
ful and systematic study that has obviously gone into it? May I ask him whether the new figure of 3.000 a year applies to all United Kingdom passport holders in the Commonwealth, or only to those from East Africa?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Only to those from East Africa.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one who moved the rejection of the Bill, when I was given the support of nearly all the Conservative Ministers concerned. may I ask whether, under these proposals (and I should like to study them in detail before making further comment) any significant number of the British passport holders in East Africa will be allowed to come into this country? Is not the doubling of the figure quite insignificant compared to the number of people to whom we gave a pledge that they would have citizenship rights and all the rights of carrying passports? While I appreciate that the Home Secretary has said that this is a matter on the consciences of other members of the Government, as it must be, is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to do something more to meet these obligations into which we have entered?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not agree that the number is insignificant. It represents an increase of 100 per cent. over all, with an additional special allocation for those in extreme need over the next six months. It has to be related, and is most usefully related perhaps, to the size of the waiting list, to the number of those who have made application in East African countries, which is something in excess of 8,000. So, on the numbers I have announced, it would take something in the order of two years to work off that waiting list. But, of course, others may be added to it subsequently.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Lord's answer to my first supplementary question that there have been no consultations with other Commonwealth countries? Would he not agree that this is not simply a question of changing the numbers? Is it not inconceivable that the Commonwealth Governments should learn of this for the first time after this Statement was made?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am advised that this is in line with what has been the policy of successive Governments, including the noble Lord's own Government at the time of the 1968 Act. I ought to correct what I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. The new quota of 3,000 applies to all United Kingdom passport holders anywhere in the world, though it is expected that in practice it will have effect only in East Africa. Unfortunately, the position is the reverse of what I said.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a simple but important question about Gibraltar? Are the people of Gibraltar in any way affected, or may we take it that the arrangements and undertakings given to them, that they should have free admittance into the United Kingdom, remain in force?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I can speak with absolute certainty on that. The changes that have been referred to will not in any way affect the entry of Gibraltarians into Britain.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, regarding Commonwealth consultation, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this was urged during the period of the previous Government as well as during that of the present Government, and it is not only the East African nations which are concerned but also India? Would it not have been better to have had discussions with all these Governments before a decision was reached? And have they been informed of the decision?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not pick up what I said earlier: the Government of India has been consulted about these changes.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord give an estimate of the total numbers of people in East Africa with these passports who may be expected to apply for entry?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, yes; the total number is of the order of 150,000 in the three East African countries. How many would wish to come to this country is an extremely difficult
1174
question to answer. I gave a figure of something in excess of 8,000 people, heads of families, who have so far made application. Whether larger numbers will wish to come here, go to India or remain in East Africa will depend very much on conditions in East Africa.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this new figure of 3,000 has to be looked at in relation to the total figure of 150,000. It might take fifty years to deal with them.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was at the Home Office at the time of the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1968 he would have made that assumption. I do not think we can assume that every United Kingdom passport holder in East Africa will necessary want to come here. Many of them were born in India and have very close links with India.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS: WORKING OF 1970 ACT
4.4 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashhourne, will not think me impertinent if I congratulate him on his maiden speech and say that as a maiden speech it was in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. It was brief and to the point, it made a valuable contribution to our discussion this afternoon and. above all else, it was non-controversial. I understand that the noble Lord, in his time, has been an amateur tennis champion, and perhaps he will understand me when I say that 1 am sure I am voicing the view of your Lordships that he has won his first match with many games in hand and we hope it will not be long before he plays another.
My Lords, I want to be brief this afternoon, but I should like to say that I think it will be to the everlasting credit of the last Government that the Act which we are discussing to-day found its way on to the Statute Book. I also believe that it will be to the everlasting credit of this Government if they continue

1175
to take steps and make a sincere and sustained effort to see that the Act is fully implemented by all local authorities. I listened with considerable interest and some sympathy and appreciation to what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about what has been achieved so far, but we must bear in the forefront of our minds that the successful working of this Act will depend not so much on the Government—although, of course, it depends very largely on them—but on the way in which local authorities do what is required of them in the Act. I feel that the Government should have moved a little faster in this matter than they have, but I realise that this is a matter of feeling.
We have been reminded that we are coming up to the first anniversary of the Royal Assent to this Act, and Section 1 has yet to be implemented although we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the appointed day has been fixed. Section 1 of the Act is quite clear. It lays a responsibility upon the local authority to inform themselves of the number of persons within their area to whom the section applies, and to the need for the local authority to make a register of people who are likely to benefit under the Act.
I will not burden your Lordships with Section 2, which again is quite clear. I could not accept the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for not having fixed an earlier date than October 1. I should have thought that very soon after the passing of the Act the local authorities could have been encouraged to have started compiling their lists, rather than waiting until October 1 this year, knowing full well that for many of them this is a gigantic task and one which will take them a long time to do.
I also wish to draw the noble Lord's attention to the circular which he and his right honourable friends sent out on August 17, 1970. I think this is quite shocking. Dealing with Section 1—and this is a circular which was sent out by four Government Departments to local authorities, commenting upon an Act—it says:
" It is not "—
and I repeat the word " not "—
" a requirement of the Section that authorities should attempt 100 per cent. identification and registration of the handicapped."
1176
I think that is quite bad, and I will give my reasons. The noble Lord may not agree with me. The reasons given in the circular are that this registration would be difficult. But local authorities exist to overcome difficulties. That is their role; and if they cannot perform it there should be people who can.
The circular goes on to say that it would be an expensive and time-consuming exercise—but this is the role of the local authority, and what they are there for: to look after the needs of the people within the area whom they seek to serve. If they are told it is not intended that they should attempt 100 percent. identification and registration, surely this could be construed by some local authorities—and I believe it is so construed—as an invitation to them not to bother too much about the register. From my knowledge of some local authorities, I believe that many of them will in fact act upon it. This statement in the circular could go some way to undermining the value of the Act. I believe it to be an unfortunate sentence. I hope that the Government will look at it because I am sure that they will be, in the course of time, sending out other circulars in which perhaps this could be put right. I do not know whether it is fair to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to comment on that matter when he comes to speak, because it may not be possible for him to do so in the time available.
The need for a time limit in respect of the compilation of the register of the chronically sick and disabled is in my view important. When the previous Government were in power, I moved an Amendment calling on local authorities to compile their registers and to submit them to the Secretary of State within 12 months. That Amendment was defeated. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider fixing a time limit, so that within a period of, say, one year the Secretary of State could get some idea of what the position is in all local authorities throughout the country, and what is likely to be required. This would give the local authorities a year, if a year was fixed as the period—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that it is quite an onerous undertaking. We do not know the size

1177
of the problem. We think we know roughly its size, but we really do not know the full extent of it. I believe I am right: in saying that the City of Manchester, which has quite a reputation for its vast and comprehensive network of social services, did not realise the full extent of the situation concerning the chronically sick and disabled in Manchester until they undertook a careful investigation of the problem; and they intend eventually to have personal visits made.
Some local authorities, I recognise, have got off the mark quickly, and are to-day in possession of information which they have never had before: they know that there are many more people in their area needing help of whom they did not know a month or two ago. I do not want to comment this afternoon on the achievements of some of the more progressive of our local authorities. I have reason to believe that some of my friends will be comenting on what certain individual local authorities have achieved. I want to take what is perhaps a more critical, and maybe, in the view of some of your Lordships, a more pessimistic view of the situation. I am concerned, however, with those local authorities who are moving slowly and those who are not moving at all. I should like the Government to state quite clearly that the services provided in Section 2 are mandatory. I do not think that all local authorities believe that it is a statutory obligation on them to provide the services set out in Section 2 when needed.
A large number of local authorities are dragging their feet, and I know from personal inquiries that I have made of some directors of social services that some arc not proposing to implement Section 2 at all. If your Lordships will forgive my being personal for a moment, I am chairman of a national voluntary organisation that has been providing for 31 years, since 1938, radio and television to bedridden, housebound and aged poor. Since this Act came into force, we have been inundated by some 40 or 50 local authorities wanting to know how they can get radio and television from our voluntary society. In the course of conversation, several of them have said quite definitely that their local authority has no intention of implementing Section 2. I want to ask the Government whether
1178
it is possible to find out from local authorities what they intend to do, because the success of the Act will depend in the last analysis on what they do, and not so much on Government circulars or directions.
Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, quite rightly said, we are dealing with a small section of the community, I am sure we all realise that it is doubtful whether we should find in the community a group of people who more urgently need the help of those who are more fortunately placed than the chronically sick and disabled. Many of them are cut off day after day, week after week, month after month from the outside world, save for an occasional visit from a friend or a relative who pops in and pops out with great speed. Many of them never have another face in the room; many of them never hear another voice in the room. But this Act could end that situation for a large majority of them. I hope that the Government will see their way clear, at a fairly early date, to find out what local authorities are doing, so that we can have some measure of those local authorities who are not proceeding in the matter at all.
In my discussion with certain directors of social welfare as to why the scheme is getting off the ground so slowly, various reasons have been given to me. They talk about the cost involved—and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has dealt effectively with that matter. They have complained—if " complained " is the right word—about the additional work in which it will involve the local authority, and of the increase in staff, which again means money. Several of them have complained that it has come on top of the implementation of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. I hope that the Government will take steps to impress on local authorities that they have this statutory obligation under the Act to provide certain specific services for the chronically sick and disabled.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for spelling out what the Government are prepared to do in terms of money. I think it is so important that I am tempted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether he could see his way clear to cross the t's and dot the i's on

1179
what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, because I think the Money Resolution by which Parliament gave financial backing to the implementation of Section 2 of the Act needs to be spelt out very clearly and precisely. I think it is necessary to tell local authorities—and from that point of view the community—that there can be no saving of public money by failing to provide adequate local services for the chronically sick and disabled: in fact, it may well prove to be a money-saver, because if this Act is implemented, as the last Government felt and this Government feel that it should be, it may make a good many disabled people less dependent on institutions and institutional living. It is the responsibility of the Government to see that their enactments are properly carried out, and again I ask them to be watchful of this matter.
There are many reasons why local authorities should be asked for progress reports at regular intervals, and I think there are reasons for the Government making certain that any financial support given under the Money Resolution is used for the purpose for which it is given, and not, as has happened in the past, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, knows only too well, in order to keep the rate down. I do not know how it is possible to ensure this, but I ask the Government to see that money given to local authorities to help the chronically sick and disabled is used in that direction only and that none of it is whittled away in other directions.
4.20 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, may I first of all thank my noble friend Lord Ingleby for giving us this chance to consider how effective this Act has been during its first year of life. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ash-bourne, on his very interesting maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pesten, has spoken ably about Sections 1 and 2 and I shall confine myself to saying just a couple of things about the area in which I live. An assessment has been made to determine the sort of numbers involved based on the population of Berkshire in the light of the Government Social Survey, and the Director of Social Services feels that the problem
1180
is not going to be as great as some people seem to fear. He does, however, foresee a serious situation arising in a few years' time with regard to another matter which is worth mentioning here as this Act includes the mentally handicapped.
The problem he foresees is that of mentally handicapped people living at home who, thanks to medical science, will now outlive their parents. There will soon be a great need for hospitals for these people, many of whom can go out to work but who need someone to help them with the daily running of their lives. That is for the future. There is of course at this very moment a tremendous need for hostels for the physically disabled who go out to work—both for the completely independent and for those who need a certain amount of help.
I should like to make one point about the means test. This varies from area to area, but the underlying principle is the same. In Berkshire it applies only to such things as televisions and telephones and to adaptations costing over £100. Some rather complicated calculations are involved, but one point is quite clear. It is stated that if the person has assets of more than £600, then no grant should be given to him by the county council except in special circumstances. This sum seems to me unrealistic and to be out of touch with the cost of living these days, particularly when one remembers that life for the disabled is inevitably more expensive and their employment situation much more precarious. Surely it is time to change from a poverty-orientated means test to one based on the needs of the person being considered.
The Director of Social Services had, I thought, a good plan for spreading information about the welfare services available. This was to send out a booklet with the rate demand, which would ensure that every household received a copy. He also felt very strongly that the disabled should be helped to help themselves, by giving all the information possible about the most suitable equipment available. It is indeed vital that the person is given the right type of equipment for his particular need. The voluntary organisations are helping very much to achieve this. Noble Lords have already mentioned the Disabled Living Foundation's information service; and

1181
there is also the mobile exhibition run by the Spastics' Society. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord the Minister say that the whole question of aids and equipment is under review.
One Amendment relating to information which was very strongly supported by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was a new clause calling for better information to prescribers. It was withdrawn only when the Minister gave firm assurances that the Department was considering the best ways of disseminating information. Has the situation changed since those assurances were given? There seems to have been a slight improvement, although I am told that welfare workers and the disabled themselves are still occasionally told that a particular item of equipment is not available through the National Health Service, when in fact it is. Some items not previously listed now appear in the Handbook of Wheelchairs and Hand-Propelled Tricycles, but two of these really need to be illustrated; namely, the Talley alternating pressure pad and the ballbearing armrests. Incidentally, the latter are described in a most discouraging way which would deter most people from prescribing them. There have been no changes in the Handbook of Motor and Electric Tricycles. The Epic is still the only powered wheelchair featured, although several other types are available through the National Health Service which are more suitable for some people. They are indeed prescribed by those who know about them but the point is that too few people do know about them.
Very few people appear to realise that since 1966 the Department of Health has agreed to make Possum equipment available through the National Health Service. Possum can be operated simply by sucking and puffing, or indeed by any residual movement the user possesses, and has helped extremely disabled people, who would otherwise have been totally incapacitated, to communicate with those around them, to gain some degree of independence, and in many cases to do a worthwhile job. The South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has recently circularised general practitioners in its area with information about Possum. It would be
1182
an excellent plan if other Hospital Boards or the Department of Health would follow this example.
Information is also the subject of Section 22, which calls for an annual report on research and development on equipment that might benefit the disabled. When the Joint Under-Secretary of State introduced this clause in its new form in another place he expressed the hope that it would include information from abroad and from voluntary organisations where-ever possible. I certainly hope that this report will not be as threadbare of information as the Handbook to Prescribers; that it will indeed contain information from abroad, and from fields other than those specifically concerned with helping the disabled.
Simple technology, if applied with imagination and thought, can answer many of the needs of the disabled. New materials will mean that aids such as calipers can be lighter and more streamlined as well as stronger. So I hope the report will take into account work going on at places such as the bio-engineering workshop at the Royal National Orthopædie Hospital at Stanmore, and the Bath Institute of Medical Engineering, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ingleby, where doctors, engineers and technologists co-operate to bring a multidisciplinary approach to problems. We must remember that the report is to include any equipment that might improve mobility. Anything which might lead to a solution of the mobility problems of the more severely disabled should be followed up. Unless something is found soon, the more severely affected thalidomide children will join the ranks of disabled passengers. But that is for the future. What about the present? Has the mobility situation improved over this past year? One section of the Act which was particularly welcome was Section 21 (the new badge scheme) because it gave help for the first time to those too disabled to drive themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, said he gathered that it was to be implemented very shortly. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister who is to wind up for the Government exactly when this will be.
I also want to ask the noble Lord to explain the Government's attitude to the use of powered wheelchairs out of

1183
doors. Some models may not be entirely suitable for use on pavements, but several types issued by the Department of Health are suitable for careful limited outdoor use. Every disabled person receiving a powered wheelchair from the Department has to sign an agreement that it is for indoor use. Before the Act was passed, it was of course illegal to use these chairs on pavements, but the Department used to interpret the conditions of supply liberally to include " within the curtilage of the residence "—that is to say, in the garden. Under Section 20, it is now legal to take them on pavements. Some models issued by the Department may not be completely suitable for this; but why, if the Department allows their use in the garden only, does it not say so, rather than getting the user to sign the " indoor use " agreement? The user also has to agree to surrender the chair immediately if instructed to do so by the Ministry. As a member of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. I know that this situation has distressed many people who hoped to gain a little more freedom once this Act was passed. One is left wondering why, if these chairs are unsuitable for use on pavements, the Department does not issue ones that arc suitable.
Many Amendments relating to mobility were withdrawn following assurances that the vehicle service was to be thoroughly reviewed. What has happened since these promises were made? Subsequent Answers in another place indicated that the Department still lacked statistics, but now, with the publication of the Government Social Survey, we can look forward to a thorough review. Results of previous reviews have never been published, but I certainly hope that this one will be. The Joint Committee on Mobility have firm views on what this review should be like. They hope, first, that it will be thorough and based on sound statistics from the Survey; secondly, that it will assess the needs of the disabled passenger as well as the disabled driver; thirdly, that it will take account of the family responsibilities of the disabled, and their medical and social needs; fourthly, that it will take account of where they live and what they earn and how disabled they are; fifthly, that it will include a costed analysis of alter-
1184
native schemes, including a mobility grant scheme, for helping the disabled with their outdoor mobility. Surely a mobility grant scheme would solve all these problems, give the individual disabled person a choice, and avoid the costly administrative overheads involved in running a vehicle and repair service.
So the fact is that there has been as yet no change in the vehicle situation. Those who are sufficiently disabled to qualify for a three-wheeler, but too disabled to drive themselves, are still without any financial help and still paying vehicle excise duty. I should like to point out that there is an opportunity now, in another place, to give some help to these people, for there is a chance that Section 11 of the 1964 Finance Act can be amended to provide exemption from vehicle excise duty for these disabled passengers. It seems to me ridiculous that a person should be excluded from any outdoor mobility help merely because he is more severely disabled than others. Surely this state of affairs cannot last much longer? I certainly hope it will not.
There has been no change in the position of the disabled mother. She must still travel alone without her children; she cannot even take them to the doctor or the dentist; she has to leave young children alone in the house while she goes shopping. The children, the marriage, the entire family suffer. Surely the invalid vehicle service should no longer be based on the concept of " an extension to an artificial limb ", as it has been termed by the Minister in another place, and even more strangely on the requisite of our ability to drive. Surely it is now time to approach the service in terms of providing mobility both for the disabled themselves and for their friends and families—and providing it irrespective of whether or not the disabled themselves are too disabled to drive. My Lords, it is not much use providing the disabled person with an extension to an artificial limb if in the process you amputate the disabled person from his family, and in turn amputate the family from society as a whole. If people are isolated from the community they cannot develop to their full potential, and until they do this they cannot give of their best.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I venture to intervene briefly in this debate, not because I can lay claim 'to 'the specialist knowledge or experience of some other noble Lords who have already spoken, but perhaps because (the welfare of chronically sick and disabled persons is a pant of the day-to-day ministry of clergy and ministers up and down the country. Moreover, in an increasing number of places it is, I believe, seen by members of the Churches and other voluntary bodies as a rewarding field of personal service. Many such people were greatly heartened by the passing into law a year ago of an Act which seemed to be in line with the current development in social policy of making the neds of the individual the paramount consideration. The consequences of such a policy are to try to adapt services to meet the needs of individuals and to promote local and personal services wherever possible, reserving institutional care for cases where there really is no alternative.
Another way in which I think the 1970 Act encouraged many people was that it was made clear (that the services to be supplied were to be an entitlement by right of citizenship and in no sense a charitable dispensation. Therefore I think it was to be expected that the passing of the Act would raise 'hopes that in those areas where the provision of facilities had been patchy or wanting, to say the least, there would be a fairly swift improvement. We here realise 'that there is always bound to be a considerable time lag, even when notice has been given of an appointed day, but I do not think we should he 'surprised that there are reports of perplexity and disappointment, where individuals seeking information about the provisions of 'the Act have not only been refused it but have been given no reason for the refusal. I welcome the Minister's announcement this afternoon about an information leaflet, and I hope this will be widely distributed.
My Lords, many social service departments find it 'hard enough to cope with those who ask for their help, without seeking out others who may have similar needs but who, for one reason or another, have not yet asked for help. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to the obligations under Section 1 of the Act
1186
which will lie upon local authorities in the near future, and some of the difficulties that may confront them in fulfilling the particular responsibility of making a survey and of making information available to all those concerned. If the task of making such a survey and of providing the information of the facilities available is beyond the resources of the existing staff of a social service department, and if it is found quite impossible to increase that staff sufficiently soon to get the survey under way, surely here is another opportunity for a partnership between voluntary and statutory bodies.
I happen to have spent 12 hours on Sunday in a group of parishes where there is a highly organised and well supported scheme for providing voluntary social service of many kinds. A large number of volunteers are involved, under trained leadership, and I was told that with the possible help of some social work students it would be quite possible for the necessary survey to be made in that community by volunteers, and that within that community there already exist the necessary channels whereby information could be conveyed to all those for whom it was intended.
An imaginative use of volunteers under good leadership would only involve a local authority in the essential organising and administrative supervision. The partnership of voluntary and statutory bodies in the service of the community is a feature of our national life of which we are justly proud. The full and speedy implementation of this Act will, I believe, only come about if there is such a partnership and if it is allowed to grow and is firmly based on mutual respect and mutual understanding of the role of each partner. It is possible for a voluntary organisation to be taken advantage of, just as it is for statutory provision to be neglected. Respect and understanding will only be assured if there is the fullest possible co-operation between all concerned. I would venture to hope that the Government, in seeking to ensure that the will of Parliament is fulfilled in respect of the welfare of chronically sick and disabled people, will do everything they can to encourage statutory and voluntary bodies to work closely together. Neither can do all that is required unaided. Both together could do so much more than is being done now.
4.39 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I think your Lordships would agree that not every Act works exactly as Parliament lays down. An Act is not necessarily the worse for that, and in this case I think we have an instance where the Act has been extremely valuable propaganda and in that way has already proved most effective. I personally have found greatly increased interest and awareness among the general public. As has been said already, this is a happy reunion on the anniversary of the passing of the Act, and I am sure your Lordships will envy the company I keep on these occasions. I am delighted, too, to welcome my noble friend who made such an excellent maiden speech, and to emphasise that this whole matter is far from what in modern jargon is known as a " closed shop ". After all, it is a matter which can affect everybody, and we are all delighted when some new person takes an interest in the subject.
I agree that the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has revealed an enormous problem. Three million people, excluding under-16s and the very elderly, are seriously impaired in this country. So I do not think I can quite accept the view expressed this afternoon that we are talking of only a small section of the community: I am afraid that it is too large a section, and unfortunately it is an increasing section. Too many of these people are kept for too long in hospital. There are three points that I want to make about the hospital service. The first is that it is bad for people to be institutionalised. Referring again to your Lordships' recent debates, I do not think I need explain the symptoms and the effects of over-institutionalisation. All I need say, having been here on several occasions late into the night, is that an excess of this numbs the senses and saps the fibre.
The second point I would make on hospitals is that there is, as your Lordships know, a chronic shortage of nurses, not only in this country but in the rest of the world; and this shortage will get worse unless something is done to improve the conditions in which they work. A famous national hospital well known to all of us, and I expect to most of your Lordships, the Stoke Mandeville Hospital, tell me that, because of lack of
1188
staff, two wards have been closed for over a year. This is a very serious situation in a hospital that is known world-wide, and I am sure that it is not the only one affected in this way.
My third point on hospitals is that the average cost, apparently, of keeping a patient in a National Health Service hospital is £2,839 per annum—a large sum by any standards. This leads me to suggest that the provisions of Section 2 of this Act are vital in an attempt to combat these three factors. Apparently many local authorities are concerned as we have heard this afternoon, that the cost of providing services will represent a substantial burden on the rates. But surely through the payment of rate support grant the greater part of the expenditure will fall on the Central Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he said that wherever the money comes from there is no overall saving of public money in failing to implement Section 2. Saving small amounts of ratepayers' money wastes far more taxpayers' money.
Before I leave the subject of hospitals, I would just make an observation which I heard argued effectively the other day by a well-known former Minister of Health, Mr. Enoch Powell, who maintained that the central organisation leaves much to be desired and that the whole system of hospitals should be examined. This is not the time or place to do that, but I believe that it would be a well worthwhile exercise. I should like to see the expenditure on hospitals and on Section 2 of this Act come out of the same pocket, because in that way people would get a much clearer picture and be able to understand that saving is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I should like to express my appreciation of a campaign run by the People Sunday newspaper, which did a very good job of publicising this Act and trying to get it implemented. Its present impression, with which I would agree, is that on the whole local authorities are doing their best, but some of its readers have been told by the local authorities that there are no funds to deal with their requests. Surely, again because of the rate support grant, this cannot be true. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he said that a further clear

1189
directive is needed from the top to the local authorities.
I agree with what has been said about the importance of Section 1. I should have liked it to come into force before October, but now that the date is fixed I quite accent it. But I must stress that it is vital that this date is adhered to, because if for some reason there is some further putting off I think it will be the greatest disappointment and tragedy to a whole lot of disabled people to whom hope is a real and important factor. I realise that the date could not he fixed before October because of the appointment of the local directors of social services, and I am glad to say that in my part of the world, the Midlands, Leicestershire, there is progress. The director of social services there has met representatives of all the voluntary organisations and they are being asked to supply names to the register.
We must not underestimate the enthusiasm, the experience and the resourcefulness of the voluntary organisations—and indeed they were the driving force behind this Act. Now that some services formerly provided by them come under Section 2 of the Act, I hope that they will be able to take on new roles; for example, as representatives on the various committees, spurring local authorities to discharge their obligations, and acting individually in their own spheres to try to get the principle of the access sections accepted.
That leads me on to the question of access. Here I should like to address a few remarks to my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment. I am always rather impressed by that rather long title, and I tried to think of a suitable abbreviation the other day. Bearing in mind his interests outside this House, I thought possibly the one that fitted him best was, " the noble Lord, the Lord of Creation ". I have mentioned the value of propaganda, and I think that this is particularly effective in the question of access. In my view there is no overall pattern emerging, but everyone is doing bits and pieces, and the climate is definitely changing. Certainly there have been great improvements in the Houses of Parliament. The British Museum extension provides access, and
1190
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is very much aware of the problem. Public conveniences are starting to live up to their names. Not being able to see the St. Leger, I complained about a race-course. Now I can report that the race-course concerned has made a considerable improvement.
More doubtful are some rather odd regulations at other places. I know that at Earl's Court many people have been prevented from seeing various exhibitions and shows by some regulations which, though they may be valid, were not fully understood by the people who were waiting to see those shows. I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford may be able to explain the position in this and other cases. Theatres and cinemas also seem to have strange regulations. When one goes there one has to sit in one of the seats, and not in one of the gangways, and there is no doubt that should there be a tire the people who had to leave by wheelchair would be the last to get out. It is not a very enviable situation.
Places of employment are not covered by the Act, which I always thought was an omission; and of course the whole question of employment is a vital issue, as my noble friend Lord Ingleby has said. My final thought on this question of access to buildings is that no planning permission for public buildings should be granted unless access for the disabled is provided. I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford may be able to confirm that this is a proposition which can be carried out.
During the discussions on the Bill before it became an Act I mentioned the question of access to public transport, and during the Committee stage I withdrew an Amendment after an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who was replying for the Government, that he would issue a circular to operators and manufacturers of public transport equipment. I am hoping that the assurance given then will be taken over by my noble friend Lord Sandford because, after those opening shots last year, I think it is now time for increased pressure. I know that there are difficulties. But I am hoping that, after what I read this morning was the profit made by British Railways, they will use some of it to give me a little better transport than I enjoy in the guards' vans at present. After

1191
all, even if the figures for the nationalised industries cannot be interpreted as profit, as taxpayers we all subscribe to them, and I believe that public transport as a public service should be available to all. Before I leave that aspect, may I say that I think I was misconstrued last time when I complained about London taxis? I in no way meant to complain about the personnel involved in any form of public transport: I find them extremely helpful. It is the tackle they are compelled to use that causes me a great deal more doubt.
My noble friend Lady Darcy has dealt very adequately with the question of vehicles, and I can only support very strongly all that she said. I do not want to argue the merits and the faults of three-wheeled vehicles versus four-wheeled vehicles, but many people, including Mr. Graham Hill, with whom I have discussed this subject fairly often, believe that the three-wheeled vehicle is inherently dangerous; and I can well see that. I am not fortunate enough to drive a car, but I should hate to come 90 or 100 miles down the M.1 to your Lordships' House in a three-wheeled vehicle, because it simply would not be stable enough to complete the trip. My noble friend beside me says that I should not be allowed on the M.1, so there again there is a definite restriction. We feel that it is a relic of a Victorian approach, and the sooner the situation changes the better. We also feel that the four-wheeled vehicle would open up great opportunities for disabled passengers who are discriminated against at the moment in a most unfortunate way. If anyone thinks that severely handicapped people cannot work, and therefore do not really need transport, I wish they would meet Mr. Peter Large, who is here this afternoon. He is an excellent administrator, was the greatest help to all of us in our speeches on the Bill, and is an inspiration to a great many others.
My Lords, I should like to finish by echoing what has been said about the car badge scheme. I hope that this will be universally recognised by every authority in the country, and not only in certain areas. I also hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. I
1192
am grateful to your Lordships for all the interest you have shown in this subject during the last year or more, and I only hope that this great interest will be reflected by further positive action on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
4.56 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, when I made a speech on the Second Reading of this Act last summer, I referred to the fact that I had thought for some time it would be a very good plan if the Government provided an allowance for people to take care of their elderly relatives in their own homes. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Bill came before us not very long after that, to find that part of the Bill provided for this. I do not claim for myself any credit for this, because I am sure that it was decided long before I made my speech. But I was extremely pleased to see it happen, and was more complimented still when Her Majesty's Government invited me to become Chairman of the Attendance Allowance Board, which post I was very pleased to accept.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk of the progress which has been made in the provision of schemes for the care of the younger chronic sick and disabled person, because this is what they require. They are extremely difficult matters to work out properly, because the number of young chronic sick is not very large and it is very difficult to arrange that they should be somewhere near their friends and family. So it does the Government a great deal of credit that 455 extra beds should have been provided for those people in this comparatively short time. From another point of view it relieves some of the pressure on the geriatric services in the country.
Here I should like to say a word about the meaning of the word " geriatric " which has gone badly wrong in the last few years. When the geriatric services first began, immediately after the war, they were in places where people went for active treatment and not for custodial care. They have now come to be taken to mean what were the old chronic

1193
sick wards of the Poor Law, where people lay quite neglected and uncared for. I only want to make that mild protest to try to get the record put right, because geriatric services should mean active places where acute medicine is practised and where people get back on their feet, and not places where people are uncared for till they die.
One point which I raised on Second Reading was the question of mobile physiotherapy, so that active treatment could be given in their homes to patients who, for some reason or another could not go to a department of a hospital. That could be quite an important factor, because it might prevent people becoming disabled and chronically sick. I know that there are a certain number of arguments against that, the biggest one being that the services of the physiotherapists are rather valuable and it is better that they should be concentrated in the hospitals. The noble Baroness Lady Serota, who then replied for the Government, said that a working group was reviewing the work of the remedial professions with this object in view. When he comes to reply perhaps the noble Lord could tell me whether anything has come out of that.
Another point which I think is of great importance was brought to my attention first of all by a disabled person himself; namely, that when people become acutely disabled—say, for example, paraplegia following a fractured spine—they should be told immediately what services are going to be available for them when they recover. They should be encouraged to think that they are going to recover and are going to go back to work, and they should be told that there will be quite a lot of help given them from that point of view. Here, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for what he has said about the facilities and services available to the disabled. I am quite certain that more of this needs to be told, and more of this kind of information needs to be spread about the country. Finally, I think it is extremely important that when patients are discharged from hospital a note of their present condition should accompany them whether they are going back to the care of their doctor or into their own care
1194
at home. It is important that there should be some kind of continuity in this respect.
In this large report which I see in front of the noble Lord who is to reply there are several categories of disability mentioned, and I should like to come down to a very low one, Category 16, which includes the mentally senile. There, I think it is indicated that more of these people are being kept at home who, because of the enormous strain they impose upon their relatives and their friends owing to their disability, should go into some kind of hospital. Surely one of the troubles there has been the fault of the mental hospitals, which since the passage of the Mental Health Act, 1959, have steadfastly refused to accept these long-term disabled elderly folk whose correct place is in such hospitals. So I wonder whether a certain amount of pressure could be brought to bear on the mental hospitals to make them wake up to their responsibilities and take more of these people. It was comparatively simple before the passage of the Mental Health Act to get these patients transferred; now it is very difficult.
My Lords, we have been told that Section 1 of the Act comes into force on October 1. I hope that in addition to getting a register prepared there will be done something which I think is even more important that that: that wide publicity will be given to the facilities that are available at the present time from the local authorities and from the voluntary organisations for all disabled persons. The Minister mentioned that a leaflet would be published. I trust that that will he a really full document and that it will be widely distributed so that nobody can plead ignorance of what facilities are available. There is one suggestion I should like to make to the noble Lord before I sit down. When people are badly disabled—for example, patients with paraplegia, to whom I referred—they receive constant demands from various bodies, quite properly, for medical certificates. A case in point—and one always comes back to individual patients—is of a young man I know who has a fractured spine. He is a paraplegic, but he is a very young and determined man. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, met him and talked to

1195
him one day, with me. What he suggested was that it should be possible for such people to be given a book of medical certificates so that they do not need to keep returning to the hospital or to their doctor for another certificate. If a book of certificates could be issued from which they could extract one when required, to show it to the appropriate authority, this would certainly save a great deal of trouble for them, particularly if they are in full-time employment and have to travel long distances to get their certificates.
Finally, I agree entirely with what has been said about how important it is that voluntary services and the local authority official services should work closely together. That, I am sure, is the only way we can get a really proper working of this Act of Parliament. It is not going to be an easy one to implement fully as it is, but it cannot be done at all if the voluntary bodies are not brought in on a big scale right from the start.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, as chairman of the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases, I should like to address myself particularly to Section 19 of the Act; but before I come to that I should like to say how delighted I am that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has decided to break a long silence to speak in support of the proper implementation of this very important Act. On this question of research, and referring to Section 22 of the Act, that section requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament each year—
" a report on the progress made during that year in research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled persons, and in particular such equipment that might improve the indoor and outdoor mobility of such persons ".
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to expand on the question of medical research in this context of the disabled rather more widely than is indicated in that particular section of the Act. I would submit, without in any way detracting from the great importance of the other provisions of the Act, that research into the prevention and cure of any form
1196
of disabling or crippling diseases is all-important on the basis that, always, prevention is better than cure.
As your Lordships know, the main official supporters of medical research in this country are the Medical Research Council and the University Grants Committee, and both are dependent on public finance. If one looks at the sums which have been spent by these two bodies over the last few years, one could at first glance come to the conclusion that a considerable increase in the expenditure was being made. Arithmetically, that is so; but then one has to take into account two factors: first, the effect of inflation. of rising costs in terms of salaries and wages and accommodation; and, secondly, what is not so generally known, rising costs in the provision of the equipment and other facilities needed for research.
I do not think it is too remote from practical reality to say that the further research proceeds, the more costly it becomes. Research leads to research and. although in some cases research leads to conclusions and practical results which reduce the cost of the services to be rendered or the research to be carried out, in other cases it increases these costs and so it is an escalating factor. This, I think, is not always fully realised. If we are to provide those people who are devotedly working in carrying out research into the prevention and cure of crippling diseases, those two factors must be recognised and fully accepted, and this is to some extent paradoxical. In other words, the more research you do, the more costly the future research becomes, and you discover ways and means whereby if the finance is available you can continue the research and produce definite and practical results.
As your Lordships will know, the allocation of funds for medical research is done, as I said just now, through the Medical Research Council or the University Grants Committee. On this aspect of medical research the University Grants Committee has, on my advice, suffered more than our M.R.C. The University Grants Committee is, of course. concerned primarily with teaching, more than with research, but I am sure that your Lordships who look closely at this subject will agree that a university department is an appropriate place for research. It is appropriate because, so to

1197
speak, the academic brains are available in the university circle. It is also appropriate because there you have the young men and women who will be interested in going beyond the normal practice and will adapt themselves and prepare themselves for being effective research workers in the future.
With some pride and some diffidence I should like to tell your Lordships what has been done by the National Fund in the way of establishing Research Chairs and so on in the various universities and other establishments over the last ten years or so. In the University of London, Chairs have been established in virology; at the Royal Post-Graduate College of the Medical School at Hammersmith in orthopædics; at the University of London, in neurology; at the Institute of Psychiatry, which is part of the University of London and, jointly. the Muscular Dystrophy Group and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. in neuro-chemistry; at the Institute of the University of London, and in Oxford two research Chairs, one in pædiatrics and the other in clinical neurology; and. finally, in the West Indies, a Chair of rehabilitation in orthopædics at the University of the West Indies. I claim, on behalf of the voluntary organisation of which I have the honour to be the chairman, that this is a formidable achievement: but it hardly does more than attack the fringes of the problem. There is an immense amount to be done in these fields of medical research.
In this country, we have a tradition of successful medical research. There are names like Hunter, Jenner. Lister and Alexander Fleming to testify to this. In the United States of America, President Nixon has recently announced massive financial support from the Government for cancer research. While not for a moment do I believe that money necessarily means good research, I would maintain that there is a strong case for the Government to take a fresh look at the priorities it accords to medical research, particularly in this field of the prevention and cure of crippling and disabling diseases, when making future allocations to the University Grants Committee and the Medical Research Council. This not only has a moral and a social application, but, I would submit, has an economic application as well,
1198
because the more that you can prevent disablement from occurring, the more you can enable disabled or crippled people to lead a useful and practical life and, the more you will turn them from being users of the taxpayers' money into contributors to the rates and taxes. Therefore I should have thought that this would have a direct appeal to the economic aspects of running this country. Briefly, I would suggest that in this field of medical research there is a strong case, both on social and moral grounds and on economic grounds, for Her Majesty's Government to review, and review favourably, the allocation of public funds made to research for the future benefit of those people who may be born disabled or, by accident or mischance, become disabled during the course of their lives.
5.17 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords. I should like to thank the noble Viscount for enabling us once more to focus attention on the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. Age and disablement have always been with us, and perhaps it is because of their inevitability and familiarity that those in authority are slow to grapple with these social problems. From what we have heard to-day, it is quite clear that authorities throughout the country are regarding this matter as not one of great urgency. We have to remember that we are living in an era when healthy, clamourous youth demands priority, and it is not surprising that age cannot compete in news value with the demands of youth.
We have heard to-day a great deal about research and hospitals, and I believe that our young medical students and our young nurses who, quite understandably, are part of this wonderful youth saga, must be reminded that as our expectation of life increases so does the age of patients admitted to hospital increase and that the sharp demarcation between the acutely ill and those admitted to geriatric wards is becoming dim.
I would invite those who are allied to the medical world to read this week's first leader in the British Medical Journal. This article on the first report of the Hospital Advisory Service makes some observations that are appropriate to this debate. I should like to put it on record,

1199
because I am sure that all those who have spoken will be encouraged to find that the journal of the medical profession is giving great attention to the two debates, this one and the one that was held in another place last week. It says this:
" The trouble is that the community, through the successive Governments that have represented it, and the great majority of individuals generally turn away from the unpleasant reality hoping that someone else will remedy it at no extra cost. It is all too easy to imagine that the appointment of a commissioner, the provision of an advisory service, the devising of a new administration are an adequate substitute for the human will to get things done."
I think it is common to all the speakers to-day that we are desirous of seeing things done. It goes on to say:
"Nor is it only public indifference that is to blame for the neglect accorded to old and incontinent patients and the mentally handicapped. The medical profession likewise shows too little concern for the unfashionable specialities.
" The Director of the Hospital Advisory Service says he has heard comments from senior staff to the effect that the services for the elderly should take second place; that the needs of the chronically sick are far less important than the needs of the acute patient, and that less money and effort need be spent on this part of the service."
If the medical profession treat the aged, the disabled and the chronically sick as second-class patients, is it surprising that we find the local authorities reluctant to implement the Act? Undoubtedly, there are some callous authorities who will be delighted to learn that there is really no urgency.
It is this failure to relate the provisions of the Act to the needs of the chronically sick and disabled which calls for criticism to-day. For that reason, if I had to choose the staff of a local authority for this work, I would put the appointment of a dedicated, energetic public relations officer as the first in my order of priorities. But however excellent the P.R.O., he or she is hampered unless all to whom the Act applies can be identified.
We were told on Second Reading that registration would make heavy demands on the staff; but without registration this Act is only partially effective. If the human will is there, the staff have the means whereby they can secure a great deal of information. Separate registers are already kept for the blind, the deaf,
1200
and such other disabled as may be prescribed by the Ministry of Health. Compulsory records are kept of the chronically sick and disabled by every general practitioner in the country. Consequently, the necessary information is already available; and it was satisfactory to learn in another place on Friday that the Minister proposes to demand more energetic action. But if there is no compulsory registration, the inefficient authorities will be provided with a loophole through which once again they can escape their responsibilities. We must all realise that during the last year since the Act has been on the Statute Book, some authorities have adopted a callous attitude. We have already had examples of the failure to make exhaustive inquiries, when some authorities claim that they have only 1·4 disabled per thousand of their population and others claim that they have 10 per thousand.
Unless we insist that registration shall be compulsory, an incomplete register will be attributed by the local authorities to the refusal of the individual to be registered. In fact it is more likely to be due to the negative attitude that stems from bitterness and suspicion which are often the companions of loneliness and disability. These are the people who have over the years assumed a hard shell. They have been lonely. They have not been approached; they have a sense of isolation, as the noble Viscount has said. Of course they are not receptive to some stranger who goes to them and says, " We want to put your name on the register." These people need a special approach. Within that shell, they are longing for sympathy, for care, for understanding and appreciation.
My Lords, I suggest that the advice of the general practitioners should be sought. The general practitioner is seldom rejected by the patient, because he has been known for years by the disabled and the aged. Therefore they have faith in him. I feel that if the local authorities secure his co-operation, and that of the appropriate welfare and social workers, there will be little difficulty in securing a comprehensive register. After all, a doctor who attends a patient in some serious illness does not believe in saving a man from drowning and then leaving him on the bank of the river: he is there all the

1201
time. He has been trained to be compassionate. The doctor knows—his experience has taught him—that often a patient who is disabled or who is aged and has arthritis—which malady, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare has rightly said is an absolute curse of this country—will manage to get to the surgery, will manage to get to the chemist and get the prescription; will then get home and manage even to climb the stairs. But as the years pass they cannot manage this and they have to depend upon a child or some other person to fetch their shopping. From that moment, these individuals gradually become recluses. It may be said, " What about the neighbours? " Well, my Lords, in congested cities like London the neighbours now and then report to each other that they have not seen so-and-so for some time. A busy doctor, with a packed waiting room, also probably feels that he has not seen so-and-so, but thinks that perhaps he or she has moved elsewhere. And so the person becomes forgotten.
These " forgotten " people may prove unco-operative but they are the very ones who should be registered, because they are immobile and consequently out of touch with available help. This is the very core of the problem. To give it up by saying, " We knocked at the door, but somebody called out from behind it saying, ' Go way!'" means that the callous authority will write on their register: " No answer; they did not want us." But if that individual is approached by the doctor or the doctor's assistant, or by means of a message coming through the door from a member of one of the professions ancillary to medicine—perhaps the physiotherapist—saying: "I have come from the doctor with a special message for you ", and asking for the individual's co-operation, the attitude of these people will be entirely different.
I confess that I found it very difficult, when I read the debate on Friday, to understand some of the things that were said. It indicated to me, for instance, that those in authority, in high places, arc completely out of touch. When I read that the Minister was advised of the introduction of chemical closets for the disabled and that he was prepared to get 1,000, in the nature of an experiment
1202
which needed testing out, I was astonished. My Lords, progressive authorities have for many years provided chemical closets. I saw them years ago and I thought that I must have made a mistake when I read the speech. I could even remember the colour; it was a pink and a blue one that was shown to me. I telephoned to the Hornsey Old People's Welfare Council and said, "Did not I come to you a few years ago and discuss the whole question of chemical closets; and did you not say that you had introduced them, and actually showed them to me?" The organiser said, " Yes. I think we started five or six years ago with them, and they are excellent." Yet we were told in another place on Friday that the Minister will buy 1,000 of them with a view to testing them out. As they have been used for this purpose for many years, I think this is a small indication of the lack of initiative of those authorities who have failed to use this very important addition to the furniture for an old person. And I do not think there is anything for noble Lords to laugh about, even about closets.
One cannot over-emphasise the importance of domiciliary assistance. I give pride of place to the domestic help. I was glad to see that, again on Friday, the Minister appreciated her value. He said that if he had a magic wand and was granted one wish he would implement her activities. The Minister has a magic wand; he is the only one who has a magic wand. If he wishes he can transform the Cinderella of the health services into an adequately rewarded ministering angel. It is no good the Minister telling us as he has done, what great value he attaches to the home help; we want to know what he is prepared to pay her. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he winds up the debate, will say that, while we have all paid lip service to the home help, who is not corning forward to do this work—dirty, unpleasant and sometimes repulsive work—because she is paid a miserable few shillings an hour, the Government are prepared to do something more to help her. I want to know whether they are going to say that the home help is a key figure who will be helped. By helping her, of course, the Government would not only be improving her status, which is very important for her, but at the same time would be helping the chronically

1203
sick and disabled who are dependent not only on her care but on her cheerful company.
5.33 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has been so broadly drawn that there is a great deal of confusion generally as to how the Act can be used to help the mentally ill. Several questions have been asked about this in another place, but I feel that a more precise definition by the Department is necessary. The mentally handicapped seem to be fairly well covered, and the needs of the old who arc senile, or who are suffering from some mental disability, are also fairly clear. But what plans has the Minister in mind for the much more difficult area of chronic schizophrenia arising in middle age? Also, what about the mentally sick who are chronically disabled? These problems must be faced. It is no use pretending that they do not exist. I should like some information from the noble Lord who is to wind up for the Government as to the Government's intentions with regard to these groups.
Much has been done over the last few years to try to establish smaller units rather than enormous hospitals. This has had varying results, but much information and knowledge of the problems involved have been and will continue to be acquired. There is no doubt that a large number of patients in subnormality hospitals today would be better off in community care hostels or in their own homes under supervision, although I personally feel that there will always remain a group for which this will be impossible. If local authorities could pay more attention to the housing needs of handicapped people, and give them more assistance in their own homes, this would help to ease slightly the appalling overcrowding and understaffing in mental and subnormality hospitals and would also, of course, be a saving of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. The extra money that has been allocated to local authorities for these hospitals, although not enough, will also help to ease the burden. Here I think a word of appreciation would be appropriate for the army of home helps who all do such a magnificent job. I think they could well be better paid. And
1204
of course, I must mention the voluntary workers, on whom the hospitals and social services rely more and more and whose help will become even more necessary as these schemes gather momentum.
Now I should like to say a few words with reference to Section 26 of the Act, which deals with autism. I am sure that most of your Lordships are aware that autism is a condition beginning in early infancy which has now been recognised by experts throughout the world as having a certain clinical unity. The most important of the handicaps in early infantile autism, is a severe impairment in the development of language, affecting both speech and gesture. In the most severe cases there is no understanding or use of spoken or gestured language. When the handicap is less profound comprehension improves with increasing age, and speech develops slowly and with characteristic abnormalities. There is considerable variation in the degree of handicap. but there is inevitably some intellectual retardation which can be severe. All this leads to behaviour disorders which can be very distressing to all concerned.
The National Society for Autistic Children, founded in 1962 by a group of parents who were deeply dissatisfied with the provision then made by the authorities for the education and training of their children, has done much on its own. It has set up its own schools. Five are already opened and three more are expected to open this year. It has organised training courses and information services for parents and professional people, but it is a small group and recognises that it cannot possibly provide a national service. Although the first essential is early diagnosis and assessment of the child's needs, the next essential is advice to the parents on the management and upbringing of their autistic child. Home teachers are already provided for young deaf children, and parents of young spastic children can obtain specific instruction in management at places like the Wolfson Centre. Some similar arrangement is required for the parents of autistic children.
With help, which many families at the moment do not receive, it is possible for the child to be kept at home where it will grow up to be able to enjoy life and remain outside an institution. Most of the schools, training centres and hospitals

1205
available for mentally handicapped children at the moment lack staff, buildings and equipment which would enable them to help autistic children to reach their maximum potential. Huge areas of the country, involving many hundreds of autistic children, have no facilities at all for their help. The South-East is best served with 22 of the 32 educational units available. Special attention also needs to be given to the problems of autistic adolescents who need education and vocational training well beyond the ordinary school-leaving age. I think the reply given on April 6 of this year in another place by the Secretary of State for Social Services to Mr. Driberg was quite inadequate. Nearly all autistic children will remain handicapped throughout their lives, but proper education can help them at the very least to fit into the community and, above all, to find some interest and enjoyment in life. Much has been accomplished, but even more needs to be done.
5.40 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, so much has already been said, and very well said, by others, that I shall be highly selective in the points that I shall make. In the first place, I should like to say something about statistics. My notes are not very complete, but I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who quoted recent statistics which show up such enormous discrepancies between one local authority and another. The discrepancies are so large that without having examined them more carefully—even if I had done so I might have come to no conclusion—it is difficult to say how much they really mean. Surely, the question of identification is extraordinarily important. If, for instance, one local authority has identified only a proportion, say a quarter, a half or even only two-thirds of its disabled population, the amount it spends per individual will accordingly appear to be much larger than it actually is.
Secondly, referring to Section 1 of the Act—and I assure your Lordships that I am not going through the Act section by section—surely the question of information is all important. I was greatly pleased to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that a booklet of information is shortly to appear. I should like to be further assured that it will be kept
1206
up to date. If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would care to add to his remarks I should like to know exactly whom it is intended that this booklet should reach. It is so important that the relevant information should reach, first, the people affected and, of course, their families; and, secondly, the people who have to prescribe the help, equipment and aids of various kinds.
I was impressed by the suggestion, or the statement—again my notes are not sufficiently complete to enable me to identify who made it; it might again have been the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby —that some notice should he sent round with the rates. This seems to me to be a splendid idea. It could be done once a year, or even once in two years. A simple slip of paper could contain a notice calling attention to the aids which could be given to disabled people. The majority of the leaflets would, of course, quickly reach the wastepaper basket having been sent to homes where there were no disabled. But in homes where there were disabled people I am sure that they would be seized upon immediately. Although most of my post goes into the wastepaper basket, I would immediately seize on a leaflet which allowed me to expect a large pension for retired professors of medicine, or something of that kind. When such a publication refers to one's particular problem one reads it.
I was very glad to note that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Disabled Living Foundation. It has a splendid information service at its aids centre in Kensington High Street. Here, my Lords, I have to declare an interest, though not a financial one. I have a small position on this Disabled Living Foundation and I have been interested in it for a good many years. I am dignified by the term of " Adviser " to their music group. The group does notable work in encouraging music among disabled people, choirs and so on, and in devising cunning methods by which people with physical handicaps may use instruments which they would not otherwise be able to play. It is one of the ways, too, in which the disabled can come more into society, and we all acknowledge the importance of that.
It seems to me that if information was periodically supplied to disabled people,

1207
it would move local authorities to be sure that they carried out their duties under Section 2; a point which was made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. Skipping to Section 16, which deals with the placing of disabled people in employment, that is extremely important; and the aid centre of the Disabled Living Foundation shows a number of cunning devices whereby very severely disabled people may do useful work; for instance, in the domestic field, sewing, embroidery, typing, telephony and that kind of occupation. There are, I believe, a number of people running quite lucrative businesses from their beds.
My Lords, I must refer to Section 17 of the Act, though I knew that it would be well dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. It refers to the young chronic sick. I should hate to put priorities on some parts of this Act, because that might mean that less attention would be given to other parts, but if I had to put a priority on a section I think that this would be my priority No. 1. Although doing too little for the disabled is bad enough, and doing nothing at all is even worse, the putting of young chronic sick into wards with geriatric mental patients is really doing extreme harm—and the worst kind of harm, because it is harm to the personality.
The noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, called attention to Section 22 and the question of research. The noble Lord read out the whole of the section, but I should like to read only certain parts of it. It says:
" The Secretary of State shall…lay before Parliament a report on the progress of research and development by or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown."
I was one of those responsible for the passing of this Act, and in retrospect it seems to me that that is a rather inadequate requirement. It is simply to lay before Parliament. It is not said whether Parliament does anything about it when the report is laid. It seems to refer only to research and development carried out by or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown. I suppose that the amount of research actually carried out by a Minister of the Crown would be comparatively small, though he might promote a lot of research, so that limits it to " on behalf of " a Minister of the
1208
Crown. I hope that the report of the research which I think will be due at the end of the year will go a little further than that.
Here, my Lords, I must declare another interest, in that I am vice-president of the Bath Institute for Medical Engineering. I should like to say unashamedly, having declared my interest, what an important institute I think this is. It has certain very notable advantages. One is that its premises are actually in the grounds of St. Martins Hospital. It has doctors and surgeons on its staff who can see the need for the various aids to the disabled which the Institute can produce and can try them out. Medically, of course, Bath has traditionally a large population of people who are disabled in one way or another, particularly with rheumatic diseases. It also has a university, which is noted for its strength in technology and engineering. Thus there is a combination of talents which may not be readily equalled anywhere else. It is doing work, of course, in other fields of medical engineering—for example, in monitoring devices for the concentration of anesthetic vapours—which have no immediate bearing on the disabled. But it has another advantage over some research institutions: that it is ready to take up ideas of other people and looks upon the development of those ideas and making them practical as one of its important duties, when so many research workers are only interested in the ideas which spring from their own heads.
These are the only points that I want to make. I am only too conscious that I have left out large and important fields such as the deaf, the blind, the dyslexic and the autistic, but only because I know that others like the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, have already referred to these and that others who are following will mention them.
I conclude by wondering whether your Lordships would agree with what I have always felt myself—namely, that I would much rather be blind than severely or totally deaf. Blind people have their friends, their social contacts and their conversation. You talk to a blind person as to any other friend. They can listen to music. But the deaf person is isolated. It is a pain to go and see a deaf person and try to shout out some triviality about it being a nice day, which you perhaps

1209
have to repeat four times, and do not make yourself understood. You do not readily go again. I think my view is right.
5.52 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords. I shall not detain your Lordships too long, because we have listened to many excellent speeches and there are many more to come. I have only two points to mention. Before I do so, may I offer my humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for his most excellent and interesting maiden speech?
My two points have already been spoken about and nobody could have spoken better about them than the two speakers who did so. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, spoke on the question of what local authorities are going to do. Like him, I am completely convinced that most local authorities do not consider this matter seriously. We only have to read in Hansard the report of the debate in another place on Friday to see how many bad local authorities we have, how lazy they are and that they do not take kindly to this sort of thing. I think that it will take a great deal from the Secretary of State to force them into putting these requirements into effect and keeping them up to date. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said this in a much better way than I have, so I will not add any more on that aspect.
My other point concerns autism. I should like to support all that my noble friend Lady Loudoun said on this subject. I have had the opportunity of working in a number of psychiatric hospitals for a good many years, so I have seen a certain number of autistic children and young people. In the last ten or twenty years, a new treatment has been discovered and it is extraordinary to see the difference between what is being done to-day and what was being done some years ago.
I have a friend who has an autistic son. He went to school but, of course, he did not go to a school for autistic children. This boy is now 22. He had some fits in adolescence and has deteriorated a good deal since then. He is now in a closed ward in hospital for his aggressive behaviour, but will return to an open group ward once this is brought under control. At the moment
1210
he is on large doses of tranquillisers. I compare him with a little boy I know of 8 or 9 in a hospital in the area where I worked. He is a nice little boy, with a high I.Q., but he is very aggressive. Before he came to us he had been in a big London hospital, where I believe he caused damage amounting to at least £2,000. We had a padded cell built for him and he had to have four nurses, because he had not only damaged everything he could damage but he had hurt himself and could not be allowed with other children. The last time I saw him, about a month or six weeks ago, after he had been seen by a great authority on autistic children who advised certain treatment, he was with three other people in the dining room of the hospital, talking to his nurse. He was not quite intelligible. I could understand only a word or two of what he was saying, but the nurse obviously understood everything he said. This was entirely due to the new treatment which had been prescribed by this expert on autism.
So I should like to say that there is a chance for all autistic children if they arc found and diagnosed at any early stage, are given the proper education and taken to the right places. I would urge on the Government that education authorities should take this question of the training of teachers for autistic children very seriously. It is a specialised subject. There ought to be one teacher for every child. That is almost impossible, but I do not think that units should be of more than five children to a teacher, otherwise the children will not get any benefit.
5.58 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in your Lordships' debate this afternoon. May I first add to those of other noble Lords who have already spoken my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne on his maiden speech. The fact that he has not addressed your Lordships for I think 39 years is I believe your Lordships' loss.
The whole problem of the disabled has never before received so much emphasis as to-day, both in this country and abroad. Valuable as it is in making mandatory so much of what enlightened local authorities have done for the disabled under permissive powers in the past, the

1211
Act is in my opinion devoid of an end product. It does not of itself promote and ensure the means of restoration of a disabled person to a viable place in the economic life of the nation, which is the object of rehabilitation, as I see it.
The philosophy of the British Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, with which I am associated, contains, among others, two phrases which I believe are worthy of attention and which, in the context of to-day, have particular relevance to us in relation to both medicine and employment. They are, first, that
" in medicine there is a duty to preserve and improve physical function and to appraise capacity for work."
In other words, medicine is faced with the task of restoring function. Secondly, placed in the statement as " worthy of attention " is
" in Government there is a duty to retrain lost industrial faculty or to train an alternative faculty."
In a democracy, the State expresses this philosophy through the Government it elects, so it is right that we should impose upon Governments such a duty, especially when the ruling Party claims to care. However, this does not mean that the rest of society can evade action. It must not merely delegate responsibility but participate in it by ensuring that by its own efforts executive responsibility is carried out and leads to achievements. This means that industry, commerce, the trade unions and professional associations have a share in absorbing in gainful employment all those who have been restored by the combined skills of medicine, Government and society. The problem of the disabled in society will, I believe, always he with us, and it is surely for us to sharpen our skills and abilities in order to recognise at any given moment where the most acute problem lies.
One of the greatest problems to be faced is in relation to motivation, if I may use an Americanism; and here one has to decide sooner or later how delicate a balance there is between incentive and disincentive. One must recognise the basic right of those who want to, to enjoy to the maximum the privileges of a worthwhile place in society. Once motivation is right, an investment in rehabili-
1212
tation can be justified. There are two notable problems to be faced. The first concerns the way in which disability affects the efficiency of the physical mechanism, which is a problem for medicine. The second problem is the impact of environmental factors upon that efficiency. And always remember, my Lords, that the longer the delay the less likely is the affected person to get better. Some recent figures from the Department of Social Security show that over 900,000 people were on benefit, and of these over 500,000 have been on benefit for over six months.
The practical definition of rehabilitation might be " the restoration of capacity for normal work or normal wage-earning". When a disabling condition arises, medicine has the problem of discovering how far the efficiency of the mechanism has been impaired, and then of devising the means of restoration to as near normal as possible. Ultimate success, in other words rehabilitation, may be affected one way or another by the impact of subsequent environmental factors. Medicine may find its own success marred by factors in the patient's life, such as social prejudice, poverty, bad housing, lack of opportunity in the economic set-up, even in employment. We should be concerned with the enhancement of residual ability: we should be committed to the prevention of superimposed disability. We must work at the task of providing substitutes for lost function. We must devise complete reorganisation. What is achieved by the patient in social activity is the justification of rehabilitation. An important part of this, namely, vocational training or retraining, is generally accepted; but the employment of the retrained is a problem which is often conditioned by such things as the state of the labour market, the nature and availability of transport and, by no means least, architectural design. These two latter are fit subjects for even more intense study in the engineering fields than they are now receiving.
I ask you to remember this, my Lords: there is no really sound reason, other than prejudice, why an adequately assessed and treated re-abled worker should not be an asset to an expanding country's economy. Perhaps one of the most delightful success stories of fulfilment in this respect is one that was told

1213
by Senator Humphrey, a former Vice-President of the United States. A young woman, severely disabled, had gone through all the phases of rehabilitation. She got her first job and, while still on a comparatively low wage rate, was thrilled to see on her wage slip a small deduction for income tax. At last she was no longer an encumbrance upon society. She was actually a contributor; and her excitement knew no bounds. With increasing skill and efficiency, her pay packet grew larger and by the end of the year she was a leader in a campaign for the abolition of " this intolerable burden of income tax ". Who would say that her rehabilitation was incomplete? Surely she was no longer disabled. In another place last week, Mr. Jack Ashley said, among other things, that the number of disabled people who are unemployed is five times the national average, and it is of paramount importance that the 50 per cent. of British employers who are failing to employ their quota of disabled persons should fulfil their obligations. I agree with that sentiment, but surely it is unenforceable. I shall be interested to see whether my noble friend Lord Sandford comments upon this point when he comes to wind up.
I should like to support wholeheartedly all that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about the Government circular. He has put his finger on a critical spot. When one is dealing with a problem of some 2 million permanently and substantially handicapped people, as we have to-day in this country, I do not believe that the loose wording of the Government circular of August 17, 1970, in which they stated. inter alia, regarding Section 1 of the Act:
" It is not a requirement of the section that authorities should attempt 100 per cent. identification and registration of the handicapped "
is nearly positive enough. Some local authorities are first-class, but others are not. I well remember moving an Amendment during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House to make further education mandatory rather than permissive. so far as local authorities were concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who was then replying for the Government, begged me not to press the Amendment on the grounds that we might lose the Bill altogether because of
1214
the time factor. I agreed, because it was better to have some Act rather than no Act at all; but herein lie some of its limitations.
I should like to ask my noble friend. Lord Sandford, when he comes to wind up for Her Majesty's Government, whether he will take some urgent action to improve upon the monstrous three-wheeler vehicle. I believe these vehicles to be thoroughly dangerous and unsatisfactory. I drove one once and found it a most unpleasant experience. What is required is a suitable four-wheeled vehicle, at no greater cost than the three-wheeler. I wonder why there is reluctance to make progress on the matter? Is there an official fear that there might suddenly be an increased demand? I have read what my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, said in reply to the debate in another place last week. He said that the whole issue of vehicles for the disabled was under study by the Government. My Lords, when can we expect a decision? I hope that " under. discussion " is not the same as the description of Royal Commissions once used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he described them as the classical method used by people who did not want any real reform.
I would put forward one suggestion for consideration. What about some easement by way of tax relief for those who are disabled and who must have special equipment in order to effectively pursue their chosen careers? If my noble friend, when he comes to reply, has to tell me that there is no money, my answer will be, using some words of Emerson,
" Can anybody remember when times were not bad and money scarce?"
6.8 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate to-day. I was very pleased that he mentioned the importance of social life for the disabled, because in this connection I should like to raise paragraphs (c) and (f) of Section 2(1), covering holidays and outings. Such things make all the difference to the home-bound. Those who are able to get into cars can be driven about to all kinds of exciting

1215
places by kind volunteers, but there is a problem where special transport has to be provided for seriously handicapped people. This type of transport is extremely expensive and it is often necessary to make a wide tour, first of all to pick up all the disabled people living in scattered districts. For example, in London, if one could gather a load of these people—and they enjoy being together—they could be taken to Kew, to Richmond Park, to Windsor and sometimes perhaps to the sea. Some of the severely handicapped might also be taken for a trip on the Thames. They might even, for a bit of fun, be taken down the King's Road to see the sights. At this moment, and all this week, there are quite a number of disabled people who are being pushed around in their wheelchairs at the Chelsea Flower Show. The Act refers to arrangements for the provision of lectures, games, outings et cetera, but it does not say who pays.
Let me now say a word or two about holidays. Noble Lords who saw the Red Cross film in the Grand Committee Room, of which I had the honour to be one of the sponsors, will have seen the handicapped children being looked after by young members; they will have seen them joining in the games and races, and even in the novelty of peeling potatoes, something which they have never done and which is fun when doing it with other people. As well as that, they joined in the swimming, and of course the exciting pony rides. All this was fun, and it was enjoyed by the helpers as well as by the handicapped. This brings a wonderful atmosphere into their very dull lives. In London we are very lucky because grants are available from the London Boroughs Youth Committee for holidays for the handicapped; and the young people helping with these holidays can get a grant from the Inner London Education Authority towards their training—they of course, already having had elementary training. This is not so in other parts of the country, and the expense of holidays of this sort becomes a real problem.
The types of case that we like to include on these holidays include cerebral palsy, spinal bifidus, spastics, autistic children and others, because we believe that the mixing together of these dis-
1216
abilities is a good thing and cheers them all up. But, of course, they have to be supervised, not only by the young people who come to look after them and help them to enjoy a week or a fortnight, but also by specially trained people, like trained nurses, caterers, physiotherapists, welfare officers and others, according to the disability. These holidays are very worth while. But for adults it is a much more difficult problem, and much more expensive, because they come under welfare and not under education. The welfare grants are very limited, and therefore much more difficult to get, and there are many more handicapped than there is money available to provide for them. These holidays are important not only for the children and the adults, but also because they help parents and relatives, or those who are caring for the handicapped, to have a holiday or perhaps just a rest.
The real problem, as has been.said, is that although grants are available, the way in which local authorities use them differs in many parts of the country, as it does in the London boroughs. I am not at the moment talking about the disabled people living in hospitals, hostels or homes; I am concerned with the homebound, who are not always known to the local authority, and who rely on the different voluntary societies for any holiday or outing. The official view, no doubt governed by finance, is that one short holiday is all that can be managed. But we in the Red Cross find that immense pleasure and benefit can be given by regular outings. If grants towards the cost of transport, and particularly for hiring special vehicles, could be gone into, this would be a very real help. Also, if the word " provision " could be made compulsive instead of permissive, a great deal more could be done by the voluntary societies.
Noble Lords know the generosity of the disabled fellow sufferers, and our " mobile Bench " (Lord Aberdare's brilliant term) is a great example of this. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he replies, not to let them down. I would ask him please to tell me whether it was intended that the cost of transport was to be included in the arrangements for the provision of outings and the facilitating of holidays in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Section 2.
6.16 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for having brought the treatment of the chronically sick and disabled once again to the attention of this House. I am of the opinion that the Act which was passed is a substantial and important one, and if properly put into effect it will assist considerably in solving the problem that we are facing. I think one should pay tribute to the Member of Parliament, Mr. Alfred Morris, for having introduced a Bill on this subject, and having piloted that Bill into a place among the Statutes of our country. In a long Parliamentary experience, I have rarely, if ever, come across so refreshing an experience as witnessing this inspired effort, one which was met by such warm support from every Party in Parliament and throughout the country as a whole. I think, too, one ought to say here, as was said in another place, that Mr. Morris is to be congratulated on the great honour which has been bestowed upon him as the first recipient of the Harding Award for services to the disabled.
Living as we do in a world and time of stress and strain, we are apt to overlook the needs of our fellow citizens who are afflicted by physical or mental incapacities, unless, as in the case in some families, there is one or more than one member of the family who suffer such infirmity. That there are hundreds of thousands throughout the country of those who have no relatives to look after them, whose relatives ignore their existence, is well known to the various public and private bodies concerned with their problems. The magnificent work that is done by the voluntary organisations in this field, and by some authorities, must be acknowledged, but the indifference to the plight of these human beings is so widespread that the nation as a whole had to be jerked into a sense of its responsibility, in my view, by such a measure as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
It is now clear that millions of afflicted persons have been denied elementary necessities during the whole of their lives, which could have made living more tolerable for them and even reasonably happy. It is high time that the Government—whichever Government it may be
1218
—should fully implement the provisions of the Act, so as to relieve the anxieties and sufferings of those to whom it relates, and to do so to the fullest extent possible. The recent publications of the Social Security Division of the Office of Census and Surveys shows the strong need and urgency of remedial measures, but such action, to be as fully effective as possible, must in my view depend upon two factors in particular. It must be known what persons are in need of help, and those persons must be fully informed as to where they can obtain that help and what kind of help it is the duty of the authorities to provide.
The provisions of Section 1 of the Act are not to come into force until October. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, refer to this matter, but I ask: Why was there delay? Surely, every person to whom Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 applies depends upon information being ascertained in accordance with Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Otherwise, how can the local authorities know —I emphasise this—this need for making available in their area,
" services provided under arrangements made with the authority under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act "?
Or how can the authority ensure that every person shall be informed of any other services that are relevant to his needs?
What is causing grave concern to the general public is the fact that a year after the passing of the Act many local authorities have not yet even begun to implement Section 1 which makes it mandatory to search for and register the disabled. One such instance has been brought to my attention where a local voluntary body, recognising the fact that the reorganisation of social services was imposing a great strain upon the Department, volunteered to do this job for the local authority—I am not sure whether it is not the same case as that referred to earlier by a noble Lord on the other side of the House. They volunteered to do this job for the local authority. The local authority said that this was not acceptable, as the voluntary body do not have suitably qualified workers and the work done by the voluntary body would have to be checked in any event and no time would be saved at all. The Disablement

1219
Income Group who, among others, took exception to this decision, pointed out, quite rightly, as is my opinion, that it does not require an expert to seek out a housebound cripple or a paralysed person living in his own home without adequate support.
The Minister, Sir Keith Joseph, quite rightly said in another place that increased co-operation between statutory and voluntary bodies would be necessary to tackle problems of the chronic disabled. Is it not now time for the Government to take the initiative and to convene a conference of representatives of the relevant agencies to iron out difficulties such as the one I have just mentioned? I believe that the calling of a conference of that kind would be very useful in getting the assistance of the voluntary bodies—they are excellent bodies themselves—to implement the Act, and perhaps it would bring a considerable amount of information to the attention of the Government themselves and their representatives which hitherto they have not obtained.
A further example of how the Act is not being implemented comes to my mind. One of the less affluent boroughs was approached by a voluntary organisation on behalf of a housebound woman and a telephone was requested. The answer was that the authority in question did not have sufficient funds to pay for the installation of a telephone and the application was rejected. The end result was that the voluntary organisation felt obliged to pay for the installation itself. Such instances quite rightly incur the anger of voluntary organisations. They feel that it is their job to supplement the statutory obligations of local authorities, not to replace them. The two examples I have given illustrate the ambivalent feelings of local authorities towards voluntary organisations. On the one hand, they will reject the offer of social work help from " non-experts; " on the other hand, they will unstintingly use their resources rather than implement what is, after all, an Act of Parliament.
Unfortunately, certain parts of the Act give local authorities the power to be discretionary in the evaluation of need. The Act has many phrases such as:
" So far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable…
1220
et cetera. May I suggest that it is here that the Minister should acknowledge and accept that it is his Department's responsibility to ensure that local authorities do not default on the spirit of the Act; and, if possible, he should set up the means to check that they are complying to the satisfaction of the general public, and apply pressure where necessary.
The example I quoted regarding a less affluent borough being approached for a telephone gives rise to another matter of supreme importance; namely, the question of disparity of resources between the poor and the rich local authorities. Those boroughs which have taken up the challenge embodied in the Act must be duly commended. But is it not far easier for a wealthier borough to do so than a local authority with a high population of unemployed and disabled? It is high time for the Minister to take a hard look at this aspect and to make available the necessary resources in order to remove the unequal state of affairs which now obtains. Where a borough is obviously struggling to find a means to help its ailing community, should it not have access to funds from the central Government? The question of whether there is a disparity in various areas can be referred to by pointing out that, while the academic authorities agree that the incidence of severe disablement is evenly spread across our country, there can be no doubt that the incidence is particularly severe in some localities. In South Wales there are some mining communities where over 50 per cent. of the men over 50 years of age are severely damaged; and in the other coalfields—in Yorkshire, Durham, and parts of Scotland—the incidence is of a high nature, too.
Many of the points that I had intended to deal with have already been dealt with, and dealt with very effectively, by speakers who have addressed your Lordships before me. Noble Lords have expressed themselves in a manner beyond my capabilities, but I should like to mention one or two other points. I am wondering whether it has ever been taken into consideration, or whether the Government are taking into consideration, that changes take place in the possibilities of training such people as the blind, for example, who require assistance. In Leicester the Royal Institute for the Blind

1221
state that the blind have for a considerable period been making basketwork. This basketwork is now no longer being used to anything like the extent it was before. For example, prison baskets are now made in synthetics; and other uses of this product are falling very far from the position they held before as, for example, by the Post Office. Fresh machinery is required by an institution of that description for box making and later corrugated boxes, and it is not within their capability to provide the necessary funds for this purpose. I would suggest that this is a point which might be taken into consideration when examining the situation of the disabled, with a view to assistance being given.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. As I said before, I think all the points have been made admirably by previous speakers but the numbers which have now been revealed—3 million people coming within the category of those with whose cases we are dealing at the present time—have to be carefully regarded as a matter of extreme importance, and I hope that the Government will give maximum help and will insist upon local authorities doing their job as they should do it under the Act.
6.30 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate this afternoon and many re— markable contributions have been made. We are much indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for allowing us to spend a Wednesday afternoon discussing so very important a subject. I was most interested in what the Minister had to say, and I was delighted to hear that more money is being made available for the help which is so urgently needed, and which has been described so eloquently by other noble Lords.
The Minister made one reference that I should like to pick up before I come to the few things I want to say on the subject of this Motion. He referred to someone who would have been here to-day and would have spoken in this debate, and who has done more than anyone in my generation to organise voluntary services in a variety of different spheres of our national life—I mean, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady
1222
Swanborough, better known to us all as Stella Reading. It was a terrible shock to hear of her sudden death, as I did on Saturday morning when I was at home, listening to the wireless. She and I worked together for many years in the days before the war, when evacuation was being planned. We lived side by side in the same street in London, and it was a tremendous shock to realise that someone who had done so much voluntary work for the community and who was so deeply interested in all forms of voluntary work would not be with us to-day. I want to pay my tribute to her for all she has done; and I am sure that in saying that I am only voicing what many other noble Lords in this House feel about her sudden death.
My Lords, my contribution to-day is really to stand almost in a white sheet, because I am perhaps the only speaker in this debate who is actually a member of a local authority. I am a county councillor, here standing in your Lordships' House. Only yesterday afternoon I flew from Newcastle down to London in time to take my share of the interminable discussions on the Industrial Relations Bill, and I came straight from a county council meeting. All that has been said about local authorities is absolutely true, but I should like to make one point. Many local authorities are most anxious to do what they can to implement the Act, but there are quite a number of difficulties in their way. I am one of the people who want to see Section 1 to the Act, which calls for a register of handicapped people, put into effect. I am the chairman of the social work committee on my county council. I have a perfectly excellent director of social work and a team of excellent social workers. I think I shall be able to get a register of all the disabled and handicapped people in the county which I represent, but the task is very difficult.
If I may say so, I was immensely glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, all that she said about co-operation with the local doctors and the medical officer of health. It seems to me that it is difficult to get a register voluntarily. It is also very difficult to get the doctors to give one, from their roll of patients, all the necessary information

1223
about disabled people. It may be that that information will come in time; and perhaps people will realise that this is not an attempt to pry into their private affairs but a genuine attempt to try to find out the extent of the problem in any given area. The area that I represent is tiny, and it should not be at all difficult for me to get all the information I want. But when we think of the cities, and the large areas in London, there is obviously a great problem. Yet I am sure that it is essential to get it all done, and I would endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said about trying to use a variety of approaches not only through the doctors (because it seems to be difficult to get the co-operation of the doctors) but also through the services ancillary to medicine, as she described them. and all local authorities have those services.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that one could use many of the voluntary organisations which are expert in many of these subjects, although they may not have what are called professional social workers. However, they have people who are accustomed to working with and knowing about disabled people, and such workers can be used. But I would suggest to the Government that it is tremendously important that we should insist upon getting this register, because otherwise we have no idea what the total picture is in any given area; and until we get that it is extremely difficult to take any extensive action. Local authorities must be urged, and members of local authorities must be told, that this is a real priority in their lives. Again speaking as a member of a local authority I know that there are innumerable subjects which tumble on to one's desk and about which one has to know. It is difficult to decide on priorities. But it seems to me that this is one of the real priorities, and one could turn an eye away from some of the other subjects which one is looking after, because this is the first opportunity we have ever had to try to deal with this subject, and the responsibility is being laid on local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, mentioned the great importance of getting local authorities to look at this responsibility. Of course they have not done
1224
a great deal so far. Most local authorities, and particularly the staff, are enormously overworked. But the work is now being done in Scotland, where operation of the Act has been going on for about two years and is working very well. But it is only just beginning in England, so that makes it more difficult for the authorities there. But I still think that every effort should be made by the central department to impress upon the local government that this is a number one priority.
During this debate, several noble Lords have mentioned various items of importance under this Act, and I should like to mention just one or two. I would first thank the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, and the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, very much for what they said about the importance of educating autistic children. Your Lordships will know that I have a very close association with the National Society for Autistic Children, and only recently I had the opportunity of discussing this subject with the Minister of Education on a deputation. The Minister was most sympathetic and understanding, and very anxious to help in every possible way to bring the training of teachers for autistic children into the other important aspects of the training of teachers. Also my plea to her, which is one that has been echoed by many noble Lords, is that there should be included among the special teaching arrangements in any given local education authority, the teaching of autistic children. It should not be done by a voluntary society. It is impossible; it is far too big a subject. It should be done in the same way as the teaching of the deaf, or the blind, or the spastics, as part of the education authority's responsibility. I hope very much that the Government will encourage all local education authorities to make a point of including among the specialist teaching that of the teaching of autistic children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, raised another very important point which we must not leave out—it is in the Act, and it is again something that can be laid at the door of the local authorities—and that is the question of holidays and of facilities for doing things other than just earning a living. No one

1225
feels more anxious than I do that disabled people should be put into the position of being as independent as possible, to be able to earn their living and be taught whatever trade or work they can do. But there are other things in life. There is the joy we get from going to see beautiful things, picture galleries, listening to music, attending courses in subjects in which we are interested. These should come into the picture as well as the question of the disabled being rehabilitated and earning their living. It is vital that they should also have the joy of doing something not technical, something that helps the spirit and the morale. I hope that the local authorities—because they now have mandatory powers—will help with things other than just the technical matter of rehabilitation and earning a living. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referred to youth clubs, spread throughout the country for the physically handicapped and able-bodied young people working together—what are known as the Phab Clubs. These have been an immense success. They are running courses of a week or a fortnight on interesting subjects for young people, the handicapped and able-bodied together. I am very keen that the local authorities should back that as well.
There is one further point in which I am particularly interested. Shortly, due to the generosity of the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, we shall be able to build a purpose-built college of further education which disabled people will he able to go to for a week or a fortnight, not for technical training but for just the sort of things of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, spoke, to do with the study of art or music or other subjects than people want. This enterprise, which is only beginning, will, I hope, make a great contribution to help disabled people. It will be built by voluntary funds and it will be among the Selly Oak Colleges in Birmingham. Once it is built it will be somewhere the local authorities can send people to, where they will find that extra bit of happiness and interest. They will be enabled to meet other people, non-handicapped people as well, since it will be in the middle of an area where there are a number of colleges of further education not for handicapped people at all, and quite near the university. Indeed,
1226
we hope to get help from the university extra-mural teachers.
I mention these things because they are all part of the good which arises out of this remarkable Act of Parliament. It requires a tremendous amount of energy, drive and imagination, and for all the members of the local authorities to take an interest in it. It is something which will revolutionise the lives of the people about whom we are speaking. There are three million of them. I do not believe half the country knows how many there are. Every day we hear on the wireless of tragic cases, of serious motor accidents and so on, and these people are being added to the list every day. Yet we cannot get the local authorities or anyone else to take a real interest in it. Perhaps to-day in this House and in another place our words will be listened to and we shall recruit from among the voluntary enthusiasts as well as local authorities people who will help to make this a living Act, not just a dead Act written on a piece of paper. I feel sure we shall have done something well worth while if out of this debate comes action of this kind.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I join, as I am sure does everyone in the tributes paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, to Lady Reading. Certainly, as she says, there has been no one in our time, man or woman, Peer or commoner, who has done as much for the voluntary services as Stella Reading. Many of the large things are well known. I suppose, perhaps, in these collective days no individual will ever be able to build a big social service, as she, with many friends, but in a sense on her own, built the W.V.S. There are many smaller things which cannot in some cases be revealed even yet; she helped people in circumstances that might be embarrassing if they were known. But at any rate there was nobody more effective, or for that matter more kindly. If one really wanted help for somebody in an extremely sticky position Stella Reading was the one person who provided the effective help, and she did so often. I feel sure that if she were asked now—and no doubt she is enjoying this debate elsewhere—she would say that if there is one person left to us here who is likely before the close to do more for the voluntary services

1227
than anyone else, that would be the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who is far too modest to recognise that fact; but I am sure that is how it would have struck Lady Reading.
The noble Baroness said that so far as she was aware she was the only member of a local authority speaking in this debate, and I have no doubt, as she said that, that as she always speaks the truth it is true; I have no reason to think it is not. Perhaps it is just as well that I am no longer a member, as I was once proud to be, of the Oxford City Council, because, so far as I can make out, their record is deplorable, and if I were still a member I should not have the temerity to face the House at all. I do not know why things have gone to the dogs since my time in Oxford, but so it seems.
The House is waiting to hear important speeches from the noble Baroness who is to follow me, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the Minister. I rise to speak more by way of token than in order to take up any time or say anything very important. I am afraid that, through engagements that simply could not be put off, I was unable to hear the first speeches, including the fine speech, as I know it was and heard it was, of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and speeches, also very successful, from the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and others. I was particularly sorry to miss the maiden speech, which everyone says was so good, of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, who understands this problem so well at first hand. But yet it might be argued in the circumstances that this is an occasion when I would have done well to keep silent; I miss a good opportunity, as they say in French, to hold my tongue.
Nevertheless, it would have seemed a little discourteous to the House, in view of the fact that I had the great honour of technically carrying this Bill through this House last year, and it would have shown some lack of respect for the noble Lord— he is not a noble Lord yet—Mr. Alf. Morris, who deserves whatever honours this world has to offer. It might have shown some slight lack of respect for him, because we all regard his achievement as perhaps the greatest single legislative achievement of a private Member that any of us can remember. It has
1228
been well brought out, even while I have been here—by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for example—that we now realise that the situation is even more urgent than we thought it was last year. It was partially uncovered last year by Mr. Alf. Morris and many others, but now that the facts are beginning to emerge and they probably have not all come out yet —the situation is more grave. We now realise that the Bill was still more overdue than we thought at the time. Therefore, I make no apology for saying these very few words.
Some of your Lordships may, or may not, have heard that I have been involved in a struggle against a moral evil. It may be said, on the face of it, that here we are struggling against a physical evil and not, in that sense, combating something that is morally detestable. That is certainly true if we think of the disabled themselves and their affliction. But if we are thinking of ourselves, of the community as a whole, then certainly our failure to do anything effective to help the disabled in the past is a moral delinquency of the first order. So we can fairly describe it as a moral evil if we do not do far better in the future than we have ever done in the past. If one asks why have we done so relatively little, why has it taken us so much effort and so much time to discover the facts and the poignancy and the possibilities of help—because many people have told us to-day, Lady Ruthven among others, of things that are being done to improve the lot of those who are disabled—I offer this thought. Perhaps it is because we ourselves refuse to admit what has been occasionally brought out in the speeches —and I remember the noble Lord, Lord Platt, speaking in the debates last year—that we are all disabled. We tend to think of ourselves as, so to speak, the able-bodied, and of some other branch of humanity as the disabled. There are ways in which they are more disabled than we are, but it is as well to think of ourselves as all disabled in one sense or another. Therefore, the only thought that I leave with the House to-day is that we shall buckle to and do much better in the future if we approach the problem of the disabled in a spirit of humility.
It is true of everyone in this country and in other countries that we are all mutually dependent. Nobody can just

1229
stand on his own feet and say, " I do not need anybody's help." We all need help from somebody, and most of us need help from a great many people. So do not let us fail to identify ourselves with the disabled. It is sometimes possible in social work to identify oneself, but sometimes it is not wise to do so. When one tries to do youth work it is not always wise to identify oneself with the young, or one might break one's Achilles tendon or strain one's heart. There may be a danger in over-identification with the young. In the case of delinquents, it is a good rule to remember that we are all sinners, and when we try to help the disabled let us remember that we are all disabled. That, I think, is the beginning of wisdom.
6.54 p.m..
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, this Motion was first in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, so I should like to thank him first. I thank the Cross-Bench Peers for agreeing that this day be given for investigating the progress of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I also thank my noble friend Lord Ingleby for giving us this opportunity. There is no rush to-night, there is no dissolution of Parliament hanging over our heads and, as I am speaking in this position, it has been suggested that I make a few remarks on what noble Lords have said to-day. But, first, I should like to say what I myself have prepared.
This debate has been pending for some time in this House, but when I heard recently that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was also to be discussed in another place I was extremely pleased, as great importance is being attached to that Act which involves facilities for millions of people. It entails not only the disabled themselves, but their families and helpers who will benefit or suffer from good or inadequate facilities. Now that the Government's survey on handicapped and impaired people in Great Britain has been completed, and the number of problems has been found to be even greater than was anticipated, I hope that this country will really get down to providing facilities which will enable the disabled to live more contented and congenial lives.
1230
I am sure that Members of another place will have had many letters from disabled constituents and their relatives. I have had several hundred, with all sorts of inquiries, and I have four filing cabinets bulging. Often the telephone rings, and there is usually a distraught mother who has tried all the departments she can to solve her problems, and I am her last resort. It is for that reason that I welcome Section 1 of the Act, and I hope that when it comes into effect everyone who needs welfare services will be made aware of them. I hope that if local authorities cannot provide their own facilities they will make use of centres in other parts of the country. I get most frustrated trying to find information regarding after-care services; this seems to be a great weakness. In some areas ancillary services do not seem to exist.
The field of the disabled is so wide and so varied, and the problems are so many, that it seems unlikely that local authorities and Government will be able to solve them without the help of the voluntary societies. It is for this reason that I should like to see a directory for the disabled. This could be like a telephone directory, with different coloured pages and headings, with all the facilities and places of treatment and equipment available to the disabled. With advertisements, such a directory could most likely pay its way. It should be made available in Post Offices, welfare departments and in all places dealing with the disabled. The Roman Catholic Church has a comprehensive directory giving all sorts of valuable information about its facilities. If the Department of Health and Social Security could follow the example of the Catholic Church, I am sure that many people would benefit.
I also feel that hospitals could do more in the way of equipping patients with information before discharge. Many patients are sent to units specialising in different fields of treatment. If they were discharged with a small booklet giving information relating to their special needs, it could. save a great deal of worry. Once outside the protective walls of a hospital, with its trained staff to give support, a badly disabled person once at home can feel utterly isolated and neglected and it is very easy to forget what to do when something goes wrong. The Marie Curie Memorial Foundation

1231
has an excellent little booklet called Advice to Patients following Mastectomy.I hope that when community health care comes into effect in 1974, there will be more of a link between hospital and home for patients who are to remain with a disability.
Some voluntary organisations have made a start at making known the aids which are available for the disabled. As noble Lords have already said, there is now an aids centre in Kensington, which I have visited, run by the Disabled Living Foundation. This is an excellent place, but it is not easy for disabled people or their families to visit London from the North, as travelling has become so expensive. As my noble friend Lady Darcy has said, the Spastics Society has launched a mobile aid centre which will travel from place to place. This has access for the disabled, and disabled people should be able to make themselves aware of new aids which may help them to a more independent life. When local authorities make the registers of disabled people, I hope this will be done diplomatically and by skilled people. I feel it is important that people's privacy is not invaded unnecessarily. But the needs of the disabled should be thoroughly assessed, so that resources are correctly allocated and help is readily available when needed.
It is dangerous to build people up too much if there is no hope of giving them what they want. They will become warped, and feel neglected and let down. Loneliness can be a real killer; and this should be unnecessary, as there are many voluntary groups willing to help. But it is a real problem. Only last week I had several telephone calls. One was from a disabled lady who said she was about to " go up the wall " as she had nothing to do. She wanted to be involved in something useful. Another lady tele— phoned me saying she had a group of people who had a riding school ponies, instructor and helpers—but how were they to get the disabled riders? I hope that when the registers are made local authorities will be able to help put people needing help and people wanting to help in touch with each other. Some local authorities are finding practical difficulty in deciding who is chronically sick and disabled. It is quite obvious that some-
1232
one who has completely broken his neck is " permanently and substantially handicapped ", but somebody with a chest or heart condition may be permanently but not substantially handicapped. A person with a progressive disease may not be substantially handicapped at the time, but will obviously become so. The victim of a stroke may be substantially handicapped at some time, but cease to be so in the future. It is because of these changing conditions that I hope local authorities will act with flexibility when dealing with the disabled. Rigid rules do not work when dealing with human beings or human problems: they only restrict and tie down.
My Lords. having spoken with some of the new directors of social services. I have been greatly encouraged by the outlook. One tells me that he wants his staff to address the people they are corresponding with by name rather than " Sir " or " Madam ", and he hopes that, in turn, he will be known by his name. This personal approach seems to be a good start. to set his new department off to the spirit, " We will help if we can ", rather than the old attitude of " not getting involved " and treating the disabled as cases and not people. To provide many of the facilities in Clause 2 I should think will be impossible unless full cooperation between the voluntary and statutory bodies takes place. In some areas, to provide a home help service is difficult, as there is a lack of home helps: but I know of one local authority which has refused to increase this service and has in fact cut down on home helps. Perhaps after to-day something will be done about this. To make the Act really work, there needs to be more social workers who have the specialised knowledge and skill necessary to help physically handicapped persons. There is a crying need for more occupational therapists. Because of the difficulty of getting occupational therapists, we are now at less than half the proper quota, with about one occupational therapist per half million of the population. I I hope the new social service departments will be able to develop this service over the years.
The Library Association run a housebound service. In some areas this is operating and disabled people have an excellent service, but in other areas it does

1233
not exist. I was sorry to find last year that very badly disabled people who spent most of the day in bed, living in residential care such as a Cheshire Home, had to pay a full television licence each. A few of the more severely disabled had been given a television set to have in their own room. They had a terrible surprise when they found that they had to pay the full licence, even though the Home already paid for the communal set. Each room in my London hotel has its own television set, but I am sure the hotel does not pay for about 200 television licences. I did not receive a helpful reply from the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications; and I am reminded of these cases every time I stay in my hotel.
My Lords, the telephone section has caused more controversy than any other. Some authorities have made a start. I know, for example, that Sheffield have installed their first 15 telephones and intend to continue taking the cases by priority. But some other local authorities seem to have done nothing, and have adopted a most stubborn and limiting outlook. One particular authority in the North refused to supply a telephone to two very severely disabled people living alone, one virtually immobile, even though their doctor had stated that in their case a telephone would be a safety link which was reasonable and justifiable, and could prove lifesaving. I feel that if local authorities were to send in a report to the Government on what progress they had made during the year this might keep the less progressive ones up to the mark. Anyway, hope that the Government intend in some way to ask for this information.
Since the passing of the Act, new buildings have been built, and it was the mayor of one town who remembered about access for the disabled at a place open to the public. It will be necessary for all members of the community to remember Section 4. Unless one is a disabled person not able to climb steps, it is so easy, accidentally, to forget. In some towns, new shopping precincts are being built. These are usually excellent shopping places for wheelchair users, having everything at hand. But new construction subways, with steps at intervals, are being built, preventing access. What can be done about this? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will give us some suggestions.
1234
This year I have visited several fine town halls, three being those at Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. When I sit looking up at the many palatial steps, and at the solid majestic buildings which will still be there long after all of us arc dead, I feel despondent. The only hope is to adapt. I think the four of us here to-day in wheelchairs all feel grateful for the example that your Lordships' House and the other place have set. The disabled persons' lavatory must have been the first to be established after the passing of this Act. When I visited Lord Dalkeith yesterday in hospital, I was able to tell him that he could use the disabled persons' lavatory. This now is a very progressive place, used by both sexes. He was very pleased, as he had not realised this.
When I went to Waterloo Station the other day I wanted to go to the lavatory. The first one I went to had several steps, so I set off in search of another, asking a porter on the way. I asked him if he knew of a lavatory with access for a wheelchair. He did not know, he said, as he had never visited the " Ladies' "! When I arrived at the second " Ladies' ", at the other end of the station, I was delighted to find an excellent lavatory—in fact, the first one I have been to at a station where I have been able to shut the door. This adventure made me wonder if stations know of Section 7 of the Act, " Signs at buildings ". When driving down the M.1, I found an excellent " Ladies" with a ramped entrance, but before reaching this it was necessary to jump up a large step on to an island, making what would have been accessible inaccessible. It is these small points which should not be overlooked.
The importance of providing suitable housing for the disabled was brought home to me a few days ago when I received a letter about a young, physically disabled man paralysed through an accident. He is now being treated in a psychiatric ward, having made several attempts on his own life. I have been told that his problems related to housing and employment. These cases of tragedy could be avoided if there were better provisions, but employment has hardly been touched upon in this Act. With the larger numbers of disabled needing employment, if not for the financial benefits for their self-respect, this subject needs full investigation.

1235
It has been proved, and I think all your Lordships will agree, that it is better for disabled people to remain in their own houses whenever possible. In the Social Survey, Part 2, it was found that many disabled people live in inadequate housing and without even indoor lavatories. The Multiple Sclerosis Housing Association has a scheme which is new. It helps to provide for multiple sclerosis patients welfare housing of such a kind that sufferers will be able to maintain their independence for the longest possible time. Particular emphasis is being placed on retaining the family unit and by the provision of the necessary welfare and nursing services, giving the opportunity to fit married partners to continue in or begin employment, instead of being dependent upon the State. This pilot scheme does not fit into the existing pattern of welfare housing or sheltered housing schemes. To succeed, this scheme will require the cooperation of both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Health. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether this will be possible.
In Section 8, " Access to and facilities at universities or school buildings ", I should be grateful for a fuller answer to my question which I asked during the debate on handicapped children. Sometimes the Department of Education and Science are prepared to allow certain items of abnormal expenditure—for example, those due to site conditions—over and above the cost limit. If it is desired to incorporate in a project certain special provisions for handicapped people it is most likely that it will be possible to meet the cost within the normal prescribed cost limits. I asked whether the Department of Education and Science would be prepared to allow the cost of the facilities for handicapped people over and above the normal cost limits? The answer I received was that the Secretary of State had given sympathetic consideration to certain proposals from local education authorities, but it is not entirely clear whether the answer related to existing buildings or to new buildings. Will it be possible for local education authorities to have larger minor building programme allocations which will make it easier to carry out such work as they consider necessary to help disabled people?
1236
Section 17 gives me a great deal of concern, but perhaps it is too early to expect any progress so far. I am still hearing of cases of young patients being sent to geriatric wards. Some areas have no accommodation at all for young disabled people. Are the Government going to press local authorities to provide suitable places for young people? Local authorities do a great deal to equip the disabled people in their own homes, in the way of providing hoists and aids, but very often they do not do this when these people are in residential voluntary homes. Yet the disabled people, of course, still need lifting and helping with daily living. Some local authorities depend almost entirely on these voluntary places. Many of these homes are struggling to make ends meet. I should like to know what the West Riding of Yorkshire would do if all the ordinary residential homes for the handicapped closed down. In borstal to-day there is a high percentage of boys who are from families with disabled parents. The battle has been too great. the circumstances too difficult. Many of these children are lucky if they go to school with a cup of tea for their breakfast. By stopping free milk for children aged from 7 to 11 years, the Government, I believe, are actually encouraging the development of more disabling disabilities, such as bone deficiency, deficiency of vitamins and dental troubles. So I very much hope this unpopular decision will be reconsidered. Then there are some borderline cases, such as sufferers from post-encephalitis, who do not seem to fit in anywhere. Will it be possible for local authorities to supply more residential care for such people?
Section 20 caused great disappointment to some users of invalid carriages. There was great rejoicing when the severely disabled users of these carriages thought they had been granted a little more freedom. This was short-lived when brown envelopes arrived, the contents of which told them that the Ministry electric chairs were for indoor use only. I think the circular could have been less harsh, perhaps giving them a little hope and encouraging them to buy, or to get given by a voluntary society, another wheelchair. Section 21 gives the first glimmer of hope to the badly disabled passenger. He has at last been recognised and will soon be able to display a badge on his

1237
car. He may have spent all his life savings on this car, as this is the only way to independence. Of all the Amendments that did not get into the Bill I felt most sorry about the one relating to disabled mothers, as also did the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. Both of us have young children. We feel that to separate children from their mothers is one of the cruellest things one can do. I hope the day will come when families with disabled members will be encouraged to unite.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, say that employment should be encouraged for disabled people. I feel that if the S.E.T. tax were removed in the case of the disabled this might encourage firms to take more disabled people. Certainly in the North, people are business men, and if disabled persons are to be laid off they will do this.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I know, has been working very hard. I have had personal proof of this, and I know that he is far from complacent. I feel that the care of the disabled is in good hands. He says that local authorities will not spend their own money, but I feel that the Government should act as a big brother in some cases and give expert advice when it is needed, because they have the better facilities for getting this advice. The chief cause of disabilities, he said, was arthritis and I was delighted to hear that more money is to be given to research. I myself am connected with the West Riding Medical Research, and I hope that they will benefit from this decision. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, make his excellent maiden speech on this subject. We felt that we now had a man with a true understanding of the problems of the disabled when he said that we want to live in dignity.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, brought up the problem of the local authorities. We feel that he has stressed the need for the progress report, and I shall await with interest the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on what he is able to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), brought up the subject of the means test. I think that this is the first time that this has been mentioned. For example, there could be a
1238
husband and wife, the wife being disabled, the husband a school teacher. It is very hard if, because of his wife's disability, he cannot live to the standard of his own profession. This might well encourage the break-up of the marriage. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester spoke, we felt it very important that right reverend Prelates should take part in debates of this kind. I am delighted to hear that the Church is going to encourage the voluntary and statutory bodies to work together.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, made a splendid speech. The hospital services are very much in the news and I know only too well the need for more nurses. A great deal of energy seems to be needed to find a way to put nursing at the top of the professions, to make it so attractive that people will want to take it up. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, stressed the need for domiciliary physiotherapy. I should like to add to this by saying how important we feel domiciliary physiotherapy to be and how especially useful to the high lesion tetraplegics who will be put at risk if they go in the winter to hospital physiotherapy departments where they might be in contact with infectious diseases such as influenza. Also, this service would help the elderly disabled who may have arthritic or rheumatic disorders and for whom travelling long distances in an ambulance can be too painful or too vigorous. To keep these people going in their own homes would help relieve the overcrowding of our under-staffed hospitals. I am sure that this will be economically beneficial as well as a happier solution all round.
The noble Lord, Lord Harding, said that we were only touching the fringe of the problem. He stressed the need for research, of prevention being better than cure; for, as he said, often there is no cure. Perhaps there is hope that one day there will be a way of joining the spinal cord, and when that happens three of us here will leap out of our chairs. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is an excellent person and one experienced in campaigning for the disabled. On behalf of the disabled I should like to thank her for her support. I was pleased to hear the noble Countess, Lady

1239
Loudoun, who brought up the point of the mentally ill. We all know that they need even more tender and loving care than the physically disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, again spoke on research. There could be no better person to remind the Government about the need for a Report on this subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ruthven, spoke on the progress that autistic children make when they have the correct facilities. The noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, stressed the need for rehabilitation. I could not agree more that it should be the right of every disabled person to have rehabilitation to develop to the full their potentialities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, spoke of the need to widen the interests of the disabled and of the need of holidays. All of us are better for holidays. I am delighted to support what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said about Alfred Morris, who has become a great friend of all disabled people because of his sincerity. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, stressed the need to know who the disabled are. Nobody can say that this point has not now been made plain to the Government. We were pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Longford gave his support and also paid tributes in which I am sure we all join.
7.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, one consolation about coming at the end of a debate of 19 speakers, all excellent, is that it will not be necessary for me to labour the points but rather to underline some of those which have been made so ably by various speakers throughout the debate. I should like to pay tribute immediately to the late Lady Swanborough. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned her, as did subsequent speakers. She was a remarkable person, a warm-hearted woman and one we shall always remember. It is not necessary for an individual to have a large monument to her memory if she has been a practical and loving person throughout her life.
My Lords, I remember the excitement when we had the " charter for the chronically sick and disabled " introduced into this House last year by our " Mobile
1240
Bench ". I am delighted to see them here again, all in action. I think that " action " is the word. They have certainly all come in again with the practical suggestions and informative speeches by which we have now come to recognise them so well. I should like also to pay tribute to the splendid maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. He immediately touched the right chord for all when he said that what we want is that the sick and disabled should live in dignity. He said that we all seek that all human beings should live in dignity; and I think that this is the note which this debate has struck to-day.
When my noble friend Lady Serota, speaking for the Government at that time, spoke about the Bill, she said that it was a valuable pointer for forms of action that ought to be produced in the future. This is the point from which we start. That Bill, now this Act, is a form of action. It has 29 sections; it affects no fewer than ten Departments of State and, as the social survey has shown and as many noble Lords have said, the size of the problem is vast—even vaster than was recognised at that time. But until Section 1 is fully implemented—and we must never forget this—two-thirds of Britain's handicapped may be denied the benefit of the provisions of the Act. Until Section 1 is implemented the rest of the Act will not come to fruition. Several noble Lords have emphasised this fact to-day.
They have also mentioned the necessity for co-operation between the voluntary and the statutory social services. As one who has devoted the greater part of her life to the voluntary services, I should like to remind the House that the Council of Social Services have always sought full co-operation with all the voluntary and statutory services. This Act has been the mainspring for many of the activities that have been carried out. I would repeat something that was said in the original debate by a certain noble Lord. He spoke not from the Bench he now occupies—and this is the intriguing part of this debate that takes place a year after the original debate. He spoke of a particular circular which gave comprehensive guidance to the local authorities on the discharge of their duties

1241
to the disabled under the legislation to which he was referring. He said:
" I would invite the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, to say whether she would also agree that the moment for a second edition of that circular is now close at hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/4/70, col. 248.]
He then gave various reasons (which I shall not repeat now) why this should be done. The speaker was the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am sure that we are going to get this circular as he is now in a position to do all the things that he urged the Government to do when he was in Opposition.
My Lords, a great deal of thought has been given to Section 2, the provisions in which a re of course not mandatory. I draw the attention of your Lordships to what happens when individual matters are left to local authority services, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. At the risk of boring your Lordships, I use as an example a question concerning blind children. There are blind children in the care of the Cardiff local authority, which is not, I should have thought, a poor authority; it is not one perhaps about which my noble friend Lord Janner was pleading. The authority has not paid travelling expenses for those blind children taken to a residential school rather against Ole wishes of the parents.
The reply given to me on this subject by the Secretary of State for Wales highlights, 1 think, what a local authority will not do if something is not mandatory. On the question of travelling expenses, the Secretary of State said:
"Local education authorities do have discretionary power to assist, not only with the expenses of the children travelling home for week-ends but also to assist parents, where travelling or other expenses are high, with the cost of visiting the school as often as the interests of the child may require. In assessing the need for assistance in such cases, however, authorities usually take into account the fact that the parents are relieved of a greater part of the expense of maintaining the child while at a residential school."
My Lords, the parents do not want to be relieved of a greater part of the expense of maintaining their children. They are not receiving any help with the travelling expenses. I cite this as an example of what a local authority will not do unless the powers given to it by the central Government are of a mandatory character,
1242
Several references have been made to the provision of telephones. This again is an example where the mandatory character of the provisions of the Act would have been much more satisfactory. Local councils are laying down regulations about telephones which are so ridiculous that a disabled person, unless he or she is a chronic house-bound invalid, with no relatives and practically no money, cannot get a telephone. This is not the way it was envisaged that the Act would work. Other authorities are insisting that such disabled persons must have no relatives in the town or other friends nearby who can answer the telephone. If these provisions are made difficult, and are hedged around with enough rules, no one will take advantage of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw made the point, as have other noble Lords—and it is one we must reiterate—that to keep people in their own homes must always be our first priority. There is no true saving of public money, to put it at its lowest, in failing to provide adequate local services for the severely disabled. If local authorities think that there is such a saving, they confuse apparent cost with net cost. The more people can be encouraged to live in their own homes as normally as possible, the less cost will fall on public funds.
I also wish to refer to the question of access to public transport. I believe that one noble Lord has already referred to this matter, but it is so important that it is worth mentioning again. When we were debating this subject last year my noble friend Lord Hughes agreed to issue a circular on access to public transport. He said he would make a statement about the circular on the needs of the disabled with reference to access to public transport which the Government intended to issue to operators and manufacturers of equipment. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, actually withdrew an Amendment on the understanding that this matter would be dealt with. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate; have there in fact been further discussions, and has the circular been issued?
I should have liked to feel that there was no further need for the activities of the Disablement Income Group, but unfortunately we still find that disablement is synonymous with povetry, and there is

1243
still need for the work of this Group. I was delighted when the Minister reminded us about the attendance allowance and the invalidity allowance, but even allowing for these, there are still many disabled housewives whose cases have not yet been dealt with.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and other noble Lords referred to the question of mobility. I mention this point again because I recently had a case which I drew to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, concerning these wretched three-wheeled vehicles. A very articulate and well-educated lady kept a diary about her activities with such a vehicle. It contained some hair-raising statements. I only wish that time permitted me to read from the diary. When questions were asked of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, he gave a very sympathetic reply. He said,
" I am sorry to hear of Miss Page's unfortunate experience with a three-wheeler. I can assure you that it is not typical."
I am sorry to say that I am afraid it is typical.
By the same post I received another letter from another articulate lady relating the experience she has had with a three-wheeled invalid vehicle. Is it possible that I have found the only two disabled people in the country who have had difficulty with three-wheeled vehicles? Both these ladies have experienced difficulty in getting repairs done to their machines. I ask the Minister to look at this question again. The lady in the second case told me that on one occasion she had to wait at least two months for a new battery. Because of the nature of these machines, the number of people who will service and repair them is small, and as a result disabled people suffer all kinds of complications which no one should be required to suffer.
My Lords, we have had a very full debate. There are a great many other points that I should have liked to raise, but they were raised most ably by the opener of this debate and by various noble Lords who have spoken from a depth of experience of knowledge. The 1970 Act still remains to me an exciting charter for the disabled. I conclude with
1244
the words of Mr. Alfred Morris, spoken when he presented his paper to the Royal Society of Medicine on the occasion of the Harding Award. He said—and this is what it is all about:
" We seek a society where there is a genuine respect for the handicapped, where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where if years cannot be added to the lives of the very sick, at least life can be added to their years, where needs come before means and where no man has cause to feel ill at ease because of his disability."
I wish more power to our " Mobile Bench ". I hope they will again bring to our notice the working of the Act and see that it really becomes a working Act.
7.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I can see that I have to avoid two errors—either of being so thorough in trying to reply to this debate that I become tedious to the whole House, or so brief as to be discourteous to our 21 speakers. May I assure them all that we have taken notes of what they have said and that either my noble friend Lord Aberdare or I will reply later if I do not reply to them now.
I have it in mind to go briskly through the sections of the Act and to comment on the progress that has been made, and answer some of the points which have been made on each section. But before doing so, I should refer to one or two points put to me which do not relate to any specific section of the Act. One was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. with reference to the Department of Employment's survey of employment services for the disabled. That work will. we expect, be completed by the end of the year. The noble Viscount also raised the question of sloping kerbs. The further investigations which have been made into this matter indicate that there are disadvantages, as well as advantages, to the extent that it is not possible to give general guidance upon them; but local authorities are perfectly free to adopt this proposal in particular cases where it seems to them appropriate. The matter rests like that.
I was asked by a number of speakers to dwell at some length on Section 1, and I will do so; but I shall not tackle every

1245
other section in the Act. The Department of Health and Social Security are at present consulting the local authority associations about this section. It is intended to give authorities guidance about implementing subsection (1) when it comes into operation on October 1. It has not finally been decided precisely what form the advice should take, but it will be designed to enable authorities to obtain, in the first instance, a reasonably good estimate of the number of handicapped people in their area so that they may plan services to meet their needs. Probably the 'simplest method of arriving at this is to carry out a sample survey. This will not enable local authorities to identify and register more than a fraction of those qualifying for service, but it will give them a target figure to aim at. Advice to local authorities will cover the various methods of drawing representative samples and recommend the most useful one; discuss whether a postal sift is necessary; examine the problem of non-response and give advice about how to deal with it; identify and classify the handicapped and attempt to define groups not 'adequately covered by the survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It will suggest methods of establishing primary needs and suggest interview schedules, instructions for administration and coding instructions, and give advice about methods of estimating from sample to total population.
The views of those who say that only a complete registration of the handicapped will achieve the objects of Section 1 are, of course, fully understood; and they have been well deployed during the debate. However, the survey suggests that among the very large number of impaired people there are many who do not want to be registered. As many as 70 per cent. of those who had no previous knowledge of the register said that they did not want to be registered. Bearing in mind that there is no compulsion to register, it is agreed that the ultimate object should be the comprehensive identification of those in need. But the cost and effort of seeking this immediately would he likely to result in too great a diversion of money and personnel, so tha. the whole point of the task would be nullified. Also, total identification is not a once-for-all exercise, and would need
1246
to be constantly up-dated. While I accept that a few local authorities may well feel justified in embarking straightaway on 100 per cent. identification, properly organised sample surveys are an essential first stage in carrying out the duty under subsection (1) and would be the right first step in most areas.
My Lords, I was glad about what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester regarding the way in which this whole exercise presents an excellent challenge for co-operation between statutory and voluntary bodies. In this connection I would mention again the booklet on services for the handicapped. It is in course of preparation by the D.H.S.S., who are now considering how it may best he directed to those in need. It is designed to complement local publicity material provided by the authority itself, so that disabled people are continuously made aware of what is available. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion, this is one of the matters on which advice will be given to local authorities. It is the subject of current discussion with the local associations and further research is going on into ways and means of getting information of this kind to the handicapped who need to have it.
I turn now to Section 2. I was particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) for all she had to say about this. The noble Lady spoke so briskly that I must confess I did not get it all down myself; but it is all in Hansard, I trust, and we shall be able to read it there with great profit. The subsection on home helps is an illustration of a service which is now—contrary to what I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. thought—made a mandatory service by the bringing into force of Section 13 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. There is now a duty on local authorities to provide this service. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, asked about wages for home helps. Those are determined by the Joint Standing Committee for local authority manual workers, so it is not a matter which is within the discretion of the Secretary of State.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. may I ask the noble Lord one question?

1247
Is he saying that only parts of Section 2 are mandatory, and not the whole?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said that there was nothing in Section 2 that was mandatory; this particular part is.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords, I asked whether it was; I thank the noble Lord.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the survey has shown that when it comes to wireless and television there is very little unmet need; 94 per cent. of the handicapped have radio, and 89 per cent. have television. There are, of course, some who cannot use either radio or television because they are deaf or blind. The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, asked me about holidays for the handicapped. The D.H.S.S. Social Science Research Unit has carried out a special study of local authority schemes, and the Department expects to issue a circular later this year which, I feel confident, will answer all the other questions which the noble Baroness asked about that.
There has been a lot of concern about telephones. The fact of the matter is that if this provision were made mandatory and telephones were provided for all those who needed them, it would cost some £12½ million. Given £12½. million to spend across this whole field, I do not believe that any noble Lord would feel that it would be right to spend it all on telephones. The problem—and it is one that local authorities have to face—is how to make the best use of all the resources that are now available to them. I do not think that at this stage one can do better than proceed with the register, and then we can see the needs more clearly. There will, of course, be handicapped for whom it would be appropriate to provide telephones.
My Lords, I turn now to Section 4, which relates to premises. In answer to a question which I believe was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, I think it would be true to say that attention is now drawn to this section with every planning permision given for a relevant building that is to say, a building to which the public have access. Regarding Government buildings—this point was raised
1248
by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw—a circular drawing attention to the provisions of the Act and referring to the available design guides was issued to all the Department of the Environment's design staff in December, 1970. In new Crown buildings for instance, courts— which are visited by the public, the Department makes suitable provision where it is practicable and reasonable to do so, for disabled people to enter and leave the building. Care is taken to ensure ease of movement inside; lift controls are positioned so that they may be reached from a wheelchair, and so on. Again in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Craw-show, a circular to public transport operators is now being prepared. It is proposed that this should draw attention to the special needs of disabled travellers, and to suggestions made by the associations for the disabled. The Department intend shortly to discuss the form of this circular with representatives of the chronic sick and disabled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Mon, asked me about schools and the cost of making them accessible to the disabled. The cost of building this accessibility into new buildings is negligible if thought is given at the design stage. So far as alterations to buildings go, if and when any applications are received for extra allocations for minor works, they will be considered on their merits. Lady Masham also asked about the separation of the younger from older patients in hospital. As my noble friend said, the Secretary of State has made available an additional £3 million over the four years beginning April 1, 1971, specifically for the provision of special units for the younger chronic sick. Of itself, this is expected to make a significant contribution to the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also was interested in this aspect. If I may, I will write to him about the other points concerned with rehabilitation which he raised. On the question of existing residential accommodation other than hospitals, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Mon, would like to know that as part of the necessary measures to fill some of the gaps left, a census of residences, staff and buildings providing residential accommodation for the elderly and the mentally

1249
and physically handicapped was undertaken last year, and the results of that are still being processed.
I turn briefly to Section 20. Here I think it is known that the Ministry of Transport and Industries in my Department made regulations to give effect to the provisions of Section 20 on September 26 and 28, 1970. All the representatives of the disabled have been generous in their tributes to the Department for the speed with which the regulations were made and for the consultations which preceded them. The question of the provision of vehicles for the disabled, including all-weather wheelchairs designed to operate indoors and to be taken out of doors, is still being reviewed by the Department of Health and Social Security. On the question of badges, two sets of regulations are necessary. Consultations are almost complete and regulations should he made in a few weeks' time. A circular is also needed to explain the scheme in detail, and that will be issued to local authorities when the regulations are ready.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, for what he said on Section 22 of the Act. I think he was the only noble Lord to speak of this subject. My noble friend Lord Aberdare will have what he said very much in mind when he comes to prepare the first report called for under this section, and I think that he would like me to thank the noble Lord for helping him well on his way towards the writing of that report. On Section 24, the Department of Health and Social Security are consulting widely among bodies and individuals working in this field of hearing research, which is very complex, and a report will be presented to the Medical Research Council, as required under the section, when consultations are complete. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked me about Section 25, which deals with the education of the deaf-blind. A circular asking local authorities to review the provision for deaf-blind available in their areas and to supply details of the special provision made his been sent out. Most authorities have replied but not all.
Several noble Lords spoke on Section 26 on autistic children and we are par-
1250
ticularly grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, for her contribution. The Department of Education and Science intend shortly to issue a circular of guidance to local education authorities on special education for autistic children, which will deal both with educational methods and staffing and will give advice on placement of school leavers. Information will be required on numbers and present arrangements for autistic children. Further information will soon be available, probably in 1972, as the result of a comparative study by Dr. Michael Rutter, of three units in the London area which employ distinctive approaches to the education of autistic children. The Secretary of State received a deputation from the National Autistic Society, who presented a memorandum on the further provisions they thought necessary for autistic children. The meeting provided a useful opportunity for the exchange of ideas, and Ministers will be giving further consideration to some of the specific points raised.
I am sorry that this speech is so long, but I think that I am near the end of the Act. On Section 27, colleges of education are giving increasing emphasis to the teaching of reading, and most primary and infant school teachers are aware of the need for early detection of reading handicaps. The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, asked me about schizophrenia of middle age. The Department of Health and Social Security has in preparation a memorandum giving advice to hospital authorities, revising and bringing up to date existing advice on hospital services for the mentally ill, including guidance on linking hospital services with the community services of local authorities and with general practitioners. Departmental policy has been to encourage the provision of psychiatric units in general hospitals, and the continuation of this process, together with the planned development of community supporting services by local authority social service departments, should give the mentally ill persons of all ages a fully comprehensive service.
At the beginning of this debate the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, thought that there would be some fall-out. I do not think that sufficient recognition has been given during the debate to what a flood of financial benefits is already falling. There is some £30 million per

1251
annum invalidity allowance and attendance allowance; and £1 a week, in round terms, for old age pensioners from next September. Looking at the hospital services, there is £3 million for special provisions for the young chronic sick, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and many others mentioned. There is a considerable increase in hospital services for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly, including many of the disabled. There is £90 million capital and £105 million revenue expenditure annually, and, on top of that, the local authorities have capital loan sanctions which will enable them to provide upwards of 150 new centres of various kinds. They have a 12 per cent. increase this year and a 12 par cent. increase in addition to that next year in rate support grant, and on ton of that an extra £11 million over two years to improve local authority health and social services, including the cost of services provided under Section 2 of this Act.
Far from the central Government not giving a lead. there has been an absolute cascade of circulars and advice. There are circulars on housing needs of the disabled, on the design of Government buildings, to health and welfare authorities on the provision of services under Section 2, to local education authorities about teaching deaf, blind, autistic and dyslexic children. We are not stopping there. There is a circular, with attendant regulations, coming out on badges for the disabled; circulars on teaching autistic children; to public transport operators on holidays for the handicapped, and a circular on home helps. There is the first report under Section 22 of the Act and, in addition, another circular on the operation of Section 1; and there is this survey as well. We are not, immediately on top of all that, going to add a lot of circulars for local authorities to have to deal with.
I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, reminded us that in place of the separate and splintered local authority social services we had a year ago, we now have a freshly reorganised set of integrated social service departments in all the local authorities, which have just come under their new directors. The next step, starting in earnest when Section 1 of this Act
1252
comes into force this October, is for every local authority—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell —to take action to make its own assessment of the needs of the handicapped that have to be met in its own area, to form its own judgment of how best to progress and advance, to apply the fruits of this very valuable and useful service to its own area, to deploy its new staff, to make the most of the increased cash benefits which have been made available and to involve the ever-ready voluntary efforts which were so properly brought to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, in his admirable maiden speech. Local authorities have to do all this to meet the needs in their own areas to the best effect. Those in local government whose duty it is now to give effect to this Act will be most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for the opportunity this debate has given them to bring this wide and diffuse problem into sharper focus and to help us all to see more clearly what the next steps should be.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask just one question, which is rather important? Could the noble Lord see to it that this important information reaches the doctors of this country, either direct from his Department or perhaps sent out by local authorities—because the doctors are in touch with the patients.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. I will certainly see that that is done where appropriate.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to thank all who have taken part in this debate. The fact that there are still so many people here shows the interest in it. There has been a fund of goodwill towards disabled people shown from all sides of the House, but it is clear that we have a lot of homework to do to ensure that this Act is implemented in the way that Parliament wants. We shall have another opportunity to come back to it when the Secretary of State issues his annual report on research and development, which I understand will be later this year. We will keep the pressure up. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: ADMISSION CHARGES
8.3 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consultation took place with the trustees of the national museums and galleries concerning admission charges prior to the publication of Cmnd. 4676, and how far the proposed charges have taken into consideration the. known views of trustees. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity of clarifying a number of issues of immense importance concerning the future of our great national institutions, our museums and galleries. The specific question I am asking is how far the trustees have been consulted and how far the proposals concerning admission charges meet with their approval. In asking this question, I am encouraged by the statement in the White Paper which says that the scheme of charges is to be discussed with the trustees of the institutions concerned. I think it is very wise that we should approach this problem in this temperate manner.
It is absolutely essential that we should pay proper respect to the relationships between the Government, political Ministers and the distinguished men and women who serve as trustees of our great museums and galleries. We know perfectly well that it would be impossible for us to have the privilege of recruiting their services unless Governments, whatever their complexion, were willing to pay proper respect to their point of view. There is no such thing as trustees dictating to the Government, or the Government and Ministers dictating to trustees. We have in this country a very delicate, a very sophisticated, system which has worked until the present time and which I hope will continue to work. We consult one another; we make tentative approaches to one another, and almost without exception we end by having the right people doing the right job.
I have some experience of this, because there was a great hullaballoo during the time of the previous Government, when the Trustees of the British Museum expressed dislike of the proposals that had been made regarding
1254
the Museum's future. I was not in your Lordships' House at that time, but you will remember that the language used by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, who was Chairman of the Trustees, was not exactly temperate—in fact he was spitting blood all over your Lordships' Benches. He was extremely angry—and I make no complaint about that, because it is only people who are deeply concerned who get things done—but I do not think I exaggerate when I say that he was rather less than courteous to my friend and colleague, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mr. Gordon Walker, in particular, and to the Government in general. Of course, a petty-minded Government might have been antagonised by the vehemence of the attack made upon them, but instead the Government said: " The Trustees are obviously unhappy: let us have another look at those proposals."
It is no secret that it was largely in response to the obvious concern of responsible trustees that the Dainton Corn-mince was set up. When the Dainton Report came out, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, my colleague and friend, Mr. Edward Short, and I, who at that time had delegated responsibility, were delighted with its main aspects. Before the end of the last Parliament we were able to have the views of the Trustees of the British Museum respected, and we were able to work out a National Library scheme, affecting the museums, which met with their support. As the noble Viscount the Paymaster General well knows, when his fellow Trustees suggested that he was the most suitable person to be chairman, I at once agreed. I had delegated responsibility from the Prime Minister, and it never occurred to me that I need further consult anybody at all, because I knew how deeply the Paymaster General was concerned and how knowledgeable he was about the British Museum. I believed he was the ideal person to be chairman.
Let me repeat, we had a very big row, affecting relationships between the Government and the Trustees, specifically concerning the future of the British Museum, about which we all care so deeply. The end was satisfactory. But what astonishes me is that in the present

1255
Parliament I have been personally approached by so many distinguished people who are opposed to charges—there is no secret about this, because it is on record—but their views are brushed aside. The majority of the Trustees and Directors of the Tate are totally opposed to gallery charges; the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery are opposed; a majority of the Trustees of the British Museum, with one or two exceptions, are opposed—and no one who heard the speech made by Lord Trevelyan on an earlier occasion could have had any doubt as to what was in their minds. The Victoria and Albert Museum is also concerned, it is directly responsible to a Government department. The views of Sir John Pope-Hennessy, though not publicly stated as he is a public servant, are also known. The Trustees and the directors of great museums and galleries almost without exception, are opposed to charges.
Then we move from the Trustees and the directors to the people who have given us the great treasures they contain. I discussed this aspect the other day with my beloved friend Henry Moore, who has given work of immense value not only to the Tate, but to other national institutions. We were discussing Turner's will. Of course the lawyers can quibble about Turner's will and its terms, but I have the authority of Henry Moore to assure your Lordships that, so far as he and others of his calibre are concerned, there is no doubt that when Turner gave his great gifts to the nation he gave them so that the poorest and the least privileged among us would have free access to them. When we look at our great national galleries we find that almost without exception they are gifts, not to some of us but to all of us, from great patrons of the past. When we look at the contents of our great museums and galleries, we find again that so much has been given by patrons. They were giving, those not to people who were especially privileged, but because they had a deep sense of social responsibility and wanted everyone to enjoy them.
Now let me move from the great patrons of the past to contemporary painters, from David Hockey to Francis Bacon. They are opposed to charges. We talk about the generation gap. There
1256
is no generation gap among artists, so far as these things are concerned. Do none of these matter—the creative artists of the past; the artists of the present; those who have built the museums; those who have given donations to the museums? For one person that the Paymaster General can call in evidence on his side in this distinguished company, I can assure him I can call a hundred who are passionately opposed to the imposition of charges.
I come now to the charges themselves. One of the most insulting parts of those charges is that they are to be doubled during the holiday months of July and August. I should like to ask the Paymaster General a specific question. Is the purpose of doubling charges in the holiday months of July and August in order to keep the natives out? This has been suggested in sections of the Press. As we all know, the great majority of people cannot choose when they have their holidays but have to accept them when they come along. From all over this country—because among the natives I am including the Scots, Welsh and Irish, as well as the English—many people come during the only time in the year when they have an opportunity to see the greatest of our national galleries and museums. When they come, instead of paying 2s., which is bad enough, they are going to be asked to pay 4s.—or, if I can bring myself up to date and use the modern term, 20p.—for an adult; and for father and mother that is 40p.; or 8s., in old-fashioned terms. I beg the Paymaster General not to assume that 8s. does not matter. Perhaps I might have the attention of the Paymaster General. I hope that my figure is correct. I do not know whether he wants to challenge it. The White Paper says:
"The charge for adults will be 10p except in the months of July and August when the charge will be 20p."
Does the Paymaster General agree?
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that the charge will be doubled in July and August, and this is true. I thought it would be a good thing to explain that when I come to speak, but if she wants me to explain it now, I will.
BARONESS LEE or ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I am at the Paymaster General's service. If he would like to explain it now. I shall be glad to hear his explanation.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords there are now a number of our institutions which double their charges in the summer. As regards the 18 national museums, 26 per cent. of the total attendances come in those two months, and in those two months there is at some of the larger ones serious over-crowding during certain parts of the day. So there is a sensible administrative reason, which has been found in other institutions in this country, for trying to stagger visits. There is a second reason why we have to double the charge—I am sorry to have to go into this at some length: I had hoped to keep it for my speech. The second reason is that we are determined to keep the basic charge down to 10p. We cannot do that if we charge 10p through the most popular months. I reckon that it is far more in the interests of the public that we should secure the £1 million net that we want by doubling the charge during the period when over-crowding is already a problem, rather than have a higher basic rate throughout the year.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I thank the Paymaster General for the courtesy of his explanation, but I am afraid that I am totally unconvinced by it. We should rejoice in the fact that we have an increasing number of people who want to enjoy our museums and galleries, and especially that there are an increasing number of young people, in particular, because of the improved education in schools, who want to do so. But to say that the way we are going to select those who shall have admission, and those who shall not, is on the basis of those who can afford to pay is, I think, a most barbaric and uncivilised way of dealing with one of the most sensitive fields in national life.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it may be of interest to the noble Baroness to know that the Tower of London, Hampton Court and Edinburgh Castle double the charge in the summer, all for perfectly sound reasons. It is not that we do not want to have increasing crowds of children, or visitors of any other age;
1258
but it really does make sense to try not to spoil visits by overcrowding.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I think that the Tower of London is a splendid place, and I have a special affection for Edinburgh Castle. But I hope that the Paymaster General is not putting even Edinburgh Castle or the Tower of London on the same basis as the National Gallery, the Victoria and Albert, the Tate or any of our great museums. The essence of what I am saying is that these great national institutions are an integral part of our educational system, in the field of both adult education, and children at the sensitive growing age and the teenage.
If the Paymaster General could say to me that he was going to ensure that in the summer months those great galleries would be open later in the evening, that they would he open on Sunday forenoon, I should be very happy. I tried to get them open on Sunday forenoon. I did get a little more money, but not as much as I wanted. I wish I could have got enough staff and enough money. That, I think, is the civilised answer: that we should have longer hours of opening. I have been down to the great museums in Rome at midnight. So there are answers, if we really want to encourage our people in civilised pursuits. We could have later opening in the evenings in the holiday months, and on Sunday mornings in the summer. But to say that we are going to select on the basis of allowing those who can afford to pay to enter, and keeping out those who cannot, seems to me to be sheer barbarism. I am afraid that I cannot accept this. In my view one of the most insulting proposals of all is the doubling of the charges. I hope that we have more pride in our country and in our future than to think we are merely going to be an " old-fashioned museum ". We want to welcome our guests from abroad; we want them to have every possible amenity. But I hope that, above all, we shall be concerned to see that our own people have these opportunities.
I do not want to keep the House too long, but a great deal in the White Paper is very vague. For instance, who is a student? I entirely agree with the statement made by Professor Grimes, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London, when he speaks of

1259
the help which is given by intelligent amateurs who consult national and local authority museums and can be of great service to archieology and national science, although they may not be registered students. Who are the students who are to get the special advantages? What is going to happen about those who are not registered students, who have finished their courses and who are earning their living? They may be young teachers; they may be unemployed; they may be in industrial design. But the time when it is most necessary for them to have free access to our museums and galleries is in their early years, when they are earning their living and, very often, are young married people. One may say, " Well let them pay for a season ticket." But the idea of a season ticket is a very dangerous idea because a nation grows on new beginnings. A nation grows by encouraging those who have not yet known the great experiences of the Arts to make a casual visit to an art gallery. Of course someone who is professionally interested will make any kind of sacrifice if need be in order to get a season ticket. But what about all the others?
I can remember that when I came to London as a young Member of Parliament I could not have afforded the charges to go into museums and galleries. But there was one picture in the National Gallery which was " mine ". I do not know why, but there was an El Greco there, and I sometimes went to look at that. and at nothing else. Maybe I liked the theme of Christ chasing the moneychangers out of the temple. I was not pretending to be a great æsthete. It may have been the wonderful El Greco colours which attracted me; it may have been the flow of the robes. I do not know why, but that picture just mattered to me, and it was " my " picture. But that did not mean I was excluding anyone else who wanted to look at it from doing so. So I ask the Paymaster General to believe that for many young people and many impressionable people this matter is important.
When we leave the young we come to people who may have had a pretty hard life. They may not have made a lot of money; they may not have been in the
1260
" rat race ". But the grace of their life has been that they have loved beautiful things and look forward to enjoying them in their older years. I hope that the Paymaster General will realise the discouragement that paying 10p. or even 5p, can be to people who are living on retirement pensions. It seems to me that the essence of the proposal to charge is its lack of compassion, its vulgarity.
Then we come to the reasons which so far the Paymaster General has given for his policy: that he must make these charges in order to get enough money to pay for a building programme. If he turns to the White Paper he will see that in paragraph 4 it is stated that the previous Government announced on May 22, 1968, an extension of the building programme for the national museums and galleries from an original figure of £5½ million to a total of £8·95 million. That means that three years ago, in May, 1968, the previous Government announced almost £9 million as a figure for a forward building programme. I hope that no one is going to assume that that figure would still have been about £9 million if the previous Government were still in office, because I can assure the Paymaster General that not only would proper arrangements have been made to take into account increases in the cost of living but I was already negotiating with my colleagues about an upward trend. We did this all the time; and we had to do it, because I hope your Lordships understand that before 1964 we had 13 lean years; we had 13 years of Tory Administration in which the neglect of building for our museums and galleries was a national scandal. For that reason, as Minister with responsibility in this connection for six years, I had to keep ungrading the amount allotted to the Arts Council. And as the Paymaster General knows, even to stand still you have to get more money. I should be delighted to know, not just that he is prepared to continue what was agreed in the previous Parliament—although I am certainly grateful that our plans are not being set aside in regard to the National Library and the British Museum, and much else—but what are the new plans. It is important that we should spend a great deal more on fabric, on preservation, and many other aspects of our museums and galleries. The forward planning of the last

1261
Government was that all this and a great deal more should be done.
These are no idle words, my Lords. A Government can be tested, not by their former promises, such as many of the Election promises of Members opposite about the cost of living and a great deal else; not so much by what they say they are going to do, but by the record of what they actually do. I was very proud to serve in a Government which year by year sought to give higher priority to the Arts over the whole field; and I was very much concerned about the neglect of our local museums and national museums. So I hope the Paymaster General will not say in your Lordships' House that he is going to justify this vulgar attack on the poor in seeking to keep them out of our museums and galleries in order that he should raise a small percentage of the cost of maintaining buildings.
My final word, my Lords, is to say that buildings are important. Ask any of our young artists and they will tell you how important buildings are. But they will also tell you that they arc not so concerned about buildings as about people. Buildings are important, but people are still more important. Buildings exist for people; people do not exist for buildings. And the most precious of people are our young ones, our young life —and not the young life that is most protected, not those who in their homes and in their schools are getting every encouragement, but those like Henry Moore, who in his youth came down from the coalfields; those like Graham Sutherland, and many other poor boys, who came to London. They found their way to the museums and galleries, and they enriched not only this country but the world with their creative genius. I hope that the Paymaster General will heed what we are trying to say to him in your Lordships' House this evening. He could have a wonderful record as the Minister responsible for the Arts. I wish him every success. But I deeply deplore that he should tarnish his reputation by this mean, contemptible proposal that we should keep out the poorest from our museums and galleries.
8.28 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I sympathise with a great deal of what
1262
the noble Baroness has said, but I do not propose to enter into any Party discussion about this issue. I should like to think that, above all, things such as museums and galleries are completely outside Party politics. I wish to pitch straight into the debate which has already begun about this vexed question of doubling of charges in July and August. I can see both sides of this question. I can certainly see the noble Baroness's side, and I can see the Minister's point about overcrowding in these two particular months. But there is another way of dealing with overcrowding, apart from raising the charges, and that is simply to say to people: " We are very sorry but the gallery is full." When one goes to a test match one is quite liable to be told that the ground is full, and one has to put up with it; it is one of the disappointments of life. I do not see why visitors to art galleries should not sometimes have to put up with the same disappointment.
People will be very disturbed at the idea that a working-class couple coming to London in July or August on their holiday are going to find that to go into the National Gallery they have to pay twice the sum that Londoners will have to pay when they visit the National Gallery in any of the other 10 months of the year. I believe this is going to be a very unpopular measure. I should like to put forward another possible scheme for raising the extra money, if the extra money has to be raised, and that is by means of a tourist tax which some countries operate, whereby a tax at a modest rate is collected as an addition to the hotel bills of foreign tourists who stay in those hotels. I imagine that we should exempt the youth hostels and places of that kind, because the people from abroad who patronise hostels are probably not wealthy. I suppose the wealthy foreign tourists who have the luck to stay with friends and do not have to go to hotels would escape the tax, but I would simply say " Good luck!" to them. It might be difficult to persuade the Treasury to earmark this money for expenditure on museums, art galleries and the like and not simply to pour it into the general taxation fund. However, that would not be a problem for me; it would be a problem for the Minister, if he chose

1263
to follow up the suggestion that I have made.
I wonder whether the Government have any designs on the Palace of Westminster as regards the 10p entrance charges. I would agree that the 60,000 visitors a year who come here when Parliament is sitting probably come primarily to see Parliament in action, but I cannot believe that the half-a-million visitors a year who come on Saturdays and Bank Holidays and during the Recesses do not come to see something which to them is akin to a museum or a gallery. Thanks to the blessings of decimalisation, even I have been able to calculate, I think correctly, that at 10p a time half-a-million visitors a year would produce £50,000 a year. Perhaps that suggestion can be looked at by the Government. I know it is a Royal Palace, but there is another Royal Palace which leaps to mind; it is not very far from here and it has within its precincts a nice little art gallery, open to the public. One pays to go in, and it is very good value indeed.
Finally, on the subject of the free bequests of collections, and free museums such as the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, mentioned, and in particular the Turner Bequest. I should like to mention, if I may. the Horniman Museum. I know that it comes under the Greater London Council. but I think it is relevant to this discussion because I see that in paragraph 7 of the White Paper there is to be a review comprising local museums. The Horniman Museum is adorned with a plaque which says that it was:
"…a gift from Frederick John Horniman, M.P.. to the London County Council as representing the people of London…dedicated to the public for ever as a free museum for their recreation, instruction and enjoyment."
For good measure, between the autumn and the spring there are free concerts and free lectures at the Horniman Museum. I hone that institutions of this kind will remain free. I should very much resent the idea that, a bargain having been come to with a benefactor who has since died and is no longer able to renegotiate terms, it will not be adhered to. In particular, I hope it will never be said that because a particular endowment fund has proved to be inadequate because of the rising costs of recent years, that is any sort of excuse
1264
for breaking the original undertaking that the museum or gallery was to be free. Even if it is to become a charge on public funds to some extent, I hope that those institutions which were to be free for all time will remain free for all time.
8.35 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has put before us this question of whether proper consultation has taken place with the trustees of the museums and galleries. I am sure that the noble Viscount will refer specifically to this point, but he will remember that when we discussed this subject on December 16 last the noble Lord, Lord Clark, in a maiden speech, said:
" if the Government wish those of us who are lovers of art to make some sacrifice in order to show our sense of social responsibility at a time of crisis, I would far rather they urged us to deny ourselves new acquisitions than to penalise or alienate those very people who would most wish to be enjoying the inexhaustible riches of our national collections."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/ 12/70; col. 1407.]
The noble Viscount will also recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made a strong speech, indicating the reluctance of the Trustees of the British Museum to have any charge put on entrance to the British Museum.
I should like to raise a further point. This matter has been partially raised already in connection with the Horniman Museum, but I wish to go somewhat further and to point out that in this White Paper we have a reference to provincial museums and galleries. When we had our debate on December 16 last year the suggestion was put forward that the charges were primarily concerned with national museums and galleries and not with the provincial ones, but when we look at this White Paper and see that reference is made in the last paragraph to provinical museums and galleries, and a clear indication is given there that it is the intention of the Government to do something to improve provincial museums and galleries, we may well ask why they should propose to spend any money at all on provincial museums and art galleries if they are not going to suggest that charges should be imposed for admission to those museums and galleries. It would seem a strange thing if the justification for charges to national museums

1265
and galleries is that by doing this the noble Viscount is able to convince his perhaps more Philistine colleagues that they may contribute money towards the improvement of the national museums and galleries, but that when it comes to the provincial museums and galleries some improvement will take place without these charges.
If, on the other hand, it is seriously proposed to recommend that there should be charges on all provincial museums and galleries, then this very point arises: that with many of the provincial galleries the original donors clearly indicated that they wanted the galleries to be open free to the public. That was certainly true of the art gallery in the city in which I live, Newcastle upon Tyne, the Lane Art Gallery, where the money was given early in the century clearly on the understanding—in fact it is specified in the deeds—that the art gallery should be open freely for all to come in. It seems to me that if the noble Viscount is going to start on this course of charging (as he clearly intends to do) for admission to museums and art galleries, he is bound to follow it up throughout the whole country, and we shall have the most retrograde step which has ever been taken in this country with regard to art and art education. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give us some clear indication of the policy of the Government with regard to these provincial museums and art galleries, and I must tell him that his actions in this matter will have a very profound influence throughout the whole country.
8.40 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I rise to my feet with some considerable trepidation and a great sense of humility. I know that we have had a series of long debates on another matter, and therefore I am sorry to detain your Lordships for even a few moments. But I, too, am greatly concerned about the possibility of further extension of charges for museums and galleries. I wonder if I might explain to your Lordships 'the situation which myself I knew. I grew up as a small boy—this was more than 55 years ago: I am now 62—in Poplar, in conditions which to-day are perhaps best forgotten. I went to what was then called an elementary school where we were taught by rote, the multiplication table and so on and so forth. It meant
1266
nothing in intellectual terms at all. If we disobeyed the teacher we were told to sit with our hands on our heads. I need not go " deeper into that '. I had very great good fortune in my early life in Poplar, because before the age of 12 I was sent to St. Michael's Church, in Poplar, where a great saint—I think a very great saint—was in charge as a curate. His name was John Grosser; many of you have heard of him. I learned from John Grosser that there was more in life than these rather horrible material things that I had been experiencing. I confess that I did not understand it all, but I did get a sense of something more of the beauty in life which he, in his inimitable way, conveyed to people through his personality and his faith. I am not claiming to be a highly religious man; I am not. But something happened then, and this was followed by a further experience which happened to me—again I think a lucky one.
Having gone through this elementary school, it was possible for me to go to a good grammar school in Gloucester, Crypt School, with a long tradition. There, of course, conditions were quite different, and I was taught for the first time the elements of logic, the elements of Euclidian geometry. I discovered—and it was a great revelation to me—that the mind could do something. There I began to listen to music, and a great hunger developed (this sounds dreadful, but it is important, I think, that this should be said, because it is a personal experience which is very important to me and, I am sure, will be important to others who can experience it) for what is called, I think quite wrongly, culture: for the things of life which are beautiful in their own right, music and the arts and so on. At 17 I left that school and came back to London and began my search for these things.
I was working, and my wages were in the region of 30s. a week. I had to spend money on board and lodging. I had a little left over, and I used what was left to seek these things I had begun to realise were there. Sadler's Wells was there; the Old Vic was there; the old Queen's Hall was there. You could get into the Promenade Concerts at the Queen's Hall for half-a-crown. You could get into the gallery at Sadler's Wells for, I think,

1267
9d. You could get a tram from Chingford Reach, where I lived, to Bloomsbury for 2d. return. You could do all these things on this very small income. There were the art galleries and the science museums, and these, too, I visited. I could not have done this had there been a charge at that time. It would have been frankly impossible.
Some of your Lordships may be wondering why I am able to tell you this. I am an agricultural man; I come from agricultural people. But I did grow up in Poplar. I had four years after the age of 17 working in London, and during that time, under the influence of John Grosser, as a result of the things I learned from him, I started a boy's club in Walthamstow. We organised athletics for them. I got some help. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Summerskill is not here at the moment, because one of the things we taught them was boxing. But I also managed to get them to go out with me to visit these museums, and I saw how they responded to that and how they liked that. This would not have been possible had there been a charge for admission.
It will be argued, and it is argued, that to-day things are different; that standards of living are higher; that young people leaving school have more money. I do not think this is true. One has to determine priorities, and if it is a question of having to spend money on other things, rather than these things which I think are wrongly termed " culture ", people are likely to spend it mainly in the wrong direction. I cannot understand why an obstacle should be put in the way of those who otherwise might investigate these avenues of perception—the arts and sciences and so on—as I think they would do if they were free. I am not one who believe that one should thrust culture down people's throats. I think there can be a response to culture in people who do not understand that it is in them. In this regard I remember very clearly the discussions we had on the Broadcasting Committee—I was on the Pilkington Committee. I was tempted to speak in the debate the other evening, but I did not. I am conscious of the contribution that Lord Reith made to the cultural development in this country by simply providing, on wireless in the old days, a
1268
sufficient stream of good music; and I know, again from my own experience, that people who previously had had no concern at all for opera and music listened to it almost unconsciously because it was there and learned to love it.
I apologise again for my intervention. I realise that what I am saying may sound awfully hypocritical, condescending and so on. But I feel quite strongly about this matter. I know that many of my friends do, too. I hope that the Government understand what I have been saying in terms of a personal experience. I hope they will understand that this made for an introduction to the more mental things—I hesitate to use the word spiritual things—these mental enjoyments, this better understanding of what is intrinsically good in its own right, which ought not to be thwarted.
8.50 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I shall not delay you long. I agree with what my noble friends have said about the charges, and it seems to me that the economic gain is not really worth the tremendous social loss. But there are two points with which I hope the Minister will deal when he replies. Paragraph 1(a) of Cmnd. 4676 deals with finance and the scheme of entrance charges, and states:
" In consequence the Government are able to provide additional resources for the conservation and display of their collections."
Since, as I understand it, money that goes to the Treasury cannot be earmarked for a particular purpose, I should like, if possible, a clarification of what that statement means. Perhaps we can also have some figures to show the comparison with what is being spent at the moment.
Also. I am a little perplexed about the expanded programme of new building and improvements, which is dealt with in paragraphs 4 and 5. Again, as I understand it, the previous Government had a number of projects under way; and, as well as those that will be completed, I believe that there are still some more. I do not understand how that fits in with the statement in paragraph 5, that
" This represents an increase of the order of 50 per cent. on the programme as previously planned."
Unless my figures are wrong, I should have thought that that was possibly

1269
euphemistic, and that a considerable amount of the £10 million which is projected over the coming five years has already been put into projects. I wonder whether the Minister will clarify both of those points.
8.52 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge for putting down this Question to-night. From this side of the House we make absolutely no apology for raising the matter again so soon after it was debated at the end of last year. My noble friend has received support from my noble friends fjord Wynne-Jones, Lady Birk and Lord Collison, who gave us a very moving speech from his personal experience and told us what free entry meant to him, and indeed what it will mean to so many people until it is terminated in the near future. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has not had much support from his own side to-night. My noble friend Lady Lee reminded us of the proper relationship between a Government and trustees. She also reminded us of the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, made such a notable speech. What my noble friend did not say was that that earlier debate was initiated by the noble Viscount the Paymaster General when he was a trustee of the British Museum. In fact, in the very notable speech that he made at the time, the noble Viscount reminded us of what should be the proper responsibility of trustees and their relationship with Government.
As my noble friend Lady Lee has said, the proposals in this White Paper are opposed by most of the galleries and museums. I should like to ask the noble Viscount about the discussions which the Government have had with the trustees. Paragraph 2 of the White Paper states:
" After careful consideration and talks with the museums and galleries, the Government have prepared a scheme of charges to be discussed with the trustees of the institutions concerned."
I should like to ask the Government for some clarification, because I understand that in certain cases there has been no preliminary discussion except in a very cursory way or at a low level. For example, in the case of the Tate Gallery
1270
a communication was received from the Department at the end of October, inviting comments. The Tate replied in the middle of January, setting out their comments and proposing free entry for certain categories, such as children and retirement pensioners. The White Paper was published this month. I am told that between October and May there was no meeting between the Department and the Tate Director or Trustees.
I should also like to ask the Government about legislation. Paragraph 3 of the White Paper states that legislation will be introduced, and indeed the Government admitted in reply to a Question in the other place on February 4 that they had been advised that legislation would be necessary, particularly in the case of the British Museum. I should like to ask what form this legislation will take. I hear, for example, that any Bill may deal only with general matters, such as obliging the British Museum and the British Museum of Natural History to charge admissions and, in the case of bequests, to override the declared wishes of testators, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, and that the scheme for charges may be dealt with by Statutory Instrument. If that is so, it may mean that Parliament will not have an opportunity to examine the scheme in Committee and that it will have to be considered in toto. I should be glad if the Government would tell the House what they intend to do.
There is, for example, the important question of exemptions which we on this side of the House should want to examine in some detail. In the debate last December the noble Viscount the Paymaster General said:
"…the social service principle of assessing categories of persons who might be hurt by increased charges will be applied to museum charges ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/12/70; col. 1393–4.]
It is therefore all the more disappointing to find in the White Paper that the Government will not make concessions for those less able to look after themselves, such as children not in organised parties, and pensioners. In the case of children, the charge at all times will be 5p., but may I remind the House that the cost to parents of children's visits will be on top of the extra charges for school meals and milk? For families living outside

1271
London, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, the charges will also be added to the fares.
The Museums Association have gone on record, since the White Paper was published, as saying that they are most disappointed that children will not be allowed in free, and the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education, at their annual meeting last January, passed a resolution against the imposition of entry charges. I understand that that was sent to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. It is a pity that so little notice was taken of it. The noble Viscount seems to think that because he once saw some children buying ice-cream outside the Science Museum, all children can afford a 5p. entry fee to a museum, which only shows how surprisingly out of touch he is.
Then there is the question of old-age pensioners. They will not be exempt and will have to pay the full charge. The Paymaster General has said that it would be administratively difficult to exempt them. I do not understand this. Pensioners are allowed in free at the Queen's Gallery. I suggest that the noble Viscount should ask the keeper of the Queen's pictures how it is done there. The recent exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery devoted to Samuel Pepys could be visited by old-age pensioners on production of their pension books. May I ask the Government whether that sensible concession to pensioners will be allowed to continue at the National Portrait Gallery and other galleries, in spite of the White Paper? I should also like to ask the Government about free days. The question of free days is not covered in the White Paper. What line do the Government propose to take with the institutions over these? I know there may be large crowds, particularly if the free day is over the weekend, when many people will go who could not otherwise find the time or the money. But it is important to preserve at least one free day a week—unless, of course, it is the Government's intention to discourage visitors.
My Lords, I have two further questions. I should like to ask the noble Viscount: what will be the position in future of members of supporting societies? There are the members of the British Museum Society, which the noble Viscount him
1272
self started, I think, when he was the distinguished Chairman of the Trustees of the Museum; there are the Friends of the Tate; and, above all, there are the members of the National Arts Collection Fund. I happen to know that the members of the N.A.C.F. particularly feel most strongly about this. Many of them are elderly people living on small, fixed incomes; they supported the fund for many years; and now they will have this annual charge added to their subscription of £2 a year. I think we cannot underestimate what the Fund has done since its inception. It spends about £50,000 a year and has saved many works of art for the nation. One remembers the Holbein's "Duchess of Milan "; the Rokeby Venus "; the Wilton Diptych; more recently the Leonardo Cartoon; and, even more recently than that, the Stubbs painting of the cheetah. None of these might have been saved had it not been for the help of the National Arts Collection Fund. I would ask the Government whether they would consider granting free entry to all N.A.C.F. members, because otherwise I fear that the membership will drop.
My Lords, the White Paper estimates that the yield from these charges will be £1·3 million. Certainly the charges are rather less than we had feared, but I wonder whether the Government are not being too optimistic about the amount of money to be raised. I should like to ask for an assurance that the charges will not be increased after a short period if these do not reach their target. My noble friend Lady Lee has reminded us that the programme envisaged in the second part of the White Paper is a very ambitious one. We congratulate the Government on it, and for carrying on so much of the planning work that was originally initiated by the Labour Government. But, my Lords, heartening as it is to see them carrying on the good work, I cannot agree that money for the arts should be raised in this way. Briefly, this proposal is a tax on art. It is mean and Philistine, and we on this side of the House strongly oppose it.
9.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, this is the second time the Government have been grateful to the Opposition Benches for giving us the opportunity to say a word about our museum policy. It was

1273
the noble Lord, Lord Annan, last December, and to-day it is the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge. I ant very grateful for this, because I feel that 1 have failed in my communications. I am quite certain that what we are doing under the White Paper is for the benefit of the public, and I have not been able so far to impress a number of people who in my opinion are devoted adherents of the museum world, whereas if I could talk to them as I hope noble Lords will allow me to speak now I feel that I could get them round.
The reaction against charging is entirely understandable. Everyone would like to have free at the time of enjoyment that which he really prefers in the art world. I wish that I could go to an artist's studio and pick out without payment the canvasses that I fancy. It would be a joyful convenience for me to be able to ring up Covent Garden any morning and he allotted a couple of free seats for the evening's performance. But then reality breaks in. I was very moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, because he revealed to us what it means to a young man, first making his way in the world, suddenly to have the door of one of the fine arts opened to him. The noble Lord was talking mainly about music. Music, of course, has always been paid for. One of my right honourable friends was saying to me only the other day that one never could get into the gallery for a Prom. without paying for it; and if music is the art which one cared most about, then it was not possible to get it free at the time. For example, the noble Lord was absolutely right in pointing out what the B.B.C. radio did for music when it first became a national service, but, of course, we do have to pay a licence fee for the B.B.C. This would be so if one went through the arts in general; and I think that a little later on I will, if I may, explain why the costs of the visual arts are rising so fast in comparison with the others that if we want to do what we want to do then we shall have—
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way for just a moment? It is true I instanced the fact that one could get music, opera, Shakespeare, Ibsen, and so on, from Sadler's Wells, the Old Vic and the Queen's Hall
1274
very cheaply; and, of course, one has a great regard for the people who made this possible. But I mentioned these things only to indicate that one had suddenly seen a door opening—a door which one was seeking to pass through. Things were there which one did not know were there before, and one wanted to understand them. Music was one of them drama another. The third art—painting architecture, sculptures, science—was free. In my situation and in the situation of many people of my time, we thanked God for Sadler's Wells and their 9d. gallery; but we thanked God, too, for the fact that the museums and art galleries were free. Honestly, it would not have been possible to do anything more with one's 9d., or half-a-crown. That was the point I was making.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I deeply sympathise with the noble Lord's view. If he will hear me out, I think he will see that what we are trying to do is to make this door a great deal wider than it is now for more people than at present to go to the museums. One must consider the future.
If I may, I will first answer the Question that was on the Order Paper put to me by the noble Baroness and taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi: what consultations have we had with the trustees of the various museums before issuing Command 4676. That may seem a short document. We have been at work on it for nearly five months, and during that time we have had separate talks with the officials of the 18 national museums on the practical problems of charging at their particular institutions. These museums and galleries, as your Lordships may well imagine, differ very much one from the other, and therefore these talks could not be conducted very shortly. Those officials will have kept their trustees informed of these talks. The trustees themselves replied to my letter of last November in which I set out the Chancellor's statement about charges and asked for their views.
I said in the debate last December—and I should like to repeat it now—that I quite understand, having been a trustee myself, that it is very disagreeable suddenly to be told of a change like this. But we were in a financial position in which the Government wished to introduce what is called a mini-Budget,

1275
and it was absolutely impossible to consult anybody on any of the various measures that made up that pacakage. I am sorry about that, and I immediately did my best to make the situation all right with the trustees by asking them for their comments. Of the 18 museums consulted, two bodies came out in public flatly against charges, and most of the rest—I think it would be true to say all the rest—offered some comments on some aspect or other of the system as they saw it coming along, but went on to say that they would perefer to wait for a detailed proposal before they gave their final judgment. It was for that reason that we have been gathering together the results of all the talks with the officials and have worked out a scheme for charges which is balanced by an enlarged capital programme and a new initiative in the field of provincial museums. The White Paper has now been put to all trustees and I am ready for discussions with them as soon as they have considered its proposals.
I cannot imagine that anyone expected the trustees to greet the introduction of charges with shouts of joy—and that in spite of the fact that most of them are very well used to charging for special exhibitions 15p, 20p or 30p. I received an invitation this morning from the Victoria and Albert, with a charge of 30p to go to their special exhibition. It is interesting that when museums and galleries do charge these very considerable sums neither the public nor the critics complain. But, of course, charging every day means extra work and trouble not of their making. More important still—and I fully understand their reaction—charging reverses the practice of free entry which most of them have known since they were first connected with the museums. I am much older and I well remember paying to go into the National Gallery and going to see Turner's sunsets at the Tate. Most people in the museum service, at any rate, were not there before the war and do not remember those things.
Those who are working inside the service are almost certain to be against charges if these are brought in, if they consider them in isolation. Supposing the school governors and the teachers were asked whether or not they approved of raising the charge for school meals
1276
or imposing a new charge, say, for a " crash " course in French, one knows perfectly well what the answer would be. And yet, on taking a wider view, some contributions from the user are considered fair and have many times been instituted, even if those in the service were at first opposed in principle. Anyway, the fact is that the British public is thoroughly accustomed both to a subsidy raised from all the taxpayers, and then an individual payment by the user.
To make a museum charge palatable we are told that it is essential to pay the proceeds back to the museum for its own use. This is a very unusual demand. In the Health Service and in further education, at places of historic interest, such as the Tower of London or the Wellington Museum, the charges never have been earmarked and we do not hear of any resentment. In the present case I shall have no difficulty in showing that the increased resources to be made available to museums will over the years much exceed the revenue from charges. Another point that struck me in the controversy is that those who work in the social services are acutely alive to the need for more money to improve their service. They press their own claims as strongly as they can but at the same time they recognise that others have claims, and that the charges in their service help to foot the bill for all. For reasons that I find difficult to explain, a different attitude is adopted by those who oppose museum charges. Either they overlook the need for a great deal more money or they must think that the Government ought to provide whatever the museums require without putting them on a level with the other arts, or with the Health Service, or with areas in the education service. They talk as if there were some great principle at stake. There is none. No divine right of free entry can be claimed when so many institutions already charge. The question is a practical one: will charging help to give a better service to more visitors or not?
Let me turn now to the first part of the White Paper, which describes the proposed system of charges. This is designed to collect £1 million net a year from about 14 million visitors. The most irresponsible argument heard over and over again is that £1 million is a sum

1277
not worth the trouble of collection. It has been this, " Why bother about a million pounds? " attitude which has done so much to raise taxation to the shocking levels of the last few years and to leave such grievous gaps in the social services—so many things left undone that might have been done, or at least started, with husbandry.
Consistent with the objective of raising £1 million net, we were determined to keep the basic charge down to a figure that would be seen to be modest in relation to other forms of personal expenditure, This figure I thought should be 10p. You cannot get much for 10p nowadays. I must explain why, if we go above 10p, it is uneconomical to stop anywhere short of 20p. There is a practical problem here which governs the number of exemptions that we can make. The most economic method of collection when the attendances are large and fluctuating is a combination of automatic machines and a man in a booth. The machines are not clever at giving change; they get various forms of indigestion, and they are expensive to buy and unreliable in operation if asked to handle two or more coins of different sizes. A machine which will issue tickets for 15p is therefore a bad bargain. The basic charge must be either 10p or 20p.
Obviously, exemptions, either no charge at all or half-price, reduce the net revenue, both directly and indirectly, by raising the cost of collection. Any class of visitors who enter free or at reduced rates have to be personally identified. We consider that schoolchildren in organised parties, bona fide students of the museum's collections and readers in the museum's library should be admitted free. To my regret, we felt that it would be difficult to exempt old-age pensioners. The reason is that for some time it has been an accepted principle of finance—I believe on both sides of the House—that the best way to improve the pension is to raise the cash rate and allow pensioners in their very varying circumstances to spend their money as they choose. The Government are following this principle and raising the cash rate for a single person from next September by £1, from £5 to £6, the largest rise ever made in the pension rate.
That is the right way to help all pensioners, but there can be exceptions to
1278
the best of rules, and I should very much like to make one here. We do not know how many visitors to the national museums are pensioners, but there must be a number to whom a reduced charge for entrance and a cheaper season ticket would be of very real importance. and I want to help them. I am going to tell the museums that in our discussions I shall want to put forward this suggestion, and when they come to a conclusion I shall make an announcement. What applies to exemptions in favour of old-age pensioners or children applies still more to free days, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned. If one free day a week were granted, the basic charge would without any question have to be 20p the whole year round. I must also say that we have not found that museum officials are in favour of free days.
I was asked about doubling the charge in July and August. If there is an attendance curve which is right down at the bottom in the winter and goes right up to a peak and then comes down again. it surely makes sense to try to flatten the peak in this way, by having a much cheaper entrance fee in the winter time, as it is pretty well certain that there will be only United Kingdom residents visiting then, and a higher charge in the summer. The Tower of London doubles its charges from April to September; Hampton Court does so from April to September, and Edinburgh Castle charges 50 per cent. more from April to September. It is not a question of saying that all these institutions should be put in the same artistic bracket it is a question of managing the attendance in the best way for those who want to go to them. It was interesting to note that in the many articles which criticised the charging system there was hardly a mention of the season ticket for £1. I think that must be because it does meet the anxieties of a great many people who wrote to us and told us that they visited museums a great many times a year. I am quite sure that the season ticket will be popular. It would make art excellent Christmas present. To give it to one of one's younger friends, in addition to a book token, would be a very acceptable gift.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, whether we could put up a notice saying " House Full ". I think he

1279
will find that all directors of museums would be very unhappy if they had to put up such a notice. What they are doing in America, at least I think in some museums on all the days of the week, is to require that one must book in advance whether one pays or not, because the purpose of the visit is destroyed when the number of people inside the museum exceeds some figure, according to the gallery concerned. I do not favour a tax on tourists, I do not believe that that would be a good way to raise this money. They will, of course, be offered—in addition to the season ticket they can get now, which admits them to historic houses —the same season ticket advantages as anyone of us, by paying an additional £1.
The legislation will be enabling legislation. We do not intend to impose charges on any museum. The reason we must have legislation in respect of the British Museum and the British Museum of Natural History is that it is not quite clear whether the Trustees have the power to charge. If they feel that they need the protection of an enabling measure we will certainly bring it forward. For the same reason we shall have to legislate in respect of some of the Scottish museums but not in respect of any of the others. The trustees of the Wallace Museum, for instance (it is sometimes mentioned in this connection), were given authority to make rules covering charges when they first received a Government grant in 1897.
My Lords, I must say a word about the practical issues behind the decision to charge. The first point is that every visitor who now enters one of our national museums, whether for a whole day or for ten minutes, costs, on average, over £1. This figure is rising fast. A charge, therefore, however small, has the same effect as the money for a ticket for the theatre or a concert, in that it will reduce the amount of subsidy which has to be provided out of general taxation. Secondly—and I rate this even more important—the number of museum visitors is going to increase to the point where overcrowding, at any rate in the summer months, begins to destroy the whole purpose of the visit. Attendances will then be kept down for the very worst of reasons, unless we start now to pro
1280
vide more space in which to accommodate the increase in numbers of visitors. A growth in the numbers of this order follows quite inevitably from the much wider teaching of art in all the schools—a far greater number of young people are interested in these things—and also from the longer and more distant holidays which people here and abroad are now able to take.
My Lords, I find it hard to understand why the opponents of charges are so unwilling to look at the position of museums as it must be in a few years' time. They seem to be interested in the size and composition and demands of the present attendances. If, occasionally they refer to the need for expansion, other than the acquisition of more objects for the collections, they assume that, unlike the other arts, museums will get, and have a right to have, all the public money they want, with no contribution from the user. I must tell them that this is not so. There is no superiority about the visual arts. I think it is perhaps because I, for one, derive even more pleasure from the visual arts than from other fine arts that I realise how much needs to be done to promote the welfare of the museum and to prepare for the crowds that are coming.
I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that without the introduction of charges the capital programme set out in paragraph 6 of the White Paper would not now be authorised to start. This programme does not include the £36 million for rehousing the British Museum Library, although that project will in fact release space for the other collections of the British Museum. In order to set out the White Paper as clearly and, if noble Lords wish, as objectively as possible having regard to the previous programme and the one now, I set out two lists of capital works.
In the pipeline are projects, for which the money is already included in the Vote of the Department of the Environment and of which about £2-t million remains to be paid, which were on the list for which the noble Baroness was responsible. The second list, for which the money is not included in any programme, is of projects that are now authorised to start as soon as they are ready. When there is a large building project, it takes a long

1281
time to get all the plans ready right down to the details, and to be told, when you have the plans ready and you can go to tender, that the money will be there this year and in the succeeding years is something that has not been done before with the schemes in paragraph 6. They amount to approximately £11 million, but in addition there are schemes under £200,000 and a list of minor works that come in every year under £30,000, which cannot now, for obvious reasons, be programmed in detail. I must. however, point out that the smaller works are very important additions to the major projects, because they will enable much space to be better used than it is at present and further they will enable museums who have no big schemes on the stocks at this time to benefit materially from the White Paper. Your Lordships will also realise that the Government are not simply authorising a series of capital sums. When these extensions are completed, more staff will have to be engaged and the operating costs will increase all round. But it is only in this way that we can prepare for the crowds that are coming.
Finally, I turn for a moment to the third part of the White Paper package, which in years to come may well be regarded as the most important. Nothing adequate has ever been done to develop our provincial museums. It is not the fault of the Standing Commission, who are advisory and would be the first to tell us that many of their recommendations have not been acted upon. We are dealing here with a service that is largely controlled by local authorities, and they have had very little encouragement from the Government to improve their museums in the same way as they have built up a really fine public library service. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said, and I can tell him that there is not the slightest intention of influencing any local authority to charge if they do not want to. There are 51 of these museums and galleries who charge now, among them some of the most popular and distinguished museums in local authority hands. But from the centre no encouragement, one way or the other, will be given. There is a clear need, however, to find out about them, and a lot of work to be done. I have therefore invited a distinguished group of people, with wide experience of museums and education, to join me in working
1282
out a policy for provincial museums and galleries in close relation with the national museums. That does not mean the same financial arrangements. What it means is that there is help which the national museums can give to the provincial museums, and vice versa. it may well be a two-way street, but it wants to be much better organised than it is now.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his remark about not intending to force local authorities to charge. Does this mean that local authorities will be able to get Government help in developing the museums and galleries, even if they do not make charges?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The purpose of this committee is to work out a scheme and structure for local museums and concerning some fairly widespread common services. I hope there will be some capital programmes as well. Certainly this Government will not say to them. " You cannot participate in the benefits of this scheme unless you charge." This is a local business, and I believe very firmly in leaving it to local authorities. Some of the best museums in the Provinces, the noble Lord will know, are closely associated with universities. One would not expect, for example, museums at Oxford or Cambridge to charge, because they represent a different kind of museum. The local authorities will be left to make up their own minds on that matter.
I would ask your Lordships, in conclusion, to look at this White Paper as a whole, because those who oppose charges must ask themselves how they would secure the resources for the museums which arc so badly needed. The debate before this one was a wonderful instance of a service for disabled people, with one noble Lord after another making a case that touched all our hearts for providing more money for these people needing special help. There are many services like that, and the problem that I face is, where can I get enough resources to place our museum service, both at the centre and in the Provinces, on a footing which will enable far more people to go and enjoy them, to gain information, to be able to buy reproductions, and so on, which the modern public—especially the young public—wants to do. And whatever we may think about our

1283
favourite museum, that they cannot do now.
I would put it in this way: first, that without charges there would be no capital programme of the size authorised for the national museums, and, secondly, if that example were not set by the programme for the national museums there would be little, if any, chance of getting anything going in the Provinces. For that reason, the White Paper puts in motion a series of developments that in time will be seen to be of lasting benefit to the British public.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I ask one thing before the noble Viscount sits down? I did not wish to intervene earlier. He said, I think, that he could not understand why so many people felt that a saving of just over a million pounds meant so little. If I may say so, that seems to me wrong. Those of us who feel this policy is wrong take this view because it is a question of choice and priorities. Many of us feel that you need not take sixpence off income tax but could use the money in other ways. It is not a case of thinking that a million pounds does not mean anything: it is a case of where you take the million pounds from.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness will help me. This is an argument which is often thrown at me by young art students. They say, " What arc you bothering about a million pounds for? It is such a little sum." Well, with the noble Baroness as my ally, we may scotch that one.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.
  THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE
  THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE
  PURCHASE TAX AND EXCISE DUTY
  PURCHASE TAX AND EXCISE DUTY