Sitting of 11 November 1971

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

    Older Persons
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure for the 55-and-over age category.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): At 12th July, the latest date for which in-formation is available, 168,464 people aged 55 years and over were registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain.
    Mr. Carter: That figure represents one in four of all unemployed. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, if we take the numbers of unemployed who have been out of work for a year or more, 52 per cent. of these people fall into the 55-and-over category, and, further, a large number, possibly even the majority, of these people will never have employment again? Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, consider taking action which would restrain —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is a serious matter. Will the Under-Secretary of State consider taking action which would restrain employers from making redundant people who are 55 years of age and older ; and, second—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—will he consider—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is enough for the Minister to answer now.
    Mr. Smith: It is true that people in the older category are more numerous, but, despite the general increase in unemployment throughout the country, older workers have not fared noticeably worse than other sections of the community.
    1200
    My Department always does whatever it can to persuade employers not to discharge older workers and to engage older workers where at all possible.
    Mr. John Page: Is the Manpower Research Unit in my hon. Friend's Department particularly investigating the problem of people 55 years of age and over?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir; this is one of the problems of our times, and we are looking at it in considerable depth.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the problem of miners of 55 and over who were made redundant several years ago? This is an acute problem. Will the hon. Gentleman consider having a special inquiry into their difficulties?
    Mr. Smith: I do not know that a special inquiry would solve deep-rooted problems of this kind, but we are aware of the very difficult situation of the older miner. Fortunately, as the hon. Gentle-man knows, there are schemes to help people in that situation. However, I do not think that one should ever give up hope that one will be able to find employment for those who are quite senior in age.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make the position of the Chair clear in the matter of supplementary questions? I did some-what curtail the supplementary question being asked by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Carter), but I did so only in the interest of other hon. Members who have later Questions. It would be much easier for the Chair to allow supplementary questions almost ad infinitum in each case, but I have to consider other hon. Members who wish to ask Questions. That was the only reason why I intervened.
    Mr. Carter: 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.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to introduce, for a limited time, an employment premium to employers in respect of redundant men, over the age of 45 years, whom they re-employ when jobs become available.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): As

    1201
    my hon. Friend will know, a scheme has been introduced in assisted areas to help those who are over 45 to find training. When we see how this is working, we may consider extending the scheme to other areas.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend agree that, as these men form a substantial part of the hard-core, long-term unemployed who may never be employed again, they should be treated as a priority group throughout the country and not just in the development areas and that encouragement should be given to employers to employ them when they can, especially as many Government training centres say that they retrain faster than younger men and make more stable employees?
    Mr. Howell: I accept my hon. Friend's last point, and I accept that this is a very serious problem. We are watching the situation in the light of the experiment in the assisted areas.

    Rother Valley
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and proportion of employment exchange areas in England and Wales which currently have a higher rate of unemployment than that in the Dinnington exchange area in the Rother Valley constituency.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Out of 374 areas in England and Wales for which rates of unemployment can be calculated, at 11th October eight had rates higher than that for Dinnington.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of that reply and the serious problem which unemployment presents in my constituency, will the Minister consider conferring development area rather than intermediate area status on my constituency? Further, will he, please, not dismiss the problem as one caused purely by excessive inflation but realise that the problem in Yorkshire is caused by historical and technological changes in the nature of our industry?
    Mr. Smith: I agree that there are a number of reasons why the situation has come about. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for the apportionment of development or intermediate area status, but I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secre-
    1202
    tary of State for Trade and Industry on that point.

    North-East Lancashire
    3. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the unemployed figures for North-East Lancashire for October, 1971.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 11th October, 7,815 people were registered as unemployed in the North-East Lancashire intermediate area, and the rate of unemployment was 3·8 per cent.
    Mr. Davidson: These figures make depressing reading in that unemployment in this region has more than doubled in the past twelve months. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in particular, one of the most troubling aspects of it, namely, that skilled workers are now unemployed for months on end and are leaving the area in search of work else-where, so that, if industry wants to come to the area in the future, it may be discouraged from doing so because of the absence of skilled workers? Will the hon. Gentleman look into this particular problem?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir; we are constantly looking into the problem. I know that there has been an increase, but at the moment the figure is roughly in line with the national percentage. I hope that the rate of increase will now tail off in this area, and, certainly, that the North-East Lancashire intermediate area will benefit from the already massive efforts directed there by the Government.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the disastrous decision to terminate on 1st January quotas on imported textiles, would my hon. Friend care to forecast what unemployment in this area is likely to be in January and February next year?
    Mr. Smith: No, Sir. I do not give forecasts, and nor did the Opposition when they were in office. We are well aware of concern among people in the textile industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said quite recently that the fortunes of the industry are kept under constant review, and I am sure that if my hon. Friend has a word with the Minister for Industry he will be able to press his case further.

    Publishing and Printing Industry Training Board
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Employment why it is necessary for companies whose annual turn-over is such that they are exempted from payment of the levy to the Publishing and Printing Industry Training Board still to be obliged to complete this training board's requests for statistical and other in formation.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): As I informed my hon. Friend by letter last September, the Printing and Publishing Board has statutory responsibilities under Section 2 of the Industrial Training Act to the whole of the industry. It informs me that it could not discharge those responsibilities effectively if the information it collected came exclusively from firms due to pay levy.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that many companies within the industry are not happy with the present structure and organisation, and that to impose this form of bureaucracy upon those small companies is hardly consistent with the Government's attitude towards easing the position of the smaller companies?
    Mr. Bryan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the dissatisfaction felt in many quarters about the industrial training boards. That is one of the reasons why we are having a deep review of the situation, the results of which will be published before the end of the year. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, the Board levies only one-third of the firms in the industry, so if it obtains statistics from only one-third it would not have the true picture of the industry which is required.

    Training Centre (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will set up a new Government training centre in Derbyshire in 1972.
    Mr. Bryan: A new Centre will he located in the Chesterfield-Mansfield-Alfreton area. These facilities should benefit Derbyshire.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend realise
    1204
    that, while that is sufficient for the time being, there is a growing need for retraining centres if we are to tackle the problem of unemployment? The more retraining centres we have to give alternative skills to working people, the better it will be for the economy.
    Mr. Bryan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is more than aware of that. That is why we are having a very big drive to increase our training in that direction. As to my hon. Friend's local problem, we already have our eyes on a site at Kirkby-in-Ashfield, and we hope to get going on it quite soon. It should be a help to my hon. Friend's area.
    Mrs. Castle: When shall we have the details of the massive expansion of training and retraining facilities which we were promised as long ago as the General Election? We are still waiting.
    Mr. Bryan: If the right hon. Lady had listened to the replies over the past two months she would know that an awful lot is happening. Not only are the G.T.C.s being expanded at considerable speed but our drive to get private employers to co-operate with us to let us use their spare capacity is a feature which will grow very much as time goes on.
    Mrs. Castle: That is a very interesting reply. Of course I am aware of those answers, but we were led to believe during the General Election campaign that there was a remarkable new plan to be put before us for a more massive expansion of training than ever before visualised in our history. Are we to take it that these little driblets of expansion are the sum total of the massive expansion we were told about?
    Mr. Bryan: The right hon. Lady knows from her own experience that it takes time, but with the drive we are putting behind it, I think that I can guarantee that she will not be asking that sort of question in three years' time.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made of the effects on the levels of unemployment of labour-intensive industries, for example ship-building, of the ending of the regional employment premium in 1974.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The Regional Employment Premium is only one of a number of measures to help employment in the development areas and it is impossible to estimate the effect of any one measure in isolation.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to publish any correspondence between himself and ship-building companies about the way in which they might be discounting the effects of the R.E.P. in their quotations for ships at present?
    Mr. Carr: I think that I am right to treat correspondence with me personally as confidential to the correspondents. Under our policy, R.E.P. is continuing, for the full seven years for which it was introduced, because we felt that it was right to keep that pledge made by the previous Government. But our attitude to it is that it is not the most effective way of spending £106 million a year in helping employment in the development areas.
    Mrs. Knight: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the possible beneficial effects on the shipbuilding industry of orders to build frigates to send to South Africa, as we were honourably committed to do under the Simonstown Agreement?
    Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend's question is not one for me, but she and the House will know that we have recently announced naval orders of great importance for employment, particularly in the Clyde area. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will no doubt give the House the details.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that not only are we worried about shipbuilding but that in Liverpool and Merseyside we are worried about the declining state of the ship repair industry? We gave up the greatest and largest graving dock in this country—the Gladstone Graving Dock in Liverpool—to facilitate a temporary-container berth. As the new £40 million Seaforth Container Dock is nearly completed, can the right hon. Gentleman promise us that our graving dock will revert to its normal use?
    Mr. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking me questions on matters for which I am not
    1206
    responsible, though I know of the concern felt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the total number employed in shipbuilding and ship repair has increased slightly in the past 12 months, and not decreased, as so many people seem to think.

    Northern Region
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have been made redundant in the Northern Region since June, 1964.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Records of the number of redundancies in all industries including those in the construction and shipbuilding industries for the Northern Region were not kept before 1969.
    During the two years 1st January, 1967, to 31st December, 1968, there were 35,200 recorded redundancies in industries other than construction and shipbuilding in the Northern Region. From 1st January, 1969, to 31st October, 1971, the number recorded as due to become redundant in all industries and services was 44,200.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of redundancies since the Government came to office constitutes a disgraceful achievement of Government policies? In my constituency, 12½ per cent. of the men have become unemployed since 1964, and for every 70 out of work there is one vacancy. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his miserable Government and the policies they have imposed upon the regions have been disastrous?
    Mr. Smith: As he studies the figures, the hon. Gentleman will see that the regions had a large number of redundancies under his Administration. The last Government bear a large share of the responsibility for the present high rate of unemployment, and it is hypocritical of Labour hon. Members to pretend otherwise. Instead of arguing about who is responsible, we are trying to cure the situation.

    Social Work Programmes (Young People)
    Mr. Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department is involved in a project for

    1207
    unemployed young people to be employed by the Government in social work programmes.
    Mr. David Howell: My Department, in consultation with other interested Departments, is giving urgent consideration to proposals from the National Association of Youth Clubs for special work groups of young unemployed people.
    Mr. Holland: In giving that urgent consideration, will my hon. Friend bear very much in mind the importance of combating the demoralising effect of enforced idleness on the minds of young people who are right at the beginning of their working lives?
    Mr. Howell:We will certainly bear that very much in mind. These are interesting and valuable ideas.

    Register of Trade Unions
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many unions have remained on the provisional register of trade unions, and how many have become organisations of workers.
    Mr. R. Carr: I am informed by the Registrar that there were 268 organisations of workers entered on the provisional register on 5th November. Before that date he had removed at their own request 76 organisations from the provisional register.
    Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many trade unions are having to go to the expense of holding special conferences and securing changes of rule to come off the register, and that the vast majority of trade unions are determined to go through these procedures so that they do not go on to the register?
    Mr. Carr: I cannot say what unions should decide to do about changing their rules. That is their own affair. As to the point raised in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we shall have to let time pass and see what the ultimate answer is.
    Mr. Heffer: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that under the Industrial Relations Act the question of
    1208
    changing the rules is not entirely the unions' affair? It is very much determined by the existence of the Act itself. Is he not aware that because of the Act problems have been created in the trade union movement which never existed before, that divisions within the movement have arisen which never existed before, and that the Government are totally responsible for the situation?
    Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that there are also great opportunities which never existed before for the trade unions, as time will show. There is a great obligation on both sides because we believe, as we have debated in the House before, that when organisations like employers' associations and trade unions claim, quite rightly, to exercise the amount of influence which they wield in our economy and public affairs, it is right that they should be accountable to the public.
    Mr. Adam Butler: Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to encourage the trade unions to draw to the attention of their members the benfits of staying on the register and the severe risk which they run if they come off it?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly I will. I will do all I can to draw to everyone's attention the benefits of the provisions of the Act.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the alleged 268 unions remaining on the register are staff associations and similar bodies, employer-dominated and frequently employer-financed?
    Mr. Carr: If they are employer-dominated, the Act will ensure that they cannot remain on the register even if they wish to do so. The names of the 268 are available to the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, since the register is open to the public.

    Work-in Situations
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements of an administrative nature his Department has made for work-in situations.
    Mr. Bryan: My Department's normal practice of keeping in touch with developments in disputes covers such situations.
    Mr. Duffy: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that work-ins such as that which recently occurred at U.C.S. and that which is already beginning at the River Don steel works, Sheffield, require much more than that? Does not he agree that his Department by now should be showing some appreciation of its responsibility for this fundamentally important area, that is, the worker's day at work? For example, how will his work-in affect the worker in the stamping of his card, or in the responsibility for industrial injury or industrial disease, or in the reckoning of service for pension, or in his access to company-based canteen and sports clubs? This is just the beginning of the thinking which the Department should be displaying evidence of doing. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to undertake early consultations with the T.U C. about these matters?
    Mr. Bryan: This sort of situation is fairly new and is obviously something which my Department is studying carefully. That can be guaranteed. For redundancies and so on, we have the well-known "job teams" and all the drill associated with them. But this is a new situation which makes it extremely hard for our normal drill to operate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are studying the situation.

    Expenditure (Scotland)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what sums his Department paid out in Scotland last year, and what is the amount paid out in 1971 to date in absolute terms and at an annual rate, respectively.
    Mr. Bryan: Since this answer is somewhat complicated, I will with permission publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hamilton: May I remind the Minister of State that the Secretary of State has said that he himself was disappointed and surprised by the very high unemployment figures? I and others representing the regions have been telling the hon. Gentleman for months that Government policies are inadequate to deal with the unemployment situation. Will he now recognise, on reflection, that the amount of money being paid out is a waste to the country and that the manpower could be used, if the Government's
    1210
    policies were changed, in order to give these people the jobs which they so earnestly desire?
    Mr. Bryan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I took the trouble to find out what was behind his Question, and I think that even now there is a misunderstanding. The amount of money used by the Government towards generating emplayment comes from the Departments of Trade and Industry and the Environment. The spending in that direction by this Department is not particularly big. We are responsible for spending on training services and so on, and this is not relevant to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
    Following is the information:

    Sums paid out by the Department of Employment in Scotland

    Approximate figure in millions of £

    Financial year 1970-71

    135

    Six months April-September, 1971

    66

    [Annual rate per year 1971-72]

    113

    Sums paid out by Department of Employment as agents for Department of Health and Social Security in Scotland

    Millions of £

    Financial year 1970-71

    37·1

    Six months April-September, 1971

    25·1

    School Leavers (South-West Durham)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many July school leavers remain unemployed in the South-West Durham Employment Ex-change areas.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I am glad to say that, of the estimated 1,600 young people who left school at the end of the summer term, 1,489 had found jobs by 11th October. This leaves 111 still registered as unemployed.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is still very unsatisfactory? Will he ask the Secretary of State to increase the amount of training facilities and training grants immediately, and also to second from his Department officers to make better contacts with youth employment officers and employers so that the maximum number of jobs and training facilities can be found for these young people?
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have appointed extra career officers and the whole question of training is kept under constant review. Training has been increased. But I appreciate that the position is still not satisfactory in the hon. Member's area. The problem is not so much that of the school leaver as such as that of the less-well-qualified young person who has had two or three jobs but is now entering on a period of longer unemployment. That is the problem with which we have to get to grips.

    Code of Industrial Relations Practice
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will submit the Code of Industrial Relations Practice to Parliament for approval.
    Mr. R. Carr: I hope to do so shortly after the Christmas Recess.
    Mr. Page: While the code is still in draft, will my right hon. Friend make one more personal appeal to the T.U.C. to show responsibility to the members of its unions and give its views on the document?
    Mr. Carr: The T.U.C. collectively is in no doubt of my willingness and, indeed, eagerness to consult it. That is well known. But I should like to take this opportunity to repeat it.
    Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the operation of the Act is already causing divisive actions within industry over the question of staff unions seeking registration and over problems such as those occurring in the Fire Brigades Union with its London members? Is not this a recipe for industrial unrest, and will it not increase? The code is absolute nonsense and there is no point in this situation in the T.U.C. discussing it with him.
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is extremely ill informed about what is going on throughout industry. Even in its present form, the code is stimulating a degree of discussion and consideration amongst managements throughout the country—whose primary responsibility it is, we are all agreed, to initiate the right sort of changes—to an extent which exceeds my expectations. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I remind
    1212
    him that the difficulties arise only through those bodies which choose to deny themselves the great benefits of registration.

    Occupational Guidance Service
    Mr. Hornbyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what improvements he is planning in his Department's Occupational Guidance Service.
    Mr. Dudley Smith:The future development of the Occupational Guidance Service is being currently examined as part of a general review of my Department's employment services. My right hon. Friend is to make a statement on the results of this review before the end of the year.
    Mr. Hornby: I welcome that statement, but would not my hon. Friend agree that at a time when skills are changing fast and when, under any Government, employment problems are likely to be obstinate and serious for some time to come, this is a subject which needs very careful examination? Will he bring forward at the earliest possible date the information which he is collecting on the subject with a view to making the services which may be available known to as wide a public as possible?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. The importance of this is fully accepted by my Department. Since the service was introduced in 1966, it has been steadily expanded from the original 12 experimental units and now has 44 centres available in large urban areas. The latest one is being opened tomorrow. Advice has so far been given to 140,000 people and the service is running at the annual rate of 40,000 cases.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if, as he claims, the importance of improving the employment services is fully realised by his Department, he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are adopting a very curious way of showing it, since proposals for a fundamental transformation and modernisation of the employment services were well advanced before I left his Department over 16 months ago? What is the reason for the delay, and may we at last have some action as a priority over attacking the trade unions?
    Mr. Smith: The right hon. Lady's words were not the last on this subject. We want to get it absolutely right, and that is why we have taken quite a while in studying the proposals. But, as we have said today, they will be announced before the end of the year.

    West Midlands
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy with regard to the level of unemployment in the West Midlands as indicated by the latest figures ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Carr: I regard the present level of unemployment as unacceptably high. The Government have already taken very substantial measures to stimulate output throughout the economy and I am confident that the West Midlands, with its strong and diversified industrial base, is well-equipped to take advantage of the expansion which should result from these measures.
    Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the West Midlands he is regarded as a genius—the only man in 40 years to bring widespread and long-term unemployment? If this is to he the fate under a Tory Government of one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, regions of Britain, what hope is there for the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the depressed areas?
    Mr. Carr: I think that history will prove that we are initiating the first real expansion of the economy since there was last a Conservative Government in office. The main cause of our trouble is that we are reaping the bitter fruit of six years of stagnation which culminated with the biggest cost-inflation in our history since the war.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that unemployment in the West Midlands is 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. compared with 7½ per cent. on Clydebank and even higher elsewhere? May I, as a West Midlands Member, ask him not to change the Government's policies, which will certainly lead to success in the early future?
    Mr. Carr:I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he indicated, the Government
    1214
    have given a bigger stimulus to the economy than has ever been given in a single year.
    Dr. Gilbert: As there has been a considerable increase in the number of redundancies in the West Midlands ever since the last figures were announced, and as there is no hope of the regions being prosperous without the heartland of British industry being prosperous, will the right hon. Gentleman consider trying to influence his colleagues to take a more relaxed view of granting industrial development certificates in the near future?
    Sir G. Nabarro: No, certainly not.
    Mr. Carr: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a question for me. But if the measures we have taken in our first year of office—the biggest ever taken in a single year to stimulate the economy— are too late, they should have been taken the year before when the Labour Party was in power.

    Industrial Relations Act, 1971
    Mr. Crouchasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the approximate total of those expected to be involved in conciliation work in his Department when the Industrial Relations Act becomes fully operative, as compared with the current figure.
    Mr. Bryan: About 140 officers are at present involved in conciliation work, mainly in the regions. It is expected that up to 100 more will be required to deal with complaints by individuals mainly about unfair dismissals
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that on this aspect of industrial relations there is unlikely to be a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House about the new emphasis which is being placed on the question of conciliation and producing a better service for it?
    Mr. Bryan: I think that all Members would agree with what my hon. Friend said. As he knows, the Act puts great stress on conciliation, and the conciliation services under the present Government are every bit as busy as they used to be under the Labour Administration, despite the criticism we have had from the Opposition.
    Mr. Atkinson: In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply, why have his officials advised employers in the West Midlands to discontinue the Coventry toolroom agreement?
    Mr. Bryan: The answer is that they have not.

    Oldham
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current unemployment rate in Oldham ; and what steps he is taking to reduce it.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 11th October the rate of unemployment for Oldham and Chadderton travel-to-work area was 3·3 per cent. The Government have already taken many measures to stimulate output, investment and employment throughout the country. Oldham is in a good position to benefit from these measures.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the rate of unemployment of full-time workers in my area during the last three months has been 52 per cent., which is second only to the figure for East Anglia? Is he further aware that mills in the North-West are closing at the unprecendented rate of one a week? In these circumstances, will he consult his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that the North-West gets at least its fair share of public investment, which it is not getting at the moment?
    Mr. Smith: I am prepared to have words with my right hon. Friend on this subject. I am glad that the figure for Oldham is still below the national average, despite what the hon. Gentleman says. The total of new Government aid specifically aimed at creating jobs is about £400 million, which is a massive injection and will certainly benefit Oldham.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: While we must recognise that unemployment is a very serious problem in certain industries and certain areas, does it not give us ground for optimism to reflect that the rise in the number of people wholly unemployed for six months has been less than 50,000 since the Government took office?
    Mr. Smith: The number of people unemployed for over six months expressed
    1216
    as a percentage of all unemployment was 29·2 per cent. The longer-term unemployed figure remained a relatively constant proportion of all those unemployed over the last four years, although undoubtedly the number of unemployed people has gone up. But the figure for the longer-term unemployed is considerably less than the overall figure.
    Mr. Rose: With regard to the Oldham area, will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that it is the Government's intention to cancel the contract for the HS748? Does he admit that recently the Government preferred to purchase abroad rather than from Ferranti and that, as a result, there are 2,500 redundancies from Hawker Siddeley? Does he admit that he has created a depressed area and an enlarged number of unemployed skilled workers in what hitherto has been one of the more prosperous areas of the country?
    Mr. Smith: Without accepting one word of what the hon. Gentleman has said, may I point out that he has been a Member long enough to know that these are not questions for me, even though they may be very interesting.

    Employment Exchanges (Premises)
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken to improve the premises used as employment exchanges.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The Department of the Environment, which is responsible for the accommodation of Government Departments, has a continuous programme of work designed to improve employment exchange premises. Since January this year, 121 exchanges have been rehoused in better premises and major improvements completed in another 115. Higher standards of decoration and furniture are constantly being introduced.
    Mr. James: I welcome that reply, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many employment exchanges are still very depressing places for those who work in them and for the unemployed? Will he redouble his efforts in this respect?
    Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. We place the utmost importance on developing the quality of service in

    1217
    our employment exchanges, particularly as the employment situation improves. Therefore, the right environment for their operation is of major importance.
    Mr. Rose: Apart from the general condition of employment exchanges, would the Minister say exactly what his plans are, in view of the harmful effects of registration under the Immigration Act, to provide extra staff, extra amenities and extra accommodation for those immigrants who now have to register under that iniquitous provision?
    Mr. Smith: I think, with respect, that that goes rather wide of the original Question. I must have notice of it. But if extra staff are needed this is a matter which will have to be considered.

    Disabled Persons (Work Opportunities)
    Mr. Waddingtonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made with the new initiative he announced during the last Session of Parliament to help those disabled seeking employment.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: My Department's officials, in collaboration with Rotary International and the other organisations with whom I had talks earlier this year, have made many useful contacts and some placings of disabled people have already stemmed directly from these. The consequent publicity on behalf of disabled people has probably helped in a very difficult employment situation. In the last four weeks some 4,800 jobs were found.
    Two new industrial rehabilitation units have been opened this year and we are continuing to expand our training facilities.
    Mr. Waddington: Will the Minister recall the importance which he attached in this context to the grants for the retraining of unemployed older workers? What has been the take-up of those grants?
    Mr. Smith: I think I must have notice of that question, but there has been a general improvement since these original initiatives were announced. What I would say to my hon. and learned Friend is that we do not intend just to let matters lie. We are continuing with these initiatives on various fronts.
    Mr. Pavitt: Would the Minister convey the thanks and appreciation of the many thousands of disabled people to the disablement and rehabilitation officers at the local exchanges, and, at the same time, will he have another look at the instructions in relation to the disability of deafness? At the moment no distinction is drawn between being deaf and being hard of hearing, and in consequence there is rather more difficulty than there would be if the instructions were a little more clear cut.
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I will certainly do that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments about the officers, who are now full-time specialist placement officers, and as he probably knows, those responsible in the past year have made placings at the rate of 68,000. They are doing a very good job.
    Mr. Marten: Is the percentage of unemployed disabled now falling?
    Mr. Smith: The percentage of disabled unemployed placing has inevitably fallen in a situation in which there is high unemployment. More efforts are being made, but in this situation that has not prevented the number of disabled unemployed from growing. But the position has shown, I believe, definite benefit from the efforts which have been made by my Department.

    Employment Trends (Inquiry)
    Mr. Cormackasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will institute an independent inquiry into the reasons for the growth in unemployment over the past five years, and the long-term problems which the changing patterns of employment will cause.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have no present plans to institute an independent inquiry. But I have already set in train within my Department a programme of study relating to changing trends in employment and the problems to which they may give rise.
    Mr. Cormack: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I urge him to think again on the first part of the Question, because such an inquiry would be bound to throw interesting and revealing light on the underlying causes of a situation which is causing grave concern throughout the country?
    Mr. Carr: I, of course, agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important to study the problem and to look ahead, but I am not yet convinced either that an independent inquiry is necessary or that it would be beneficial. I am keeping the matter very mach in mind.
    Mr. Bagier: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his Department to ask what have been the effects of the change from industrial grants to allowances? Is he aware that in the North-East, in the period from January to October this year, there have been industrial development certificates providing some 4,172 jobs but that this must be compared with the same period in previous years in which there were well over 10,000? Will he ask his Department to inquire how seriously this policy affects employment in development areas?
    Mr. Carr: As I said in reply to an earlier Question, when we have a package of measures, as we have, in employment policy, it is impossible to isolate the effects of any one of them. Our development area policy includes, for example, new encouragement to service industries. which are the most labour-intensive industries and will, as a package, be more effective than what has existed previously.
    Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, while technological developments have led to a certain increase in unemployment, the basic reason for the increase in unemployment over the last year has been the failure of his Government to introduce measures to deal with the problem, and that this Government are responsible because of their change from investment grants to investment allowances, and because of their policies in relation to I.D.Cs? In fact, their whole policy has failed, and they cannot dodge behind the argument that it was the workers or the previous Government who were responsible.
    Mr. Carr: I do not agree with the hon. Member in any of that analysis. What is true is that we are suffering as a result of six years of stagnation. We are busy putting that stagnation to an end. We have introduced into the economy a bigger boost than has ever been introduced in a single year. If that were too late in our first year then it ought to have
    1220
    been introduced under the previous Government.
    Mrs. Castle: Then will the right hon. Gentleman admit that it was always untrue to say that unemployment could be dealt with "at a stroke"?
    Mr. Carr: We said we would take measures quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"]—and that is what we have done. and will do.

    PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received about unemployment in the Coventry and Nuneaton areas.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to Questions from the hon. Members for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).—[Vol. 825, c. 825.]
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the Prime Minister aware that by continuing to give answers like this he is tending to turn Prime Minister's Question Time into a futile farce? Is he also aware that answers like this give my constituency the impression that he just does not care about unemployment? Is he aware that there is widespread concern in Coventry that it is his Government's deliberate policy to turn the area into a battleground over the toolroom agreement so that our trade unions can finally be crushed?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely wrong. It the hon. Gentleman has a specific question which he wishes to ask about detailed figures for employment, or about unemployment in a particular area, he can put it, like every other hon. and right hon. Member, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. What I must explain to the House is that t am not prepared to set up at No. 10 an enormous organisation which none of my predecessors has had, to take detailed note of every one of the 90,000 letters I receive a year setting out specific views and dealing, as many individual letters do, with a variety of subjects. I am not prepared to set up an organisation to take

    1221
    note of all the views expressed in them. That has never been done and I do not propose to set up that organisation now.
    Furthermore, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that whenever a letter at No. 10 requires Departmental action it is immediately, within 24 hours, sent to the appropriate Department for action. To expect Whitehall Departments to dig through their files to find the answers to questions of that kind is entirely unjustified.
    Mr. Adam Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers at Rolls-Royce in Coventry and in Derby and elsewhere are grateful to the Government for saving the RB211 contract and thereby saving their jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that that is absolutely true. The plain fact was that the Government, quite rightly, made an enormous effort in co-operation with the American Administration to ensure that the RB21I went on and a much better contract was signed. This is now going on, and I would have thought the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been pleased about it.
    Mr. Edelman: In this connection, will not the Prime Minister repudiate the action of Rolls-Royce at Coventry in locking out toolroom workers, thus precipitating a breakdown in the talks on the Coventry toolroom agreement? Will he now use his authority in order to get Rolls-Royce to withdraw the lock-out notices so that talks can resume?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows very well, this is a complicated dispute over the toolroom agreement, in which both sides have expressed their views and taken action, and I do not propose to make a judgment on one side or the other.

    PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to make a Ministerial broadcast.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to an identical Question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).—[Vol. 825, c. 124.]
    Mr. Davidson: I read that answer with considerable interest. None the less, will the Prime Minister use at least part of any future broadcast he may make to reassure citizens who are living here law-fully and peacefully but who are being spied upon by agents of foreign Powers such as South Africa that this practice is totally abhorrent to the British public and totally against the British traditions of freedom under the law?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have made plain in the House in this Session that if any offence is committed in this respect, action will be taken. This is another example of a Question which has nothing to do with a Ministerial broadcast.

    DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to include in his Government a Minister with sole responsibility for price control.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to Questions from himself and from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter).—[Vol. 825, c. 125.]
    Mr. Skinner: If the Prime Minister were to appoint a Minister for Price Control, that Minister would have no authority because he would be undermined by a Secretary of State who is sponsoring inflation by inflicting savage rent increases, by a Department of Trade and Industry which is obsessed with sacking people and by a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is busily instructing employers, including the National Coal Board, to cut back real wages. Does not the Prime Minister realise that this is not a free-for-all but the survival of the wealthiest?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Sir R. Thompson: Is my right lion. Friend aware that statutory responsibility for price control involves wage and salary control, from which the previous Government shied away and which is odious to the trade unions and unacceptable to employers?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the general tenor of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. He is not entirely

    1223
    correct in saying that the previous Administration shied away from wage and salary control. They first went for guidelines, then voluntary restraint, then compulsory legal restraint and they then abandoned the whole lot and now have no policy of any kind.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Prime Minister now say whether his Government are in favour of salary control?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that arises.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Spearingasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Employment on arrangements for entering the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State and his officials are closely concerned with all issues arising from entry which will affect the Department.
    Mr. Spearing: In view of the Prime Minister's satisfaction, will he tell us when the Government expect to publish the details of how acceptance of the labour mobility rules of the Treaty of Rome will affect all categories of Commonwealth and United Kingdom citizens who are working in this country?
    The Prime Minister: This has been described at various times in the debates on Europe. Any statutory requirements will come in the legislation to be introduced in the New Year.

    ST. HELENA
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to St. Helena.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are 5,000 coloured
    1224
    British subjects on the Island of St. Helena who are bitterly resentful that the economic and social life of the island is gradually being taken over by South African interests? Is he further aware that I have been threatened with a libel action should I make public certain statements made to me by islanders about their grievances concerning South African interests?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in this matter, on which he has expressed considerable concern. He had a talk with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about it. As he will acknowledge, he did not give the authorship of the threats that were made, and in these circumstances it is not possible to inquire into them. On the allegation about South African influence in the island, the view which has been expressed to us is that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to the extent of this influence, but if he will provide us with further information about his anxieties we are perfectly prepared to look into them.
    Sir H. Harrison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that when I and an hon. Gentleman opposite went on an official delegation to St. Helena six years ago we found that the 4,000 inhabitants were completely loyal to the British Crown, that a good multiracial society existed and that there was then no influence from South Africa.
    The Prime Minister: That was the position; I fully realise that. It is possible that there has been a change since, but the advice we have received is that it does not correspond with the hon. Gentleman's fears. I repeat, if there is genuine anxiety about this, we are prefectly prepared to make further inquiries.

    U.S.A. (PRIME MINISTERS VISIT)
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to seek to pay an official visit to the United States of America.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make a further visit to the United States.
    Dr. Gilbert: Does the Prime Minister recall that when, before the Summer Recess, I drew his attention to the growth of economic nationalism on both sides of the Atlantic, he tended to pooh-pooh the gravity of the problem? In the light of President Nixon's ruthless package of measures last August, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take this matter more seriously and to suggest any initiative which the Government might take to reverse the trend towards protectionism?
    The Prime Minister: I have always taken seriously the danger of the growth of protectionism in any part of the world. I have long realised the problems which exist. In the Kennedy Round, for the handling of which I was in part responsible when I was at the Board of Trade, we endeavoured to overcome many of the protectionist influences at work, quite apart from individual questions of tariff. On the present position, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acknowledged to have taken a lead in the discussions in the Group of Ten in an attempt to find an arrangement which is acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic, in order not only to prevent the growth of protectionism but to deal also with some of the obstacles which have recently arisen.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not clear that on this matter of protection we have a common interest with the six member countries of the E.E.C. in stopping and reversing any tendency towards greater restrictionism? In his communications with President Nixon, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this is the way in which we propose to work?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the last 25 years, ever since the end of the Second World War, we have been trying to expand multilateral trading arrangements, and that is still our purpose.

    GREECE
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek a meeting with the Prime Minister of Greece.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Fraser: That is a welcome reply, but will the Prime Minister discourage his other Ministers from allowing such things as courtesy visits by Greek ships to the Thames? Will he also instruct the Home Office not to allow members of the Greek secret political police, who have been responsible for the torture of Greek political prisoners, to come to this country and to look at the activities of Greek expatriates who are opposed to the Fascism in Greece?
    The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of the latter point, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have the information either I or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will gladly inquire into it. Courtesy visits of ships and officers are customary amongst N.A.T.O. members and are carried on by all major member countries.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the visit of British troops to Greece is widely used as propaganda in favour of the Greek regime? Will he see that such visits stop?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure about visits of troops having taken place. I repeat, there are many accepted visits of this kind in N.A.T.O. countries, and it is the wish of the Commander-in-Chief that they should continue.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
    Mrs. RenÉe Shortasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination existing between the Secretaries of State for Employment and the Environment in solving the problem of unemployment, especially in the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer described to the House on Tuesday the various Government measures aimed at reducing the level of unemployment throughout the country, including the West Midlands.
    Mrs. Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that these measures are singularly unsuccessful, in that unemployment in the West Midlands is steadily moving towards 8 per cent? Is he also aware

    1227
    that if his two Secretaries of State were to set about a comprehensive and energetic house-building programme, which is so urgently needed throughout the West Midlands, this would provide employment to people who are without work and at the same time get people out of the deplorable housing conditions in which they live? Will he consider setting up a special house-building association to do this?
    The Prime Minister: I discussed the problems of the West Midlands when I visited that area during the recess and met the Economic Planning Council. There is no doubt that the improvement grants which were introduced by my right hon. Friend are now having a consider-able effect. Similarly, there is an improvement in the private sector of house building, and I should have thought that in the West Midlands many local authorities were also putting a particular drive behind local authority housing.

NAVAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME
The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper for answer:
Dame Irene Wardto ask the Minister of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to give details of the recently announced accelerated naval construction programme.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer written Question No. 31.
We shall be placing contracts in the course of the next few days for the construction of four Type 21 frigates by Yarrow's on the Upper Clyde, of two Type 42 destroyers and two small fleet tankers by Swan Hunter on Tyneside, for the design and construction of two fleet replenishment ships and of a research vessel by Scott's on the Lower Clyde, and for a survey ship and two salvage vessels by Robb Caledon, largely at Leith. A number of other orders for small auxiliary craft will also be placed before long.
These orders will provide significant employment in shipbuilding firms in the development areas. During the next year
1228
they should create or preserve over 4,000 jobs for workers directly employed on our orders. Indirect employment in the shipyards will also be increased and, moreover, about the same number of jobs will be provided in sub-contracting firms throughout the country.
Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that good news and for the speed with which the programme has been designed. What will be the likely starting date, and will he also bear in mind that the more naval ships we can have the better I shall be pleased?
Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and share her views. Work will begin in all cases immediately. although at Scott's some preliminary design work will be necessary first.
Mr. Dell: Could the Minister say whether Cammell Laird tendered for any of these orders and, if so, why no orders have been allocated to that yard in view of the high unemployment on Merseyside?
Mr. Gilmour: The answer is simple. Cammell Laird has no additional capacity at present. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the summer we placed two orders for Type 42 destroyers with Cammell Laird, and they are managing to lay the first one only in February and the next one in October of next year.
Mr. Woodnutt: Could my hon. Friend say whether in these four cases the lowest tender was accepted?
Mr. Gilmour: No. As my hon. Friend knows, this was an exercise not only to help the Navy but also to help employment. It was therefore confined to development areas and intermediate areas.
Mr. Small: I thank the Minister for his reply, and certainly Yarrow and my constituency will greatly welcome it. Can he say whether the labour force at Yarrow will be increased arising out of the contract?
Mr. Gilmour: The order placed with Yarrow will have the effect of either creating or preserving something like 1,000 jobs.
Mr. James Hill: Can my hon. Friend assure me that all the orders will not go

1229
completely to the development areas, since we have shipyards in the south which require work of this type?
Mr. Gilmour: I am well aware of that but, as I have said, this was a special exercise to help not only the Navy but employment.
Mr. Urwin: The hon. Gentleman referred to the preservation or creation of 4,000 jobs in the industry. Can he be more specific and say how many new jobs are estimated to be created in the northern region following the announcement? Whatever the number, does he not think this will be but a drop in the ocean compared with overall requirements in the northern region?
Mr. Gilmour: The work at Swan Hunter will have the effect of occupying 1,400 men directly as well as involving all the side effects this work will have. In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's final comment was not very generous.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY,15TH NOVEMBER— Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill.
TUESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER and WEDNESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.
At the end on Tuesday, Motions on Procedure, and at the end on Wednesday, Motions on the Industrial Court (Appeals) Orders and the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations.
THURSDAY,18TH NOVEMBER— Supply (1st allotted day): There will be a debate on Education, which will arise on an Opposition Motion. Motion on the White Fish Subsidy Scheme.
FRIDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Superannuation Bill. Motions on the Representation of the People Parliamentary Constituencies Orders.
MONDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government intend to have an early debate on Northern Ireland ; indeed, they probably would have been willing to have had such a debate next week although, for reasons for which I am responsible, it might he convenient to some of us to have it the following week. If we are to expect publication of the Compton Report, would the right hon. Gentleman agree to consider whether that report should be debated as part of the general debate on Northern Ireland, or should it be considered on its merits when we receive it?
I welcome the two days allocated to the Local Government Bill, though I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not allocated the same time to the Housing Finance Bill. Has he yet taken any decision about the recommendations he will make about part of the Local Government Bill going upstairs and, if so, which parts does he envisage going upstairs since some are more clearly suited to the Floor of the House than others?
Thirdly, on the questions which were put to him in the recent debate about the form of Common Market legislation, are we to take it, as a result of inquiries we have made, that the Leader of the House is quite genuinely in the situation that at the moment he does not know how many Bills there will be and what the form will be? No doubt he will report to the House as soon as he can.
Is he now in a position to answer an important question I put to him the other evening—it was somewhat noisy on that occasion, and perhaps he may not have appreciated its purpose—namely, that since there will be an enormous amount of legislation the purpose of which will be to replace existing commercial, company and much other legislation which has been hammered out in this House over the years line by line and clause by clause, there will be no proposal to replace that under the Statutory Instrument procedure; and that, whatever is to be the new law to be recommended to the House it will be similarly debated, with all the normal stages involving the power of amendment in both Committee and on Report?
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I should reply first to the right hon. Gentleman's last point. The detailed studies necessary for the preparation of this European legislation are now being carried out, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. The legislation will be introduced in the new year. In the mean-time I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to consider during the preparation of the legislation any representations that might be made to me through the usual channels or from right hon. and hon. Members in the House. I think that is the best way to proceed.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the procedure on Northern Ireland, and I am grateful to him for what he said. The Government will fit in with his proposal for a debate on Northern Ireland and will consult through the usual channels about timing to fit in with the various arrangements. The Compton Report will be published early next week and I note what the right hon. Gentleman said.
The Government propose to send the Local Government Bill upstairs to a large Standing Committee.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the procedure Motions on Tuesday night be confined to the less controversial recommendations of the Select Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: The answer is that, as I promised the House when I made the statement, I would put down on the first occasion only those proposals which seemed to be non-controversial, I shall do so. The main controversial one, which I know concerns Scottish hon. Members, I shall put down next week. I shall put it down in good time, and I give an undertaking that it will not be put down late at night. I intend to give more time to that matter than is normally the case, and I hope it will be before 10 o'clock.
Mr. George Thomas: Since the Leader of the House must have been told by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales of the deep resentment in the Principality that the Welsh proposals have been tagged on with local government reform in England,
1232
will the right hon. Gentleman now ensure that the Welsh part of the Bill is discussed on the Floor of the House where every Welsh constituency Member can play his proper part?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted the Motion on the Order Paper. It was partly for that reason that, very much against the precedents and in a way which the previous Government never did, I decided that it was right to give two days for the Second Reading of this Bill, in view of the Welsh point made by the right hon. Gentleman and the strength of the case. As for the Committee stage, it was my view that it was right to send the whole Bill upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] But I believe that there will he opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members on Report later on.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no action will be taken on any reorganisation of the police force without a debate in Parliament? Will he bear in mind that I am most anxious, as I am sure the whole House will be, that we do not have any controversy with regard to the police force, and will he hear in mind that I am all on the side of the police?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the important points that my Friend has made.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Leader of the House imagine that, simply because he thinks that Motions on procedure are non-controversial, they will be non-debatable? They will need to be examined in very great detail, even though they may be non-controversial. Will he also give an early undertaking that he will provide a day for a debate on the televising of the proceedings of this House, that being particularly propitious in view of his clownish and irresponsible behaviour on Tuesday night?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the hon. Gentle-man's first point, I undertook to have discussions through the usual channels about these procedure Motions. I have done that. I put them down after such consultations. Time will be available on Tuesday night for debating them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the

1233
time given thereafter for the Scottish matter is a concession to a Scottish point of view and in accordance with my undertaking.
As for the televising of Parliament, this has always been a matter for the House to decide. If there is a general feeling that it would be right to discuss this matter and take a decision upon it, no one would be more pleased than I. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was one of those who voted for it when it came before this House on a previous occasion, although on that occasion I was, in company with the then Government Chief Whip, in a minority of one. I have not changed my view, and I am only too ready to bring it forward again. But this is a matter for the House as a whole.
Mr. Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman would be the star turn.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend arrange as a matter of considerable urgency for a statement to be made by the Minister of State for Defence on the problem of guarding police stations in Northern Ireland, especially in view of the fact that two police stations have been totally destroyed while the matter has been under consideration in Whitehall?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall of course call this important and serious matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. This and other matters are under consideration in Belfast. I think that that is the right position at the moment.
Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House noticed Early Day Motion No. 2 in connection with Rhodesia, and the eviction of some 3,500 black tenants from a Methodist settlement? In view of last night's debate, obviously this is not an appropriate time for an immediate further debate upon the matter, but will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the criteria outlined in that Motion?
[That this House does not countenance talks and would refuse any settlement with the rebel regime which has usurped control in Rhodesia unless the Land Tenure Act which designates land into black-occupied and white-occupied area is repealed; and, in particular, would
1234
regard the Rhodesian plan to evict 3,500 African tenants from a British Methodist Church settlement, the Epworth mission's 9,000 acre estate, as proof that Her Majesty's Government could not with honour accord any recognition to Mr. Smith's rule if such evictions take place.]
Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I shall do that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary appreciates these matters very well at a time when he is going to Rhodesia.
Mr. Normanton: In view of the deep and widespread concern expressed both inside this House and outside it at the imminent ending of the need to indicate markings of origin on imported materials, will my right hon. Friend consider giving time at an early date for a debate on this very important subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sympathetic to this point of view. I could not give time next week, but I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give time fairly soon for a general debate on the future of Government scientific research and development, including the Dainton Report and the question of Lord Rothschild's activities?
Mr. Whitelaw: I realise the interest of the hon. Gentleman in this matter and the amount that he has contributed to discussions on the subject. I also appreciate the importance of the subject. I could not give time at the moment, but certainly I shall bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Jennings: Does my right hon. Friend realise how happy he has made me by saying that he regards the proposals on procedure that he has put down for debate on Tuesday night as non-controversial? Are we to take it that any Amendments that may be tabled—and I hope to table three today—will also be regarded as non-controversial and that, if they were called by you, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to accept them in anticipation?
Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally, I should wish to see the Amendments that my hon. Friend put down to the Motions. The whole matter can be considered and if there were a strong division of feeling in

1235
the House about some of them and the general wish was that I should take them back for further consideration, I should do so.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Recognising the right hon. Gentleman's concession in providing time for the House to debate the controversial matter in respect of the Scottish Committee, may I ask whether this will be done before or after the Second Reading of the Scottish Housing Finance Bill? It would be disgraceful if any limitation were placed on the number of hon. Members who coul dserve on that important Committee.
Mr. Whitelaw: That question gives me an opportunity to clarify what I think was the purpose behind the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure on this matter. It was to bring the position of Scottish Committees into line with that of all Standing Committees of this House. In all Standing Committees of this House, there is always an opportunity to have a larger Committee in specific cases, as is being done on some of the major Bills which we are taking at the moment. Therefore, even if this Motion were passed—and I am not prejudging the issue—that would not stop the Scottish Committee considering the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill being larger than the number of 16. That could be done even if this Motion were passed.
Mr. Scott: In view of the large number of hon. Members likely to want to take part in the debate on the Housing Finance Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider suspending the rule on Monday evening perhaps for an hour, so as to allow more to take part?
Mr. Whitelaw: I know that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak on this subject. Equally, I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition previously asked for two days. In the circumstances, and if it is the wish of the House, certainly I am prepared to suspend the rule for an hour on Monday night.
Mr. Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the committal Motion on the Local Government Bill, in view of the precedent of the London Government Bill, 1963, when four days were given
1236
on the Floor for the discussion of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 dealing with detailed boundaries?
Mr. Whitelaw: I take note of that point. However, I still feel that, in all the circumstances, my proposition is a reasonable one.
Mr. Ridsdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware how disappointed I am that he was not able to arrange a debate on local government finance ahead of the Local Government Bill. He will remember that I pressed him last week to do so. Is he aware that this will have a grave effect on the transfer of North-East Essex to Suffolk? When the Local Government Bill is taken on the Floor, will my right hon. Friend ensure that a Treasury Minister is present to reply to financial questions?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers concerned. I also note what my hon. Friend says about the amount of time, presumably on Report, to be given to the Local Government Bill on the Floor of the House.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: I must warn the House that we cannot have an unlimited period for these questions.
Mr. Milne: Arising from the right hon Gentlemans' failure to include discussion of employment and job prospects in the North-East in next week's business, will he arrange for an early debate on this subject, as there was a complete absence of any dealing with this important and urgent matter during the debate on the Gracious Speech?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I could not undertake to give time next week but I will certainly bear in mind the point he has made.
Mr. Crouch: I should not like my right hon. Friend to think that his expressed enthusiasm this afternoon for again considering, after a long time, televising the proceedings of the House will go unnoticed. I for one greatly welcome his enthusiasm, and I hope that he can give

1237
the House some intimation that we may be able before Christmas to debate this important question of presenting Parliament to the public more closely.
Mr. Whitelaw: I have always said that I am ready to respond to the wishes of the House on this matter, and if I receive strong representations from all parts of the House of a desire on the part of right hon. and hon. Members to discuss this particular subject, of course I am prepared to give the opportunity.
Mr. Lawson: Reverting to the question of the Scottish Standing Committee, would the right hon. Gentleman consider a form of words that would give the House the right, if the House or the Opposition so desired, to demand a larger number of Members on a particular Committee.
Mr. Whitelaw: The unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure in no way precluded that, because it would only put the Scottish Standing Committee on exactly the same basis as all the other Standing Committees of the House. In all the other cases in the House, representations about larger Committees are always considered and frequently granted. If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman—I see he is shaking his head—it is fair to say that very much larger Committees will certainly be granted in the case, for example, of the Housing Finance Bill and the Local Government Bill, as has been done in the past on many other Bills, and in all other cases of English and Welsh Measures the consideration of the size of the Committee has always been one to be discussed through the usual channels.

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the meeting of the Ministerial Council of the European Free Trade Association in Geneva on 4th and 5th November, and on my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on 9th November.
1238
In Geneva Ministers unanimously expressed the hope that negotiations between the Communities and the noncandidate members of E.F.T.A. would start soon and be pressed forward as rapidly as possible. We reaffirmed our strong interest that the agreements reached should safeguard, in conformity with the G.A.T.T., the free trade already established in E.F.T.A.
For our part we informed our E.F.T.A. partners that, in accordance with our obligations under the E.F.T.A. Convention, we would be giving notice on 31st December, 1971, of our withdrawal from E.F.T.A. to take effect from 31st December, 1972.
I will, with permission, circulate the full text of the E.F.T.A. Ministerial CommuniquÉ in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In Brussels we made encouraging progress on a number of points.
First of all, in regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, I am glad to be able to report that in accordance with our requests the Community has agreed to offer the Islands free trade in industrial goods within the common external tariff and free trade in agricultural products. In its proposal to us the Community has set out what will apply to the Islands; the rest of the provisions of the treaty and regulations will not. This safeguards the Islands' fiscal position. Most important of all, the Community's proposals would in no way affect the Islands' constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom. I believe that these proposals offer a fair deal for the Islands, and I shall be prepared to commend them to the Island authorities when I see them shortly.
Next we reached agreement on the transition period of two years for which we had asked for the application to our export credit policies of the appropriate Community directive.
I raised again the position which the enlarged Community should adopt towards Papua and New Guinea, which, because of their constitutional position, cannot he associated with the Community. The Community has been examining this, and I am confident that it will be able to respond very soon.
I now come to the issue which took up most of the time of the meeting;

1239
namely, the common fisheries policy. As the House knows, the Community has fully recognised the need for changes, and has acknowledged that the new policy must establish a satisfactory overall balance of advantage for all member countries, new and old.
In an attempt to secure this the Community made some new proposals. As regards access it suggested an initial period of five years, during which everyone would be free to reserve access to fishing grounds within six-mile limits a further period of five years during which this could be continued with the approval of the enlarged Community; and, even after 10 years, provision for exceptional treatment in areas where the local population was mainly dependent upon fishing. The Community suggested for certain strictly limited geographical areas such as the Orkneys and Shetland Isles a special regime to which a 12-mile limit would apply.
While welcoming this move as a genuine attempt towards a solution, I made it clear that it was inadequate both as regards time and access. On time I said that however long the initial period there must be arrangements on a continuing basis subject to review. On access, whilst accepting the case for special treatment for areas where fishing was virtually the only means of livelihood, I explained that this did not go far enough. We had to recognise the needs of all areas where fisheries were of substantial economic and social importance to the stability and development of particular regions and where stocks were already fully exploited by the fishermen traditionally fishing there.
We also discussed the application of the Community's marketing arrangements for fish. Here I was able to welcome its readiness to examine various adjustments which we have requested, and in particular to consider variations in withdrawal prices, improved arrangements for producer organisations, and provision for the marketing of frozen fish.
In view of the complexity of the issues and the interests of the other candidate countries, we were not able to reach agreement on this occasion. Nevertheless the Community, recognising the need for an early settlement, has agreed that we
1240
should hold a special Ministerial meeting on 29th November. In the meantime the Commission has been asked to consult officials from the candidate countries. and report further.
Finally, we reviewed the progress made in drafting the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities, and agreed that we should aim to sign the Treaty in the week before Christmas.
Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the statement that he has just made will reinforce the misgivings which many of us expressed that Her Majesty's Government should have asked the House to approve the arrangements for entry into the Community before agreement on fisheries and the problems of E.F.T.A. have been reached? Will he assure the House that the Government will not sign the Treaty of Accession or withdraw from E.F.T.A. before a satisfactory agreement has been reached on both these issues?
On the fisheries question, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman three questions? First, have the Six agreed to the proposal which he promised the House on 25th October he would put to them. that if a satisfactory agreement is not reached on the Community fisheries policy the new members will be allowed to maintain the status quo and that no change in the status quo will take place without their agreement?
Second, I note that the Norwegian Government have insisted on not confining the negotiations to the transitional period alone but have asked for fundamental changes in the long-term provisions for fisheries. As this is the case and no one has protested about this in principle, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House why Her Majesty's Government did not take similar steps on the long-term provisions of the common agricultural policy and the budget contributions?
Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not accede to the Common Market until the needs of the other applicants have been satisfactorily met, since if they did so they would be changing the whole political balance inside the Community on the basis of which the Government asked the House to approve these negotiations?
Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehensions about the whole position of E.F.T.A. I have made regular reports about the meetings which I have had with the E.F.T.A. countries, both candidate and non-candidate, and we have been proceeding all along in an agreed and wholly satisfactory manner.
Concerning fisheries policy, our position was made perfectly clear in the debate. Everybody understood that the fisheries policy was still a matter for negotiation. We are now in the middle of those negotiations. As I reported to the House, we have made a measure of progress, but clearly there is a good deal still to be settled.
There are, in effect, three possibilities. First, a six-mile limit for everybody, which we originally suggested, which maintains a certain balance of advantage between inshore and deep-sea fishermen. That does not seem to have found favour. Secondly, there is the possibility of the status quo. Thirdly, there is in effect a new regulation which maintains a fair balance of mutual advantage between the old and the new members. That is what we are seeking. We are in touch not only with the Community, but we have had pretty frequent meetings with the Ministers of the other candidate countries about this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wolrige-Gordon.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordonrose—
Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has not answered any one of the questions which I put to him?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Wolrige-Gordon.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his conduct of these negotiations will have brought a great deal of comfort to fishermen in what for them is a difficult and worrying time? Does he agree that in the way that things are developing in the oceans at the moment, the 12-mile limit is a minimum requirement for this country, not a maximum?
Mr. Rippon: I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole problem of fishing is not just a matter for discussion in the context of enlargement negotiations.
1242
There are many other problems, some of which no doubt will arise at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea when it takes place. Certainly what I have been discussing in Brussels is only part of the picture.
Mr. Grimond: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy for his apparently successful efforts on behalf of Orkney and Shetland. My constituents will be grateful to him and to the Community for suggesting that the 12-mile limit around those islands should be preserved.
May I take it that the Community has also accepted that the 12-mile limit must last longer than 10 years?
I support the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his efforts to ensure that satisfactory arrangements for the fishing communities extend further than 10 years, because an interim period of that length would not inspire confidence in the industry.
Mr. Rippon: We have made it clear, as we did, in effect, on New Zealand, that a transition to disaster would be no solution, even if the initial period was a lengthy one.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on utterly rejecting the proposals put forward by the Commission. Will he maintain that stand and ensure that British fishermen get no less than that arrangement which will be acceptable to all four applicant countries?
Mr. Rippon: We are certainly trying to find a suitable common denominator which will reconcile all our interests and ensure comparable and fair treatment between all the parties concerned.
Mr. James Johnson: The Minister has often stated that he does not want a quick solution, but a correct solution. Is he aware that the whole House would want him to fight this 12-mile limit question to the bitter end? Will he assure the House that he will do so and that he has the means to enforce it? In other words, has he got helicopters and a defensive patrol which will ensure that we can maintain the 12-mile limit?
Mr. Rippon: We are negotiating with our friends and allies. I should not at this stage want to adopt too bellicose an attitude. I know that right hon. and

1243
hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about any policing arrangements which might be made. When talking about the 12-mile limit we must remember that the legal position of Norway is rather different from ours, because of historic rights.
Mr. Nott: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on the substantial progress which he has made on this issue. Will he confirm that he regards Cornwall as an area where fishing is part of the economic and social structure of the community? Is he aware that we want the status quo if he can possibly obtain it?
Mr. Rippon: I certainly put forward the anxieties expressed by fishermen in areas dependent on crustaceans.
Mr. McNamara: Despite what the Chancellor's hon. Friends and some hon. Members on this side of the House may be saying, may I ask whether he is aware that we are completely dissatisfied with his statement on fishing, because he has said nothing at all? Will he now answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and tell us whether we shall sign the Treaty of Accession before we have an agreement on fishing? Will he also tell us whether he will allow frozen fillets from Iceland to be regarded as industrial products for the purpose of E.F.T.A. negotiations, bearing in mind Iceland's demand for a 50-mile limit, the effect which this will have on our deep-sea fleet, and the corresponding effect, if that limit is imposed. on our middle and inshore fishing fleets which are vitally important in the discussions and cannot be ignored?
Mr. Rippon: I am aware of the anxieties about the Icelandic claim to a 50-mile limit, but that is outside the context of the negotiations. We must bear in mind the point made earlier, that to talk about a 12-mile limit is only part of a wider problem.
I have made it clear in my statement that the signing of the Treaty will not be before 29th November when we have our next meeting.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why
1244
the Western Isles, which have an even less economic hinterland than Orkney and Shetland, have not been mentioned in the same breath, particularly as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is a pro-Marketeer and therefore those islands should take what will be coming as a result of going into the Market?
Mr. Rippon: The House will appreciate that we are, in effect, in the middle of negotiations. I am not at this stage laying down ultimata to our friends and allies about what the final outcome may be. But we have had very much in mind the position of the Western Isles, which is rather different, because we must remember that when we talk of a six-mile limit we talk of six miles from the base lines agreed in the European Convention of 1964.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether the Community proposes to extend the arrangements to be offered to non-candidate countries to any candidate countries which, by reason of dissatisfaction with the fisheries position or for any other reason, decide to withdraw their application?
Mr. Rippon: I regard that as an entirely hypothetical question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and one which at the moment is not likely to arise.
Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has again undermined his negotiating position by agreeing to a date for signing the Treaty without coming to a final agreement on fisheries and on E.F.T.A.? Is he also aware that his statement today is as unsatisfactory as many of his statements in the past and makes a nonsense of the vote of the House on 28th October to enter the Community?
Mr. Rippon: I do not think that that could be suggested. Everybody knew what the position was on fisheries when we took the vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was understood that there were a number of issues still to be determined, of which one was fisheries. I made clear in my speech the position on fisheries. It is clear from what I have said today that we have not yet settled the matter. It is being tackled urgently. I hope that we shall make progress on

1245
29th November. It was in that belief that the Community stated that it was our aim to sign the Treaty before Christmas.
Sir T. Beamish: My right hon. and learned Friend will recollect what a fine sight some of the trawlers from Newhaven made off Brighton during the Conservative Party conference. Is he aware that the very firm way in which he continues to handle this inshore fishing question is very much respected and admired in my constituency?
Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy at least give a clear assurance that, on behalf of the British fishing industry, he will not accept any arrangement less favourable than that secured by Norway for her fishermen?
Mr. Rippon: That is what we talked about in the debate: that we must have arrangements which maintain a fair balance of advantage between the parties to the negotiations. That means that we would expect to receive comparable treatment to Norway and the other candidate countries.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that in ending the arrangement with E.F.T.A. he should place on record that during its lifetime this Association has been an outstanding success? Is he aware that many people in this country will regret its premature ending?
Mr. Rippon: We agree that it has been an outstanding success. At the E.F.T.A. meeting in Geneva we were all unanimous in expressing our satisfaction at the progress which has been made in fulfilling what was one of the main aims of the Stockholm Convention, namely, the enlargement of the Community.
Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that to treat the proposals, at least so far as Scottish coastal waters are concerned, on a sectoral basis will be unsatisfactory, inequitable and unworkable from the point of view of conservation? Is he not aware that the whole concept of trying to evaluate the dependence of an area upon fisheries is unworkable?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the anxieties. I expressed some observations
1246
about this concept of the hinterland and the suggestion that an area had to be wholly or mainly dependent upon fisheries for special measures to apply. Of course, we have accepted around our coasts the principle of historic rights between six miles and 12 miles. There are certain real differences between areas and the types of fishing in those areas, and that fact has to be borne in mind. There are areas in which by far the higher proportion of the catch is between six and 12 miles. In other areas that is not a problem, while there is the question of the baseline and how that affects particular areas.
Mr. Marten: As we are now withdrawing from E.F.T.A. on 31st December, 1972, if the consequential legislation should not get through can we then rejoin it? Will it still exist for us to rejoin? While I am on that point, may I ask the following question: if we sign the Treaty of Accession at the end of this year and the consequential legislation should not get through, what is the constitutional position in which we would stand? May I say to my right hon. and learned Friend: please do not say that this is a hypothetical question.
Mr. Rippon: What we have had to do is to give notice, in accordance with Article 42 of the Stockholm Convention. Therefore, assuming the legislation passes, in order to be full members on 1st January, 1973 we have to give notice of withdrawal by 31st December, 1971, in order not to be members of two organisations at the same time on 1st January, 1973. I think that is a technical matter. I do not find that it caused great alarm among our E.F.T.A. partners. We are all working together. If circumstances arose either for us or for the other candidate countries whereby the enlargement did not take place, I do not think we would be in any difficulty in practice.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chichester-Clark.
Mr. Milne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement that we have received, may I give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is common form in the House.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the need for some of us to refer to this statement and possibly to describe it, could you offer your guidance on an episode which took place earlier this week involving my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) who used a combination of two epithets with regard to the Secretary of State for Wales? It was not clear from that episode whether it was the substantive epithet or the sanguinary addendum which was out of order.
Mr. Speaker: That is a complete abuse of a point of order.
Following is the CommunEquÉ:
MINISTERIAL MEETINGS OF E.F.T.A. COUNCILS GENEVA 4TH AND 5TH NOVEMBER, 1971
CommuniquÉ
The E.F.T.A. Council and the Joint Council of E.F.T.A. and Finland met at ministerial level in Geneva on 4th and 5th November. 1971.
In the E.F.T.A. Council, with the Finnish Minister taking part in a personal capacity, a full discussion of the present situation and prospects of wider European integration took place. Ministers noted with satisfaction the considerable progress which had been made since their last meeting in the negotiations and discussions of E.F.T.A. countries with the European communities.
The membership negotiations of most of the candidate countries had virtually been completed and it could now he expected that the necessary membership treaty could be signed towards the end of the current year. The prospects for suitable special relations agreements between the communities and the other E.F.T.A. countries had also improved considerably. Ministers hoped that negotiations to this end should start soon and be pressed forward as rapidly as possible.
The concept of the communities would provide a good basis for the negotiations which were about to begin. The community's desire that no new barriers to intra-European trade would be erected as a consequence of enlargement is in line with the strong interest which E.F.T.A. Ministers have expressed and reaffirm in safeguarding as an important part of an enlarged European community the free trade already established between E.F.T.A. countries. The forthcoming agreements should also be in conformity with the G.A.T.T. Ministers stressed the importance which they attached to adherence to these objectives in the elaboration of the agreements. The exchange of information and consultations between the E.F.T.A. countries would continue during these negotiations.
Ministers emphasized the desire of all concerned that all the agreements between the E.F.T.A. countries and the communities should enter into force at the same time.
Ministers asked the Council at offical level to examine the legal and other implications which will arise in the event of some members acceding to the European Communities, and others establishing special relations with the communities. They were informed of the intention of the United Kingdom to give notice on 31st December, 1971 of their withdrawal from E.F.T.A., to come into effect on 31st December, 1971.
During their discussion of developments affecting World Trade, Ministers expressed concern that recent monetary and trade measures taken for balance of payments reasons could seriously undermine the progress which has been made towards the reduction of restrictions on world trade, therefore Ministers hoped that quick solutions could he found in the monetary field and that recently introduced trade restrictions could be removed as rapidly as possible, before lasting damage was done, pending the necessary reform of the International monetary system. Ministers stressed the necessity of continued efforts towards freer world trade and underlined the importance which the activities in oreanizations such as GATT and the OECD will have in this connection.
Ministers stressed the importance of further promoting trade and economic relations between Western and Eastern European Countries to the mutual benefit of the parties concerned. They attached special importance to improving the trading possibilities of the developing countries.
The Danish Minister gave an account of the recent measures taken by Denmark to deal with the serious Balance of Payments situation of his country, Ministers expressed their understanding of the difficult problems facing Denmark, but noted with regret the recent decision of the Danish Government to introduce an import surcharge. particularly in the context of the present world trade situation. They instructed the councils at official level to examine the matter further.
Ministers agreed that the next regular Ministerial meeting of the councils will take place in Geneva on 4th and 5th May. 1972.
5th November 1971.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr, Chichester-Clark: Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which needs urgent consideration, namely,
"the cold-blooded murder since the House began to sit this afternoon or two more members of the security forces in Northern Ireland by a bunch of cold-blooded murderers."

1249
The two men murdered in this case were policemen.
My submission is this. At a time when some of the media are almost, it seems, exclusively concerned with allegations of brutality by troops and policemen, it is more than time that this House gave time for a discussion of the appalling brutality conducted by a small band of murderers and thugs against our hard-pressed troops and police and against innocent women, of which we have seen in the last two days some gruesome details.
What is required—I hope it can be granted at once—is a speech from the Prime Minister and one from the Leader of the Opposition directing the attention of the people of this country and some of the less reputable media in this country to the risk to life, the hardship and the provocation which our security forces have endured, and, whatever may have occurred in the way of isolated incidents, to the fortitute and humanity with which they have comported themselves. What is needed is a declaration from this House that we shall never surrender to terrorism. In my submission, this is a most urgent matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the cold-blooded murder since the House began to sit this afternoon of two more members of the security forces in Northern Ireland by a bunch of cold-blooded murderers."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, this is a decision entirely for me and it is not at all an easy decision to make. My decision reflects in no way upon the gravity of the matter raised or the strength of the feelings on the part of those who support such an allegation. I have simply a procedural decision to make, which is not an easy one. That decision is whether the hon. Member's application should have precedence over the business already set down, and I am afraid that I cannot grant his application.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
SOUND BROADCASTING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chataway.
Mr. Robert Cooke(Bristol, West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Bill which we are to discuss this afternoon substantially amends and depends upon the Television Act, 1964. Despite the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to make that Act available in the Vote Office for Members, a rule of the House apparently prevents the Vote Office providing these papers, but it can accept orders from hon. Members individually so that copies can appear but with some delay. This is not a new problem. Ministers have in the past been blamed for not providing relevant documents, but my right hon. Friend is in no way to blame on this occasion.
I raised this matter with your Private Secretary last night, Mr. Speaker, but, despite his most generous help, nothing has resulted at the Vote Office. May I ask you to give the House guidance or to pronounce upon this difficulty?
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly look into the matter. I was given some notice of it. I do not think it is a matter on which I have necessarily the power to rule. If I have that power I will do so. I thought it was the custom of the House, previously established and acknowledged. But certainly I will do what I can to see that on future occasions the convenience of hon. Members is met in matters like this.
4.18 p.m.
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications(Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope it may be for the convenience of the House if I concentrate today largely upon the major provisions of the Bill and the arrangements to be made under them. I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not spend much time in justifying the principle of an alternative radio service financed by advertising, because, although I believe there is plenty of room for argument about means, that principle

1251
is to reality very widely accepted. There has certainly been very little serious argument against it.
In the debate on the White Paper we had from the benches opposite some denunciation of private enterprise which was affectionately known in some quarters as private greed, and I appreciate that there are some hon. Members opposite who are opposed to the profit motive wherever they find it. whether it be in publishing, manufacturing, broadcasting or sweet shops. But it seems fairly clear that the Opposition are not opposed to commercial broadcasting. The Leader of the Opposition has frequently proclaimed his admiration for commercial television and his faith in our dual system of television broadcasting. As I understand it, there is no general argument from the Opposition that commercial television ought to be abolished. Throughout a whole day's debate here and a day's debate in another place nobody was able to think of any reason why commercial radio was wrong in principle if commercial television was right.
I agree—as I suspect most people do —with the conclusion of The Guardian leader last week that B.B.C. radio could do with some competition, not because I think that B.B.C. radio is bad—I do not—but because I am sure that it will benefit from having a competitor by which to measure some part at least of its performance.
There are still some who argue that if listeners are given a choice it will necessarily lower standards, but nobody has succeeded in clothing this generalised charge with any very credible argument. What, in practice, are the fears about radio? It is difficult seriously to imagine that the B.B.C. would be tempted by commercial radio to alter the nature of its programme on Radio 3, to which on average 2 per cent. of the existing radio audience now listens. It is difficult, too, to envisage what threat the existence of I.B.A. stations would be likely to pose to the standards of Radio 1, which concentrates almost exclusively on pop music and to which about 45 per cent. of the audience now listens, or Radio 2, which is the purveyor of sweet music and to which about 35 per cent. listen.
1252
I cannot think, either, that many people seriously believe that it is right to have a monopoly in the area of Radio 4—talks, comment and news—to which, on average, about 18 per cent. of today's audience listens. Few would deny that competition in news and current affairs has been beneficial in television. Most people would regard any attempt to abolish I.T.N. as a disaster. By the same token, it is highly desirable that in radio there should be an alternative and a competing source of news and current affairs coverage.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that there will be radio news like I.T.N.—that is to say, not a commercial service but a basically public one?
Mr. Chataway: I shall come to that point in a moment. Independent Television News is owned by all the commercial television companies. That is one way of organising it.
Mr. Mayhew: Non-profit-making.
Mr. Chataway: So much for the principle. Once the principle is accepted there are many different ways in which it may be implemented. Choices must be made, and some hon. Members are less than persuaded that all the choices that we have made are the right ones. Therefore, in examining the provisions of the Bill I want to attempt to deal with as many of the choices as I can, and give the reasons for them.
Clauses 1 and 2 in the first place simply change the name of the I.T.A. to the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and confer upon the Authority duties in relation to sound broadcasting services similar to those in the Television Act. Clause 2(2) provides that, subject to specific duties, the provisions of the Television Act will apply to the new services. The Authority therefore has the same responsibility in relation to radio for ensuring balance, impartiality, decency and good taste. It has the same powers of control over advertising and programme content, and a substantial armoury of weapons for enforcing its wishes. In addition, the three-year rolling contracts which it is proposed to give to companies—a matter that was discussed in our previous debate—will provide the Authority with the opportunity

1253
to assess annually the performance of a company before renewing its contract for a further year.
The Bill does not attempt to bind the Authority on such matters as the number of minutes of advertising to be allowed in the hour.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Of course not!
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member says, "Of course not!" We will consider in a moment whether his career in television would have been so fruitful if the Television Act had made some kind of attempt like that in relation to television.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Cheap!
Mr. Chataway: What we are concerned with is the question whether in this legislation we should seek so to deny the Authority freedom of movement as actually to limit advertising to a set number of minutes. That was not done in relation to television. In fact, over the years the Independent Television Authority experimented to see what level of incidence of advertising would be acceptable. I believe that over the years it arrived at a satisfactory answer.
Mr. Whitehead: No.
Mr. Chataway: To the hon. Member it has not, but the number of complaints today about the volume of advertising and its obtrusiveness is very small when we remember that there was a period when that was not so. At the moment the Authority lays down that the maximum in any one hour shall be seven minutes, and the average shall be six minutes. On previous occasions it has experimented, going considerably beyond that point. I have no doubt that in radio, also, the Authority will have to experiment. It would be totally unreasonable to attempt, in advance of any experience, to lay down in a statute the number of minutes that should be allowed.
Mr. Whitehead: Would it not nevertheless have been a good idea to learn something from the mistakes of the I.T.A. in the past few years by inserting in this legislation specific provisions regarding the public hearing of contracts? There is no mention of that.
Mr. Chataway: I have been dealing with advertising. I am glad that the hon. Member has not pursued the objection that he seemed to be making on the point of trying to stipulate in the Bill the number of minutes of advertising that there should be. Clearly, if we have a responsible Authority and we give it the substantial powers that we do give it under the Bill, it is a matter for the Authority to experiment. We cannot know in advance what levels will prove right. It must be for the Authority to determine what incidence of advertising is acceptable to British listeners.
The Authority, which has been giving preliminary consideration to the responsibility which will come its way if the Bill is passed, accepts the White Paper figure of up to 60 stations. I know that some of my hon. Friends would like to see more stations than that, because they wish to have a variety of different commercial stations competing against each other in many areas. There are others, on the other hand, who doubt whether —particularly in the early years—there will be sufficient advertising revenue to sustain that number of stations.
It would not be possible much to exceed the figure that has been set as a maximum in the White Paper without closing down B.B.C. local stations, and in our last debate it was convincingly argued by many on behalf of the B.B.C. that its stations are now catering for a wide variety of minorities in a way that commercial radio could not afford to do. The Government therefore believe that it would be right to retain the B.B.C. local stations.
Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that after bringing forward this Bill it is his intention to prevent the development in Scotland of three regional stations which were being proposed? Has that proposal been blocked because of this commercial development?
Mr. Chataway: So far as I know, there have been no proposals for regional stations in Scotland. What Scotland is retaining, and what I understand is thought to be the preference for Scot-land as between B.B.C. local stations and regional opt-outs, is its Radio 4 opt-out. In England there are B.B.C. local stations; in Scotland there is a B.B.C.

1255
regional opt-out. The B.B.C. proceeded with its plans in the first place for local stations on the basis that they would supplant the regional opt-outs in England.
It was never suggested that it would be possible for Scotland to have both. There were advantages to be gained, and, as I understand it, it has always been considered to be Scotland's preference that there should be a Scottish version of Radio 4. But if the situation were to change and it were to be felt that, in place of a Scottish version of Radio 4, Scotland would prefer to have local stations, the choice which has been made in England, I have no doubt that the B.B.C. would reconsider its plans.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in some rural areas there are widespread and sparsely populated districts, as I have pointed out to him— in the Welsh Border areas or even in Worcestershire. How do we reconcile the fact that,—with commercial radio, commercial viability will be an essential for these privately-owned stations, and the fact that certain areas of the country, due to their sparse population, cannot match that commercial viability? How shall we deal with that situation?
Mr. Chataway: The nature of local radio, whether it is financed by the licence fee or by advertising, is that there are small communities which it is too expensive to finance. If there is a national service, it is possible for it to be very widespread. If, however, there are local stations—it does not matter in this regard by what system they are financed—it is a question of cost per head of population. There comes a point at which one cannot provide it. But I hope that the Authority will, as the White Paper suggested, experiment with a number of ways of providing for the smallest stations with the smallest populations.
Sir G. Nabarro: May I press my right hon. Friend on this? Would he take note of this point about rural areas? Would he, during the passage of the Bill, consult the National Farmers' Unions, which are very concerned about the fact that wide-spread rural areas may find themselves
1256
with no local radio coverage—either B.B.C. or from this Authority—at all?
Mr. Chataway: No, but as I explained to my hon. Friend, whether it is only commercial or only B.B.C. or a mixture of the two, I am afraid that there there will be areas of relatively light population which may not have a local radio station. But I will certainly take note of the views of the National Farmers' Union—
Sir G. Nabarro: Good.
Mr. Chataway: —and of those of my hon. Friend, when we come to the consideration of the Bill.
Mr. John Gorst: Before my right hon. Friend leaves Clause 2, could he clear up one point? Clause 2 specifically says that it will be only local sound broadcasting services for which the Authority will be responsible. Does that mean that a further Act would be necessary if it were to be responsible for either regional or national commercial services?
Mr. Chataway: It certainly means that an Act would be necessary if the Authority were to run a national service. I am coming to the point about the definition of "local".
The Authority's view—it has, of course, to be a tentative view at present— is that the first stations should open in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and London. The Authority would try as soon as possible after the passage of the legislation to place contracts to serve those places—and they may in favourable circumstances be on the air some time in 1973.
Another five stations might come into operation a few months later, and that group might well include one relatively small town, but would otherwise again consist of the major cities and conurbations. Beyond that, the Authority's plans will necessarily depend very heavily on the progress achieved with the first stations and, at particular places, on the availability of suitable sites for transmitters.
I understand that the Authority is hopeful of being able to provide about 20 stations within 12 months or so of the first group. The second 10 of those 20

1257
would be intended to include one or two of the relatively small cities. In general, though, the Authority would still at that stage be concentrating on larger cities with populations not much smaller than !hat of Sheffield.
As a result of the provisions of Clause 2, the Authority will own and operate the transmitters. I know that this is a proposal about which some have reservations, but there are two very good reasons for it. In negotiating the use of frequencies allocated to other countries, we shall be much helped if it is known that the transmitting is firmly in the hands of the engineers of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.. who have a high international reputation. There could be greater fears of inadvertent interference and occasional transmission at excessive powers if the transmitters were in other hands.
The other consideration is time. If one waits until the radio companies have been selected and have been able to appoint engineers and other staff before ordering equipment, looking for sites and, where necessary, seeking planning permission, the introduction of the new service will be greatly delayed. There is a fund of relevant experience in the I.T.A. and a field force which is keen to tackle the new work and capable of doing it quickly.
How local should the stations be—the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst)? Clause 2(3) gives a technical definition and in Schedule 1 on page 12, under "Section 3", a new paragraph (dd) will impose upon the Authority a duty to ensure that the programmes are not "identical or similar" to an extent inconsistent with the local character of the services. So there is in one part a purely technical definition and then a duty to ensure that the character of the service is consistent with its local obligation.
Mr. Whitehead: Could the Minister tell us to what extent syndication, as clearly envisaged in Clause 2(4)(a) and (b), will be permitted and what degree of syndication there will be? That will surely determine the local nature of the station.
Mr. Chataway: That is one of the factors, clearly, and also what kind of local material is originated. If at the point of origin it is only material of national
1258
appeal which is originated, that equally would be a breach. But this gives the Authority the power to determine and the power to ensure that the stations meet the local obligations which the Authority considers necessary. Many of the television companies have developed very strong regional personalities which are very much valued. I suspect that the Authority will have little need to pressure the radio contractors into acquiring a local personality, because in order to attract support in their areas they will need to be firmly rooted in the locality
The size of these localities will, of course, vary greatly. In London two stations will each cover the yield area. There would be little attraction in trying artificially to divide London for purposes of broadcasting into three or four segments. At the other extreme, the smallest I.B.A. stations might cater for populations of under—perhaps well under—150,000.
In determining the catchment areas of stations in between these extremes, the Authority will attempt to draw these boundaries to cover all homogeneous communities. This could mean that in a number of places the Authority will provide more than one station in areas now covered by one B.B.C. local station.
Mr. Ivor Richard: Is is not a fact, therefore, that what a locality is depends on the discretion of the I.B.A.? In other words, the I.B.A. will have power to determine a matter on which the Bill is silent.
Mr. Chataway: If the hon. and learned Gentleman believes that it would be possible to go around the British Isles determining in this Measure what was a homogenous community, I would not care to accompany him on such a tour. This is clearly a matter which must be for the Authority in radio, as it is in television.
I come now to the provision of news. The I.B.A. will have the same obligation in radio as it has in television to devote sufficient time to accurate and impartial news. I have considered with the I.T.A. reactions to the three possibilities for news provision outlined in the White Paper. The Authority is of the view— and I agree with it—that the best arrangement will be to have from the outset a second station in London which specialises in news. This station, which

1259
may collaborate closely with I.T.N., will also provide national and international news to other stations.
In every area the local station will, of course, be responsible for the collection of its own local news. There is no doubt, however, that a successful local station must have access also to a good source of national and international radio news. It will need it to hold its listeners, particularly at times when some major event is unfolding.
The London news station will earn part of its revenue from the advertising it attracts on its London programmes and part from the service it provides to other stations. It is not intended, though, that these stations would necessarily have to present the product of the central news service in the way that I.T.N.'s programmes are carried in television. The greater flexibility of radio will require a more flexible approach. The local stations, it is envisaged, will use the material they get from the central news service as they think best in their own bulletins, editing and adding in those cases where the news item is centred around their own locality.
The principal advantages of this arrangement for the central news service are, first, that a potentially valuable service can be provided for London; second, that the news organisation will have a regular and substantial outlet for its programmes; and, third, that other stations will be provided with a good news service more economically than by any other system.
Sir John Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend clarify a point about the second London station which will broadcast news? Will this be a continuous broadcast of news hour after hour with fill-up material, or news broadcasts at stated times?
Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that there are all-news stations in North America which have earned high reputations for themselves and which do nothing but broadcast news. They offer a service to those who want to hear news at any time of the day. While, naturally, one may not be able to tune in at any given moment to a major news bulletin, such bulletins being scheduled on the network one will know that from
1260
an all-news station one can hear news and comment. It obviously would be wrong to try to commit in total detail the format of such broadcasts, which will specialise in news and talk.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend care to indicate how this pattern of news presentation and provision fits into the statutory framework? Do we find the necessary provisions in this Measure or by reference to the Television Act?
Mr. Chataway: I am afraid that I am not able to point to the precise Section in the 1964 Act. I will do so later. There is an obligation on the Authority to ensure that sufficient time is devoted to news and that such news is impartial. My right hon. and learned Friend will know of the other requirements laid down in the Act.
There is not in the 1964 Act any provision that lays down the operations of I.T.N. in this context, and equally there will not in this legislation be a detailed prescription for the way in which the news service should be provided. [Interruption.] It is exactly on all fours with television. Exactly the same obligation is laid on radio as on television, but the information that I have given relates to the Authority's intentions as to the means for providing that service, for which it has a statutory obligation.
Clause 3 requires the Authority to appoint advisory committees. This allows for one committee to cover a number of stations. Local authorities, some of which have, of course, been urging the cause of local commercial radio for some time, will be invited to propose members for these committees; and the Authority will choose a third from their proposals.
Clause 4 ensures that the finances of the sound and television services of the I.B.A. are kept separate. They will in some measure be competing services and cross-subsidisation is thought not to be appropriate.
Clauses 5 and 8 contain financial provisions. An advance can be made to the Authority of up to £2 million with which to launch the new service, and, as with similar launching aid to I.T.V. at its start, these sums are repayable. The larger stations should quite quickly generate a revenue in excess of their needs

1261
for local programming and reasonable profits.
But the Authority will, following its practice in television, of course expect them to carry the lion's share of the cost of common services: the Authority's own expenses, news, and perhaps the provision of additional opportunities for the employment of musicians, a matter to which the Musicians' Union quite reasonably attaches considerable importance. It is not expected that the income of the service as a whole will exceed the reasonable requirements of the service during the period between now and 1976.
Clause 5 is, therefore, a fall-back provision which is unlikely to be invoked in the early years. If, however, revenue rises to such a point that it seems fair for the companies to pay extra sums in return for the use of the scarce frequencies allocated to them, Clause 5 would enable the Minister to set a target figure for the Authority to pay to the Consolidated Fund.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is on occasions such as this that I wonder whether we have a Conservative Government in power. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept that neither in words from him nor in any Bill need we apologise for the profit system. This is a system which, if it is allowed to work properly, ensures that the people of this country get quality and value.
It seems clear that my right hon. Friend will have to look at this provision again. I note that there is nothing in the Bill to say that if a company makes a loss, it will be recompensed. Why should it contain a provision saying that if it makes a profit someone who knows nothing about the day-to-day running of its business will set a target? This is not good enough.
I declare my interest at once as a director, and I have been for some years, of Radio Luxembourg. [Interruption.] That has nothing whatever to do with this Measure. If commercial concerns of this type must fix their profits according to targets set by someone else, they will not be able to offer the sort of excellent service that such companies are capable of providing.
Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend, who has followed broadcasting matters for
1262
some time, will know that there is a long history to this, and that there is no particularly easy solution. In the early 'sixties when commercial television started to earn very substantial profits, it was the Public Accounts Committee which argued that the television companies ought to pay in respect of the use of the scarce frequencies they had, the franchise they had been given, and pay something extra to the community. We are here not talking about a free market situation, and it is on those grounds that I would argue with my hon. Friend.
The levy as an instrument has proved to have some enormous disadvantages, and as a mechanism there is no doubt that it is believed by many to have worked at times against good programming. Therefore, at the moment, in relation to television, we are looking as the possibility of finding an alternative to the levy, but the fact of the matter is that if at some stage in the future commercial radio were suddenly to start to earn the very large profits that television earned in the 'sixties there would be a similar demand by the House and by the Public Accounts Committee. We can look again at the matter in Committee, but I believe that it is reasonable that there should be some such provision as this. It is certainly not the Government's intention to set any target contributions for the first two years. nor would anybody expect that the Clause would be likely to be activated before commercial radio had firmly established itself.
Mr. Julian Critchley: In circumstances of excess profit, would it not be wiser to license more stations in order to introduce more competition?
Mr. Chataway: That is a possibility, but it might be that at that moment we were confronted with a situation in which there were no frequencies for introducing competition, and it might be reasonable for the community to look for some extra payment from those in a duopoly situation as well as from those in a monopoly situation. I consider this provision to be reasonable, and it relies on past experience.
Clause 6 gives effect to the proposals in the White Paper in relation to television contractors, and also disqualifies the music publisher or the record manufacturer from becoming a programme contractor.

1263
The only other Clause to which I need draw the attention of the House is Clause 7, which deals with the position of news-papers. I know that some people believe it wrong to give a privileged position to local newspapers in the way the Bill proposes. They argue, and there is force in the argument, that commercial radio and commercial newspapers are complementary, and that there is little evidence that newspapers suffer from the advent of commercial radio.
None the less, the Government believe it right to give the local newspapers the opportunity of participating in local radio. It seems reasonable to put them in this privileged position, since they make, as most of us would agree, a unique contribution at the local level to the democratic process, and since a competitor is being introduced by the Bill which may have an effect upon their revenues. It is certainly a competitor which a fair number of them had no expectation would be introduced. In those circumstances, I hope that it will be accepted that this is a reasonable proposition. I have no doubt, too, that the local Press should be able to contribute to the health and vigour of independent radio.
No doubt the provisions of Clause 7 will equally need to be looked at in detail in Committee, but the salient points are as follows. No newspaper has a prescriptive right to run a station. The I.B.A. chooses the best programme contractor, who, before accepting the contract, will know what part of his equity he must make available to newspapers. A newspaper will have the right to take up a share of the equity if its circulation represents a substantial proportion of the population. If the Authority decides that the newspaper's circulation is not large enough to qualify, the newspaper may still represent to the Authority that it is likely to suffer financially from the introduction of commercial radio, and, if satisfied that that is the case, the Authority will then grant the opportunity of a share in the equity.
This, again, in commercial broadcasting is not a new principle. One can point to the example of Yorkshire Television where the winning contractor did not include the Yorkshire Post. The Authority felt that the contractor for the
1264
area should include the Yorkshire Post, and it was, rather as the Bill suggests, required to offer part of the equity to that newspaper.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: A great many local newspapers operating at present are owned by national news-papers as part of a chain. The Minister will realise that this is very true of my part of the world, where a certain national newspaper owns almost every local newspaper in the west of Scotland. What about that position?
Mr. Chataway: The local newspaper, whoever owns it, will have the opportunity to participate, but there is no provision that would require the Authority to give control to any such newspaper.
One further proviso is that if the Authority considers for some reason that it is against the public interest that a newspaper should have a shareholding it will have the duty under the proposed new Section 12B of the Principal Act to consult the Minister, and, if the Minister concurs, it need not apply the general provisions relating to newspaper shareholdings. The essential point here is that in the final analysis the Authority must decide what constitutes an acceptable programme contractor, and nothing here proposed breaches that provision.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the the right hon. Gentleman agree that the general proposition he is now advancing, which is the closing down of sources of information and introducing an element of monopoly or concentration of ownership in an area, is in itself a bad thing? If he agrees with that in principle, and if the end he seeks can can be achieved by other means whereby the interest of local newspapers can be preserved without increasing concentration of ownership, is his mind open to consider that alternative?
Mr. Chataway: I will certainly be very willing to look at any modifications or alternatives which the hon. Gentleman may put forward, but I do not accept that what is proposed in the Bill is a closing down of outlets. It is exactly the opposite. Where we now have a monopoly in radio we are providing an alternative source, and the minority provisions

1265
allowed to newspapers m the circumstances which I have described will certainly not in any way upset that fact.
The new service will not in my view have any easy road. It will be up against considerable competition. It will be up against two mass appeal national radio programmes—B.B.C.l and B.B.C.2— and the B.B.C. local radio stations, which have already won some faithful adherents, and it will be competing against the very experienced and farflung news organisation of the B.B.C. So the new entrants to the radio scene will have to be good to win a place for themselves.
But there are considerable opportunities. We do not seem to be a country in which the radio listening figures are as yet particularly high. In some other countries radio has staged quite a recovery over the past decade. Its immediacy and flexibility still give it great advantages as a medium of communication. Therefore, there are probably new audiences to be won, and I have no doubt that this new service can be a stimulus to the B.B.C. to add yet further to its achievements and that, given enterprise and imagination, it can provide choice and give a service that will be widely welcomed.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Richard: If I may speak briefly as a lawyer at the outset, having read the Bill I thought it incomprehensible and muddled and that that was the fault of the draftsmen. Having heard the Minister attempt to explain the Bill for three-quarters of an hour. my sympathy is now more with the draftsmen than it was before the Minister rose.
This is one of the worst pieces of legislative nonsense that I have seen for a long time. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) will doubtless agree with me in that, because on many occasions he has said in the House that particularly in "legislation by reference" it is very important to be absolutely precise about the way in which the main Act is being amended.
The Minister referred to Clause 2(3). I have gone through that subsection with a slightly jaundiced eye and considered what it says about "local sound broadcast". It seems to amount to this:
1266
"In this Act 'local sound broadcast' means a programme which is broadcast from a station so constructed and operated as to have a range of transmission limited to that which is sufficient, in normal circumstances, to ensure adequate reception throughout a particular locality."
which, being interpreted, means that a local sound broadcast is to be a sound broadcast which is local. That does not seem greatly to advance either the law of the land or the edification of the House of Commons.
The Minister says that reference to the principal Act will show that there is an obligation on the part of the Independent Television Authority to consider locality when allotting contracts. I ask only one question on that: where is it in the Television Act, 1964? I have looked for it, and it is not there.
Mr. Chataway: During the course of my speech I referred the hon. Gentleman to page 12 of the Bill, Schedule I, the Amendment to Section 3, the new paragraph (dd), which imposes a duty to have programmes that are local in nature. That is the point.
Mr. Richard: It is not. I do not want to get bogged down in a legal argument at this stage, but the Minister is utterly wrong. All that the new paragraph (dd), does is to try to ensure that, in the case of local sound broadcasting, programme broadcasts from different stations for reception in different localities do not consist of identical material. In other words, all that that paragraph is trying to prevent is excessive national networking.
Mr. Chataway indicated dissent.
Mr. Richard: That is what the words say. It is in the Bill. If the Bill is not meant to say that, perhaps in due course the Minister would care to table Amendments to this Bill and to the parent Act
Mr. Gorstrose—
Mr. Richard: I will willingly give way later, but not, please, at this stage.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the obligations of the I.B.A. in relation to television contractors and said how he had been very careful to separate the television contractors from the sound broadcasting contractors in the way in which he has framed the Bill. But is it not right that, if Granada Television wanted to buy

1267
a share, or even a controlling interest, in a local broadcasting station on the Solent, say, it would be perfectly entitled under the Bill to do so?
Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will eventually want to make his own speech. He must have some argument of principle. I have no doubt that we shall have a great deal of amusement in Committee dealing with every small item. The answer is that, if the Authority thought that Granada Television were the best body to run a station on the Solent, it would be so entitled.
Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. So I am absolutely right. There is nothing in the Bill or in the framework which is to be set up under the Bill, if it ever gets through, to prevent a television contractor either from purchasing shares in a local sound radio station outside its immediate locality or from having a controlling interest in such a station outside its locality. The idea that there is to be a great separation when the structure is established between the broadcasting services and the television services provided by the Independent Broadcasting Authority is eyewash. It will not happen in that way.
Mr. Chatawayrose—
Mr. Richard: No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman again yet. What the Bill does in essence, and this is one of my major criticisms of it, is to provide a legislative and legal framework within which the Independent Broadcasting Authority will exercise its discretions. Its discretions are wide; and its discretions are virtually unlimited.
What the Bill does not do is tell the House and the country the answers to the very questions which were asked at the time of the debate on the White Paper and which most people are interested in receiving. The questions are these. How is it proposed under this structure that the I.B.A. will run a commercial radio service? Who is to get the contracts? On which criteria are contracts to be awarded? The Minister may sit there smiling at that as if it is a shocking question to ask. Surely he has had discussions with those who are to run this structure as to the criteria which are to be adopted
1268
by the I.B.A. in awarding contracts. If he has not had discussions, I shall be extremely surprised. If he has not by now, as the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, got a clear idea of the criteria which he wishes the I.B.A. to adopt, he should not be the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.
There are many other points about the way in which the I.B.A. will exercise its discretion. Again, I suspect that the Minister has a clear idea as to how he wishes the Authority to behave. But he has not set them out in the Bill, nor has he told the House of Commons how he wishes it to be done.
Therefore, my first criticism of the Bill is that all that it does is to provide a discretionary legal framework for the I.B.A. without telling the House of Commons how those powers are to be exercised. That is not right. For that reason, if for no other, we on this side propose to divide the House against the Bill tonight.
There are three main points about the Bill and the structure proposed under it. First, I should like to say a few words about the timing of the Bill, because in this matter timing is extremely important. Secondly, I should like to return to the point I made a few moments ago about how the structure will operate in practice. Thirdly, I shall have a brief look at the question whether a commercial radio system is desirable per se in the United Kingdom at this time and for the immediate future.
As to timing, we are now at the end of 1971. We all know that in 1976 the Charters of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. must be renewed. We also assume— at least, those of us on this side who are interested in this matter assume—that between now and then there will have to be a major and a far-reaching look at the future structure of broadcasting in Britain post-1976. Approximately every 10 or 15 years for some years past, there has been a major public discussion of the future of the broadcasting services.
If there is to be a Royal Commission or inquiry of that status, what will it have to consider? First, it will have to consider whether the existing structure of broadcasting in this country is to continue after 1976. It will have to consider such questions as whether the B.B.C.

1269
should continue to be an independent. licence-fee-financed corporation. Is that the way in which we wish a public corporation like the B.B.C. to be financed at the end of the 1970s into the 1980s? It will have to consider whether the B.B.C. should accept advertisements on its own programmes as an addition to the revenue it gets from the licence fee.
It will have to consider whether there should be three or four television channels. I am by no means convinced that I.T.V.2 is the right way of providing a fourth channel, if there is evidence that a fourth channel is desirable. It will have to consider the future relationship between the I.T.A., if it is continued, and various programme contractors, and it will clearly have to consider whether the I.T.A. has in the past used in the right way the powers that it has under the Television Act.
All those matters will have to be considered if a Commission is established. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we on this side of the House feel strongly that before 1976 there should be a Royal Commission having a general and far-reaching look at the structure of broadcasting, in both television and sound, into the 1970s and beyond. It will also have to consider any new large-scale technological developments which might take place, such as T.V. cassettes, and so on, and the inter-reaction of such developments on the future structure of broadcasting services.
Another thing that the commission will certainly have to consider is whether commercial radio should or should not be one of the forms of broadcasting into the 1970s and 1980s. Should we have it? if so, in what form should we have it? Who should run it? Which areas should it cover? Who should own the transmitters? All those issues will have to be considered by a commission between now and 1975 or 1976.
In many ways, television and broadcasting are a peculiarly public concern. It may be that that is because everybody is a consumer. Most people have television, or access to it, and most people listen to the radio almost every day. We are all consumers in the context of these media, and a tradition has evolved over the years of obvious public examination and discussion of these prob-
1270
lems outside the normal political channels.
I do not think that the House of Commons is the right forum in which, initially at any rate, to discuss the structure of broadcasting in the future. I should want an independent public examination, by an independent body of all the issues involved. If what I have said is right about the need for public involvement, I think that the Minister should realise he is under a particular duty to justify his decisions in as public a way as possible. He cannot discharge his duty by bringing a Bill before the House, the only effect of which is to give massive unspecified discretionary powers to a broadcasting authority.
I do not think that presenting a Bill to the House of Commons is necessarily the best way of dealing with this issue. Once the Whips are put on, we know that occasionally there are strange results. I wonder how many hon. Gentlemen opposite find this an acceptable structure? I doubt very much whether the hon. Members for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), and Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) do. I assume that because the Minister has chosen to introduce a Bill on the Floor of the House rather than, as we asked earlier this year, issue a Green Paper and have a general public discussion of all the issues hon. Gentlemen opposite will support him. If he had done what we had asked for there would have been a more rational and sensible debate. I suspect that the vote tonight will not reflect the real views of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The argument for not proceeding to establish commercial radio now is that if we do so we shall close one of the options which the Royal Commission ought to be considering when it sits between now and 1976. It seems to me quite futile that in 1972 we should close an option which will have to be opened again by a Royal Commission in perhaps 1973 or 1974. I do not see the point, the purpose or indeed the rationality of such a suggestion. It is not a sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Richard Hornby: I do not see how this closes an option. If the whole show comes up for review in 1976, all that is being done now is to

1271
produce an additional pilot scheme in certain areas, which may or may not go after we review the performance of commercial and other radio and television in 1976.
Mr. Richard: It closes an option, first, because the principle of advertising in radio will have been accepted, and second, because £2 million will have been spent in establishing it, and I do not see the point of spending that amount of money to set up this structure if it is to be reconsidered within 18 months to two years. The third reason why I say it will close an option is that the commission will not be looking at the status quo, in the position it is now, but will be looking at the position as it will be at a time, when something new and innovatory will have occurred.
If the hon. Gentleman is with me in my argument that there has to be a major review of the structure of broadcasting— whether a public service or a commercial service, and however it is to be done— between now and the time when the franchises come up for renewal, then surely it would be much more sensible not to spend £2 million and to refrain from setting up a commercial radio service now. We should have that as one of the matters which the Royal Commission clearly should consider and which I think it would have to consider in a most serious way.
Mr. Hornby: If there is to be a review in 1976 of both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C., it follows that there must be careful scrutiny of both. All I am saying is that whatever the form of that inquiry, it will be looking at the status quo, but that does not mean that we have to freeze everything for three, four or five years before that. The status quo is always the status quo the moment a commission is appointed.
Mr. Richard: The timing of the whole review is crucial, and it is the time-scale that is crucial to the argument. We are now at the end of 1971. Even on the most conservative estimate this cannot be operative before the beginning of 1973, and it will then be a pilot scheme. The franchise has to be renewed in 1976. Any commission that is set up will have to be set up in 1974. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on the necessity for
1272
such a review, surely he will also agree that it is ludicrous to set up a structure of this sort in 1973, and then have it reviewed in 1974?
I want to make our attitude crystal clear. There may be a case for an alternative radio system to that provided by the B.B.C., but that case has not been made out either in the White Paper or in the Bill. It has not been shown that there is a demand for such an alternative service, or that if there is a demand for it, this is the best way of meeting it.
We do not regard ourselves as being necessarily bound to the structure proposed in the Bill, even if it becomes law. If, prior to 1976, there is, as we say there must be, a major and far-reaching inquiry into the post-1976 position, we would wish to have the continuation of commercial radio, in whatever form it is at that date, included in the terms of reference of that commission.
If at the time of taking office, a future Labour Government are faced with the situation that this Measure has been partially implemented and the structure of commercial radio is still in the process of being fully established, then we would wish to delay the implementation of the further provisions of the Bill and the structure proposed under it until after the Royal Commission had reported. That is not made as a partisan point, and I hope it will not be bandied across the Floor of the House for party political reasons.
As Pilkington is now nearly a decade old it seems to me that the House could, and should, have accepted the principle of a full-scale review between now and 1976. Had it not been for the rather foolish pledge given in the Conservative Party's election manifesto, I cannot imagine that the Minister would have come to the House passionately arguing for the introduction of commercial radio prior to the setting up of a pre-1976 commission. That is the second ground on which we would divide the House, because the timing of the Bill is utterly wrong.
Sir John Rodgersindicated dissent.
Mr. Richard: The hon. Member shakes his head. I can understand that. No time would be wrong for the introduction of commercial radio for him.

1273
This is not true of the whole country. If we are to have such an innovation, it is important that it should be publicly justified. The Minister has not done this in respect of either principle or structure. How will the Bill, if it ever becomes law, work?
I would now like to look at three point again. The first is the Television Act, 1964, provisions as amended in this appalling way by the Bill. Secondly, I want to look at the relationship of commercial contractors with the Press, and thirdly, at the relationship between one radio contractor and another.
The Minister talked about the great safeguards contained in the Television Act. It was clear that he had never read them. In the Act itself, which for accuracy I happen to have with me, the provisions are set out in Section 3(1). It is a very pious Section. It is a splendid declaration of aim and principle which says:
"It shall the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements.…

(a) that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime.…

(b)"—

and this is important
"that a sufficient amount of time in the programmes is given to news and news features and that all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due accuracy and impartiality;
(c) that proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance;
(d)that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations.…"
I need not read any more to give the House the flavour of that Section of the Act.
In this respect I would draw the attention of hon. Members and the Minister to four words in subsection (1), which describes the duty of the Authority to satisfy itself "so far as possible". What precisely does that mean in respect of commercial local radio? "So far as possible" give a massive discretion to the I.B.A. Let us assume, if the good town
1274
in Lincolnshire will forgive me, that Radio Scunthorpe finds, after being set up and having begun to operate, that it is not in a position to give sufficient amount of time in its programmes to news and news features. Radio Scunthorpe then says that because of the I.B.A.'s insistence upon a certain amount of time being given over to news and news features, it must sadly and painfully go out of business and the good burgesses of Scunthorpe can no longer be served by their splendid station.
What happens in that situation? What does the discretion mean when there is a clash between maintaining the standards of broadcasting, on the one hand, and the commercial viability of the station, on the other hand? I ask the Minister this seriously. I know what the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) will say. He is in no doubt of the answer judging by the certainty of his voice. "Do not bother with news" he says; "give them what they want to hear" he says. We have heard all the arguments before. But I pose this as a serious question. There will he, inevitably, a clash between the commercial interests of the contractors, on the one hand, and the need to maintain standards, on the other hand. I ask again, what will happen then?
One can take it further. Take, for example, the situation when a station is not yet operating. Suppose that in the awarding of contracts there appears from the applications to be an obvious clash between those principles of maintaining standards and commercial viability. What then is to happen?
If, looking at the two applicants, or however many there are, it may be obvious that if the contract were to go to X, then we would get programmes of a higher standard than would be provided by Y, although Y looks as if it will be more successful at making money, what will the I.B.A. do about that? There is nothing in the Bill to say that in these circumstances the award should come down on the side of maintaining standards rather than on the side of commercial viability.
The Minister must have had thoughts about this. I assume he has had discussions with the Chairman of the I.B.A. I do not believe that Lord Aylestone has

1275
been incommunicado during the last few months. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has had opportunities to speak to him to see how he could resolve those particular difficulties. Perhaps he would take the House into his confidence and tell us what the results of these discussions were. Unless we know the way in which the Minister intends that the I.B.A. should operate the Bill, we cannot be expected as a House of Commons to pass it.
We are not prepared to give a blank cheque to the Independent Broadcasting Authority in whatever form it takes. The relationship between the I.B.A. programme contractors, the demands on which the I.B.A. will insist, and the number of minutes per hour in which advertisements should be acceptable are matters about which we have not heard. Criteria and standards must be laid down and an attempt made to set out the ways in which advertisements will be acceptable. We can talk in bracket terms if not in terms of absolute decision. The Minister, in opening the debate, spoke in grandiose terms about the Authority having the powers contained in the Television Act. It will not. If the right hon. Gentleman will read his own Bill, he will see that one of the most important of its present powers is specifically taken away from the I.B.A. in the Bill.
Sir J. Rodgers indicated dissent.
Mr. Richard: The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) shakes his head. Perhaps we had better look at this Statute.
Mr. George Darling: It is not a Statute.
Mr. Richard: No, though I think that in illegitimacy law it might be called putative. The right hon. Gentleman should look at Section 5 as contained in the First Schedule. There, he will see that the duty on the I.B.A. as regards television is narrowed down very considerably in relation to sound broadcasting, and in a very important particular. Section 5 puts into the main Act a new subsection which states:
"In the case of programmes other than advertisements, the methods by which the Authority discharge their duties…in relation to television broadcasts shall, and in relation to local sound broadcasts…may, include the consideration of programme schedules sub-
1276
mitted by programme contractors to the Authority for approval in accordance with this section."
As I understand it, there is nothing in the Bill or in the Television Act which will now make it obligatory for programme contractors operating sound broadcasting stations even to bother to submit programme schedules to the I.B.A. The I.B.A. can insist; I accept that. There is discretion in the I.B.A. Again, however, will not the right hon. Gentleman take us over slightly into his confidence? Cannot he be more trusting with the House and tell us how he wishes to see this operated?
Mr. Chataway: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that with either the B.B.C. or commercial radio every local station should be bound by a schedule which it has previously submitted to either the B.B.C. or the I.B.A., he mistakes the nature of radio and does not recognise it as a totally different animal from television.
Mr. Richard: If I was saying that, the right hon. Gentleman would be quite right, but I am not saying that. I am pointing out that one of the major safeguards which the I.T.A. has is being removed in its obligatory form from the I.B.A. That is all. He cannot at one and the same time give discretion to the I.B.A. and then come along and say that it has exactly the same powers, obligations and duties as under the Television Act. It does not and that is the whole point.
What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman—and I am more than a little surprised at his reticence in not taking the House more into his confidence —is more about the way in which he wishes to see the Bill operated if it ever becomes law and if the stucture is ever established. How does he expect the I.B.A. will control the local sound broadcasting contractors? How is it to be done since no programme schedules need be submitted? What criteria, for example, are the I.B.A. to lay down for programme standards? I do not know. I do not find them in any of this legislation, and that is where they ought to be.
The Minister said one thing which quite shocked me during his opening speech, and, as hon. Members who know me will know, I am perhaps not over-easily shocked. In discussing the amount

1277
of advertising that might or might not be permissible under the Bill the Minister said, "We cannot know in advance what levels of advertising will be right." He was using that phrase in connection with the number of minutes of advertising to be permitted per hour. But why cannot he know in advance? Why cannot we tell which levels of advertising might be right? Why are we not now in a position to say in relation to sound broadcasting that a maximum of 62 to 7 minutes per hour would be quite sufficient and that if anything goes over that, up to 10 minutes, any of us would find it intolerable, whether we live in Scunthorpe or Mayfair?
It is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to try to pretend that there can be different levels of advertising and that different criteria can be applied to the level of advertising which may be right, depending on the area in which we live.
Mr. Chataway indicated dissent.
Mr. Richard: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that, he must then have in mind some level of advertising which he thinks is right. He must have thought about this, and if he has not thought about it he should have, and if he has thought about it and has come to some conclusion about what level of advertising would be on radio why does he not tell us? That is the point. It is the extraordinary reticence of the right hon. Gentleman which we deplore.
Mr. Chataway: I do not want to keep popping up like this, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman continues to pose these questions I have little option. I hope later to have the opportunity to reply, if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I have tried, over the number of advertising minutes per hour, to explain that there would have been no means before the advent of commercial television of knowing what would be an acceptable limit and there is no experience of commercial radio in this country. I was not suggesting that in different places in the country there would be different levels. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that for different kinds of programme it may well be found that different levels of advertising are appropriate and that in some kinds of programme they are more instrusive than others. Really the hon.
1278
and learned Gentleman is on very thin ice indeed.
Mr. Richard: With respect, I do not need the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether my weight is insufficient to be supported by the ice which may or may not be beneath me. I must return to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is clear that he has an idea as to what he considers to be the right level of advertising. He may say there should be different advertisement levels from one type of programme to another, but clearly he has ideas on this and I would have thought he was under a duty to come to the House and give us the benefit of his ideas.
Mr. Mayhew: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall the speech of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in introducing the Television Bill into the House when he said that what the Government had in mind was five or six minutes of advertising an hour? I would have thought that the Minister could at least give us some general impression about what he thinks.
Mr. Richard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is absolutely right. When the Minister comes to the House and, in effect, asks us to give the I.B.A. in its new form a blank cheque as to how it should operate, the least he could do would be to give us the benefit of his ideas on this point.
I would far rather have no commercial radio than bad commercial radio. If I am faced with the choice of having 60 solely pop stations up and down the country as opposed to perhaps 10 or 12 which would be commercially viable and of a high standard, then, if .I am forced into a choice, I would rather have none than have them bad.
I turn now to the relationship with the Press. As I see it, the original safe-guards in the Act against excessive newspaper holdings still apply. If this is right we shall be in an extraordinarily anomalous situation for the great conurbations. I do not want to keep referring to the Television Act but if the right hon. Gentleman would do us the courtesy of reading it before he next comes to the House he will find that in the Act there are specific provisions, giving the I.T.A. the power to intervene in circumstances

1279
in which it feels that a newspaper's shareholding in a programme contracting company has become excessive or contrary to the public interest. If we pass this Bill in its present form, as it relates to the Press, it seems that in conurbations we shall end up in an extraordinary position.
We could have this Measure giving newspapers the virtual right to buy in and the original Television Act giving the I.T.A. the power to shut them out. This may not matter in view of one of the subsections which is a saving subsection but I am concerned about the position in London. What are the Evening Standard and the Evening News? Are they local newspapers, national news papers, are they papers which are part of the group? Do we take into account the fact that one is perhaps the offspring of the Daily Express or do we merely look at the fact that they are circulating in a locality in which there may or may not be a sound broadcasting station? I do not know the answer. If we look at the provisions of the Bill and hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is clear that the relationship between broadcasting stations and the Press has not been thought out. Presumably the object of the exercise is to prevent a monopoly of the news media, and therefore, in the case of large-scale television holding companies the idea was that in those circumstances, if it looked as if there was a tendency towards monopoly the I.B.A. would step in and prevent it.
With local newspapers, however, the argument is presumably that the broadcasting station may affect the revenue of the newspapers and, therefore, in an endeavour to bolster up the position of the local newspapers they should have the right to buy in. Those are two inconsistent principles, particular in relation to the conurbations and to local news papers which are part of a larger group. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) has raised this before and will have something to say about it tonight, I hope.
Mr. Gorst: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that part of the newspaper provisions which allows those who reckon to be affected by the commencement of local radio programmes to buy in and thereby give them the
1280
opportunity to invest in this would be even more anomalous in the London area? I take up his point about the Evening Standard and the Evening News because if we have an all-news station in London they will automatically be in a carte blanche situation to be able to say that they are affected by the station.
Mr. Richard: The anomalies of this proposed relationship between the Press and the local commercial radio stations are highlighted when we consider them in relation to the big conurbations. If we go back to Scunthorpe and consider the position of the Scunthorpe Echo or the Scunthorpe News or whatever, and find that it is being sadly hit by Radio Scunthorpe, there is an argument which is at least tenable for saying that it should be entitled to some say in the way in which Radio Scunthorpe is being run. But this cannot apply to the large conurbations such as London, Manchester and Birmingham which are the very areas that the right hon. Gentleman is naming in his pilot scheme. They are the very areas in which commercial radio is first to operate.
Finally, one word about the relationship of one commercial station to another. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a number of commercial radio stations being run by one company. If the I.B.A. were prepared to grant the franchises, there is nothing to prevent one individual or company controlling the 60 commercial radio stations throughout the country. There is no obligation of independence imposed on the I.B.A. In our view, that sort of grouping would be wrong and could be dangerous.
In the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman was a little more forthcoming. This is what he said in paragraph 15:
"The same company will not necessarily be precluded from providing service at more than one place. Equally, there will be no bar on the minority participation by an investor in a number of local companies; but no individual or company will be allowed an excessive aggregate interest. The Authority will be expected to turn at a wide diversity of ownership."
If that was the Government's view at the time, why is it not spelled out here? Why cannot these obligations be put into legislative form and included in the Bill? There is no reason why the discretion should not be spelled out and be examined by the House.

1281
On the social aspects of commercial radio, I made my position clear, I hope, in the debate on the White Paper. I regard this whole proposed structure as unnecessary and wasteful. First, it is a waste of money. Second, it is a waste of something even more precious, perhaps, than the £2 million which the Minister proposes to lend: it is a waste of wavelengths. The result for Great Britain. I believe, will be a trivialisation of the broadcasting media. I am against it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the time. It may still be possible for many hon. Members to be called in the debate, but this will depend upon the restriction as regards time which those taking part exercise.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. Stratton Mills: It is certainly my wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to set an example of brevity. Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), one had the clear impression that he was not an enthusiast for commercial radio or for the Bill, but he was careful in what he said about the attitude of a possible future Labour Government. Obviously, he recognises that there is wide potential interest in commercial radio among the people of this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if he had to choose between 60 "pop" stations and 12 viable stations he would prefer the 12 viable stations. I think he is wrong on both counts. First, I do not believe that they will be "pop" stations; they must be much broader than that. Second, he is wrong in suggesting that 60 stations will not be viable.
I come to the Bill today after having had an opportunity, since the debate on the White Paper earlier this year, to visit Canada and see a little of how Canadian commercial radio is operated. I found that experience very useful as a basis for one's consideration of the Bill.
Broadly, I welcome the Bill, and, in particular, I welcome its introduction early in this Session, for I regard it as something which should be got on with promptly. There is much in the pipeline.
It has been suggested that the Bill is a rather meagre skeleton, that there are
1282
many issues which have not been dealt with and many questions left unanswered at this stage. I regard that as broadly true. But it is true, also, that many of these issues, because of the very nature of radio today and the diversity of the areas to be covered by the 60 stations, are issues probably better left to a body like the proposed Independent Broadcasting Authority than treated as matters to be written into a Statute. I regard this as a point of considerable importance.
Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman may be right—I do not agree, but I see the argument—in saying that it would be unwise to try to frame the discretion given to the I.B.A. in strict legislative form. But would it not be essentially right for the Minister at least to tell the House how he would like to see that discretion exercised?
Mr. Stratton Mills: I take the point, but the difficulty here is that there will be 60 different types of station covering greatly varying areas, for example, on the one hand, the London area with a population of 8 million, and, on the other, strictly rural areas with, perhaps, a population of 100,000. It is difficult, therefore, to lay down in specific terms many of the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised. As regards the news service, my right hon. Friend indicated the sort of lines on which he would like to see it advance. I see that, broadly, as the kind of mix, but I shall come in a moment or two to several points in the Bill about which I am not quite so happy.
One of the biggest questions is: How much advertising will commercial radio have? What will be the buoyancy of advertising for commercial radio? The total advertising budget in this country is £529 million a year. The experience of other countries with commercial radio is that about 10 per cent. of advertising revenue goes into commercial radio. I do not suggest that the share in this country would be as high as £50 million or so, at least for some time ahead, but even at 5 per cent. it would be £25 million. The Government's estimate is that something like £10 million, or 2 per cent., of advertising revenue would go to commercial radio. I regard that as a little on the low side. One would certainly hope for greater buoyancy than that.

1283
Now, the question of the number of stations. The White Paper speaks of 60 stations covering 65 to 70 per cent. of the population. This means that about 15 million people, on the basis of those plans, will not receive commercial radio. I entirely accept that it is important to reach a fairly broad coverage effectively and at an early date, but I ask that nothing be done in the allocation of frequencies or in the preparation of the plans for these 60 stations which would inhibit the growth of further stations to compete and to cover wider areas of the country. I hope that that door will be left very much open.
Now, the question of the news service. If we are to have local radio, it is vital to have local news and information about matters of local community interest. But I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to have a good spread of national and international news. If the local stations do not have that, at peak times of the day they will lose their audience to the B.B.C. Although—I differ here from many hon. Members—I enjoy the type of programme associated with Mr. William Hardcastle. But I think it much better that there should be competitors and that there should be several programmes of that kind. It seems to me that the type of system proposed will give opportunities for just that.
How do people use the radio today? They do not, as they did some years ago, sit down to an evening's listening to a concert, a play, and so forth. They do not spend a complete evening listening to the radio. Either one has it on as—I think that this was the phrase of a former Postmaster-General—a kind of "audible wallpaper" or one uses it "on tap", as it were, turning it on for different items from time to time during the day. I find that I use five radio sets, and I think that I could, perhaps, use more if I were a little better organised.
People are listening to news broadcasts at various hours. I like the idea of a London station with a first-class news bulletin perhaps on the hour, followed by talks, discussions and so on, so that people know that on the hour they can receive such a service. I think that the operation of that news service will be a goldmine. I have no doubt that it will be a financially very success-
1284
ful venture for the programme contractors in the London area—[Interruption.] I have not finished my sentence yet—and that is why I am particularly keen that my right hon. Friend and the Independent Broadcasting Authority should make it clear that those contractors should provide a news service to the other commercial radio stations, which will be having a much more difficult time, at a nominal cost. That will help them to get their stations off the ground and provide a wider service.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also be able to give us some idea of the costs involved in a London national news programme.
I should also like some information on the question of networking generally. It appears from the Bill that there are opportunities for other types of networking as well as a news service but there are also restrictions. May we have more details on how it is intended that such networking should operate?
I like the idea of "prime stations", which has been mentioned in the Press. The idea is that commercial stations operating in the big towns, such as Birmingham and Manchester, should be able to make some of their services available on a feed basis for part of the day to the small stations operating in their area. That has many attractions.
There is another point which may be intended to be left to the I.B.A. but which I believe is a matter of higher policy. The B.B.C. is operating about 20 local stations. Is it intended that in certain areas some of the 60 commercial stations will operate in competition with the B.B.C. or that those areas should be left entirely to the B.B.C.?
I have said that there are two items in the Bill that I am not happy about. One of them concerns the Press. My right hon. Friend is right to include an opportunity for the Press to take an interest in commercial radio. It has much to contribute, and on broader social grounds it is right that it should have the opportunity. But the scheme is, of its nature, extremely arbitrary and will probably produce some pretty odd results. Is it really workable in the present form? I think that the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court asked about the

1285
position of the national groups, such as the Thomson-type group in evening newspapers or the Beaverbrook type of group. I believe that there is a provision enabling the I.B.A. to impose some restriction on these groups, but I should welcome more details from my right hon. Friend on that point.
Mr. Raymond Gower: Can my hon. Friend tell us from his experience of Canada whether the public sector and commercial stations compete there? I do not know the Canadian system at all myself.
Mr. Stratton Mills: In any number of areas there are two or three stations competing in the bigger towns.
An lion. Member: Or eight or nine.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Certainly there is substantial competition between various stations.
The final point that I am unhappy about is the question of what has been called excess profits. I have no fundamental objection to some method of payments to be made to the I.B.A., because the stations are, at least initially, operating a public monopoly. Perhaps when there is greater competition between stations that may not be so relevant, but to get the scheme off the ground they will be operating on a monopoly basis. But I wonder whether the scheme in the Bill is too arbitrary. What is an excess level of profits? At what level does the scheme begin to bite? Should it be on turnover or on profits? A blank cheque is given to the Government of the day; the matter is left to the executive decision of the Minister. I should be happier if we could consider in Committee a scheme under which the Minister of the day had to introduce a statutory order before invoking these provisions, and I should prefer a system based on turnover, in the light of experience after the working of commercial radio. I should also prefer something written into the Bill to say that the provisions will not be operated within, say, a couple of years of any station commencing, so that the people operating it can plan for at least a minimum period.
Those are points of detail. I believe that the Bill is a very interesting Measure, widely welcomed in the country. I join in welcoming it this afternoon.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. George Darling: Leaving aside the suggestion of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that the Bill will produce a profitable commercial local radio system, with which I am not entirely in agreement, I think he should be congratulated on supporting the view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that we need a review commission before we go any further. I am sure that the Minister will not answer the hon. Gentleman's list of questions, certainly not adequately. I am equally sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not adequately answer the further questions that will be put to him during the debate.
The Minister has two choices. At the end of the day, when we see that he has not answered our questions adequately, the Second Reading of the Bill should be postponed until he is in a position to do so. It would be much better to accept my hon. and learned Friend's view, which we fully support. Let us have the review commission, so that any proposals to provide competition for B.B.C. radio will have been properly considered and so that we know precisely the advantages and disadvantages of the various schemes about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke.
This is a thoroughly bad Bill, for the reasons which my hon. and learned Friend expressed. It is badly drafted and is doubtful, vague and confusing where it should be clear and precise, particularly in regard to the criteria for the handing out of franchises and the rules to be laid down for the conduct of commercial radio.
I also oppose the Bill to register my disapproval of the Government's contemptible sense of priorities. To bring forward this Measure before all the other urgent legislative Measures that we require is disgraceful.
I intend to be brief because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, but there are three issues which I want to raise. One of them was touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend. It concerns Clause 6—the injection, as it were, of

1287
television interests into commercial radio. The explanatiory memorandum says:
"Clause 6 provides that a television contractor may not be awarded a contract to provide local radio programmes within the area served by his television transmitting station or stations to which his contract relates…".
But that is not what Clause 6 says, unless we are departing from the old rule in our legislation that the word "may" means "shall". Clause 6 says:
"In the performance of their duty under subsection (2)(b) of this section the Authority shall do all that they can to secure…".
that television interests will not be allowed to operate commercial radio stations in the areas in which they have their television contracts.
So we can get a situation where, for various reasons, the Authority hands out a commercial radio franchise to a television company in the area where it operates. I take Sheffield as an example. It may be that Yorkshire Television would be handed a shareholding—not, of course, complete control—in a Sheffield radio company, although the Bill suggests that the Authority should try to avoid that situation. What the Authority apparently is being asked to do is to give special consideration in the handing out of the franchise to a radio company that may have television associations but whose television associations are in a different part of the country.
I believe in competition, and I must make that clear in case the right hon. Gentleman says that all hon. Members on this side are opposed to competition in radio and broadcasting. I joined with some associates of mine in 1948 in putting proposals to the Beveridge Commission. At that time I was employed by the B.B.C. We suggested that the B.B.C. monopoly should be broken and that there should be four independent competing public service corporations, two for television and two for radio, all of them taking, if they wished, advertising revenue but all of them working on a public service basis, having no private share. holders and not distributing any profits. I still think that that would have been the most satisfactory set-up to have had in this country for the beginning of television. I still think that it would be worth while looking at if we wished for any reason at all to begin to break up the present system.
1288
I therefore believe in competition in broadcasting—very much so—but not the kind of competition which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. I think that television should be kept out of commercial radio for these competitive reasons. I think that we are going to get the worst of every possible world if we allow a television contractor to go in to a local radio company when he has no association with the area where the radio company is to operate, no interest in its people and no interest in the community, but is there for one purpose only, the purpose given by the hon. Member for Belfast, North—that this is a gold mine and he wants to put his fingers in the till.
Mr. Gowerrose—
Mr. Darling: I shall not give way because so many people want to speak.
Look at what is going to happen to the stations which will not be very profitable, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) mentioned and as the Minister agreed. There are parts of the country where commercial radio will not be profitable. What will happen? These will be not necessarily the rural areas but what one might call the "middle profitability areas". A television contractor concerned only with the profits in that area and the public image he has in his television area will be very cost-conscious about the radio programmes because if that radio station in which he has an interest puts out expensive programmes his profits will not be as high as if it puts out cheap programmes.
If we are to have 60 radio stations and the television interests come in to the system in the way I have described, I can see this form of injection of television having a very retrogressive effect on the quality of radio programmes. I may be wrong, but I think these dangers should be examined. Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman really believes in competition he should keep television companies out. I do not want to see television interests getting into commercial radio unless we know precisely how those interests are to be operated, and we have no indication of that in the Bill. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman skated over Clause 6 rather indicates that he has some doubts about the way it is

1289
going to work and the way in which television interests are going to be infused. I do not think that he should reply tonight. He should think these things over and let us have another Second Reading debate on some kind of Bill, say in three years' time.
Secondly, there is the question of newspapers. I know that many of my hon. Friends, if not all of them, consider that bringing newspaper interests into ownership—into the shareholding and the exercising of an element of control— of local commercial radio stations in their circulation areas is not desirable. I do not want to discuss that side of it. I want to discuss the advertising aspect. Many provincial and local newspapers are working on a very narrow margin of profit and loss. I have been told by some of them that the difference of 5 per cent. in their advertising revenue at the moment, with costs going up, would decide whether they stayed in business or were forced out. If local radio took away 5 or 6 or 10 per cent. of their advertising revenue, they would be in grave difficulties.
I believe that a local newspaper is far more important, far more useful and far more desirable to the community it serves than is local commercial radio. But this raises another problem which obviously the right hon. Gentleman has not considered. Supposing he is wrong in the view he expressed in the White Paper in suggesting that newspapers would not be adversely affected by local radio and that local newspapers would not have to close down. The responsibility rests here if they do close—on Government and Parliament for passing the legislation which has put them out of business. That is not free competition. We shall have legislated to put them out of business. The right hon. Gentleman must think carefully—another reason for postponing the debate—about what the Government propose to do to help those newspapers which they may put out of business.
My third point comes back to the question of priorities. Advertising on commercial radio will obviously be very different from the advertising put out on television. Of course, some advertisements will be the same on both media, but in general it will be national advertising on television and local advertising
1290
on local commercial stations. Therefore, local radio will not take much, if any, advertising revenue from television. That is a point which we must bear in mind when dealing with local newspapers. If the newspapers get into difficulties, they will not be compensated for the loss of their advertising revenue by having a bit of the net profit of a station in which they have a minority shareholding.
Let us consider what the local stations must do about advertising control. What the Minister said was utterly inadequate. The Broadcasting Authority will have a tremendously difficult job in working out a code of advertising conduct for local radio. Obviously it will consult bodies like the Advertising Standards Authority. which could help it very much. But there is one body missing which used to look after the consumers' interests, and that is the Consumer Council. To abolish the Consumer Council was one of the most stupid actions—I was about to call it jiggery-pokery, but I do not know whether that is parliamentary language— of this stupid Government because now the voice of the consumer is not heard. Something must be done to remedy that situation.
How the local broadcasting stations will make sure that all the advertisements are true, and correctly describe the advertised goods, will be a problem. If the advertisements mislead potential customers. I suppose the television station, the manufacturer or the advertiser may be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act. But we want something more than a prosecution after the event. It will be extremely difficult to ensure that all the goods advertised on commercial radio are examined beforehand, but something must be done. I have ideas about this matter which I shall put forward between now and whenever we have the postponed Second Reading debate to which I have referred. I ask the Minister to consider this matter. We must have a code of advertising practice which makes sense. and we must ensure that advertisements on commercial radio do not mislead customers and that they are properly supervised.
On the whole, this is such a bad Bill and so many questions will be raised about it that I hope that the Minister will accept my advice and take it away and

1291
come back with something different in about three years' time.
6.30 p.m.
Sir John Rodgers: I welcome the introduction of the Bill. It is something for which I have worked for the last 20 years. Any Member who has his constituents' interests in mind must vote for it because it provides further channels of information, views and entertainment without imposing further burdens on the taxpayer and without detracting from any of the existing channels. People value very much a choice of programmes.
I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) keep referring to Scunthorpe. I hope that it does not mean that he is a little doubtful about whether he can hold Barons Court at the next election and is beginning to woo Scunthorpe. The people of Scunthorpe will look forward to an extra channel for which they do not have to pay any extra money.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. I agree that there are several places where it should be amended, and no doubt the Committee stage will be lengthy. However, the Bill is long overdue. We have demonstrated that commercial television is acceptable and is liked. We shall quickly see that commercial radio is equally acceptable and equally liked.
There are one or two features which must be very carefully considered in Committee. Like one or two of my hon. Friends, I am very surprised that a Conservative Administration should introduce a Bill which provides that excess profits, whatever they may be, should be clawed back by the new Authority. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his political comlexion, was competent enough to claw back through corporation tax and other taxes any excess profits which a firm may make.
I am worried about the references in the Bill to rental payments. Clause 5(1) proposes that the Authority shall decide what percentage on capital employed is allowable and that anything in excess may, by direction of the Minister and after consultation with the Authority and after the consent of the Treasury, be paid
1292
into a consolidated account. Presumably the money in the consolidated account would be used to subsidise the smaller stations which are not very profitable or provide common services at lower prices. I do not believe that this is good Tory policy. This is Socialism in action.
I see many great snags in this. The first is a change of Government to one which might be hostile to commercial radio—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If we go ahead with the Clause, we shall provide a hostile Government with a very simple remedy to get rid of commercial radio because it could put up the radio rental to make it uneconomic for the local stations to operate. More over, there is no mention in the Bill of a warning period; apparently the Minister's directive will come into force immediately. How can a commercial radio station which is working to a budget prepared in advance have all its operating figures invalidated because the rental payment to the Authority has been set at a new and higher level? I am not an expert in the law, but I feel that the effects of this provision might be mitigated if Section 13(6) of the Television Act, 1964, were read into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
There is another aspect of the Bill which worries me. I do not see how an argument can be made out for saying that the commercial radio stations should not be allowed to own their own transmitters. There was a technical argument in favour of this in respect of television, but commercial radio transmitters are cheap and easy to operate. I do not think that it is necessary for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to own them. I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not wish to see great profits made. He does not wish to see a repetition of the situation which we all deplored in the past when Lord Thomson said that he had been given a licence to print his own money.
However, we should not be under the illusion that the Bill will provide a goldmine for many people. I speak with some experience here. Operations in cities like London, Manchester and Liverpool will be profitable, but I do not think it will be easy to run many of the smaller stations at a profit and get adequate revenue.

1293
This is a point about which I should like to hear more and which we should consider in Committee. Are there provisions for national hook-ups, not only of programmes but, much more important, of national advertising through the 60 or so stations? That would attract more advertising revenue.
I should like to say a word about disqualified persons and I would like the Minister to say something about this, too. This has caused great puzzlement to a lot of people, not least to television companies. Presumably, a television company which has subsidiaries engaged in music publishing or records could not itself apply for a licence. Could the Minister say whether other subsidiary companies of a parent company which do not include disqualified persons would be allowed to apply for a sound broad-casting licence? I would be grateful to have his views on that.
I would also like the Minister to say a word about the share owners. I have always believed that local newspapers should be closely associated with commercial sound broadcasting, and for this reason I felt that the restrictions on news paper holdings in television companies should not be used as a precedent in local sound broadcasting. They have not been so used, and I am glad of that. Obviously, papers like the Evening Standard and Evening News will be seriously affected when we get not one but two radio stations operating in London and one of them is engaged solely with news. Therefore, it is right and proper that they should have some participation, some sort of holding, against possible loss. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred to this. He did not say that this would be one way in which a possible 5 per cent. loss could be compensated, by having an interest in a station itself and getting some profits that way. However, that is one of the ways, and I would hope that local newspapers will be permitted to participate in the operation of the local radio stations.
However, in Clause 7, with the new Section 12A, and subsection (4)(a) of that new Section, I wonder whether the Minister has not gone a little too far. This lays down that a sound broadcasting applicant shall not be granted a licence unless he has offered a local news-
1294
paper participation. Surely this goes rather far? Are a Tory Government going to bring in a Bill which will say that Lord Thomson cannot start a new newspaper unless he offers the local radio station a share in it before starting to co-operate? I think this is a situation in which my right hon. Friend has got himself into rather a mess. While I favour participation by local newspapers, I think we shall have to look closely at the wording of that part of the Bill.
I should like to know what machinery there is for divesting oneself of a share holding. If a local newspaper, for example, finds that it is not profitable to continue a holding which has been offered and accepted, does the proprietor sell the shareholding back to the Authority? Does he sell it to the remaining shareholders in proportion to their shareholdings so that it is divided up that way? Or is he allowed to find another and higher bidder, perhaps outside the existing consortium, and sell at a good price, always subject to the negative approval of the Authority? I should like to hear a word on that, too.
The final point I want to make is about monitoring. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned this. There is no mention in the Bill at the moment of this, but there should be provision for it, in advance but not post hoc. If people feel that they have been libelled, slandered or disadvantaged in any way by a broadcast, they should be allowed to ask for the record of what was said in that broadcast. I should like it to be mandatory in the Bill that tapes, which are cheap, should record broadcasts and should be kept for at least six months so that a record may be preserved for a reasonable period. I should like to know what my right hon. Friend thinks about that.
As I say, I welcome the Bill. There are in it many points which, I think, will have to be seriously considered in Committee and altered, but I do not want to sound carping because I think that the Bill is a great step forward and will be welcomed by the public at large. I hope that the Minister will—to use a phrase I have heard from the opposite benches—take a long, cool look at some of the criticisms of the Bill, because I think they are of a serious nature.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Brian O'MalleyIf I were not already opposed to the introduction of commercial radio the speech of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) would convince me that I ought to be. It was interesting that throughout his speech there was absolutely no mention of social responsibility, of public standards. The things which concerned him, almost to the exclusion of anything else, were, first of all, profit, and secondly—if I may use the elegant language of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) some time ago—that some interests should be able to get their snouts into the gravy bowl. That sums up in total the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
During the debate on the White Paper in May this year, I set out my reasons for being opposed to the introduction of commercial radio. Those reasons to a large extent represented the views of the musical profession. I shall not repeat those reasons tonight, but what can be said is that, having looked at the Bill, and having heard the Minister make his contribution to the debate this evening, I see no reason to change my opposition to the introduction of commercial radio on the pattern which the Minister is proposing. My opposition is strengthened by what I have read in the Bill and what I have heard tonight.
We are told by a recent report in one of the national newspapers that the Minister has not been anxious to talk about this Bill all the summer; he has in his Ministry been prepared to listen to representations and views from all kinds of organisations. I am bound to say to him, certainly so far as the musical profession is concerned, that in this Bill and in his speech this evening there is absolutely no sign that he has taken any notice at all of what was said to him. Indeed, judging by the Minister's performance this evening, there is not much evidence that he has even listened to his civil servants, because he was, quite clearly, incapable of answering the questions which were put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). As I say, the interests of the musical profession have been completely ignored, and any conversations the Minister may have had with representatives of
1296
that profession may as well not have taken place.
One is driven to the conclusion that the only result of the Minister's summer of listening has been that he has come to two conclusions on two important matters, first, that the postal services of this country are too good and too cheap and that he will do his best to make them less good and more expensive, and second, that his responsibility, as a Minister of the Crown in a British Government, should be to provide what is virtually a rigged market for commercial radio operators. I can only say to him that it is a pity that he and the Government do not show the same tender regard for the interests, for example, of the steel industry and the shipbuilding industry, where the jobs of thousands of men are at stake today, as he is showing for the lobbyists who want to move into commercial radio and who were making contributions to the Tory Party funds at the time of the General Election. Even his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) in his intervention earlier seemed to agree that we were providing favourable conditions for a rigged market for commercial radio speculators.
It is said, and, of course, it is true, that there is a very special relationship between music and sound radio. Of course, radio is very largely dependent on music, and could hardly operate without it. That is more the case with radio than it is with television, and yet the Minister has introduced a Bill which makes no acknowledgment of this fact and in which there is no recognition of the potentially adverse consequences to the musical profession. Yet, on the other hand, he makes specific inclusion of the interests of the newspaper proprietors, who are likely to be affected much more indirectly than are members of the music profession.
My distinct impression of the Minister's attitude is that the I.B.A. is being told to make commercial radio work, whatever the consequences for public standards and for the livelihood of the people affected. One clue to the Minister's unwillingness to talk about the amount of advertising time that should be allowed per hour is that he is prepared to distort the market and allow I.B.A. to distort the market because he says that normal commercial criteria are not to apply and, whatever the

1297
consequences, we must make commercial radio a success. This is clear from the rag tag and bare bones of the Bill. The Minister expects the I.B.A. to become the guardian of the shareholders in commercial radio rather than the guardian of the public purse and the public interest, and this is disgraceful.
I want to say a word about needle time. We are concerned not only about needle time but about many other effects of commercial radio on the musical profession. It has been pointed out to me by people who would like to move into commercial radio that the tribunal which considered the amount of needle time for Manx Radio allowed needle time of 50 per cent. of the total broadcasting hours. The Local Radio Association wants more than this. I respect the Association for saying honestly exactly what it wants, but it should be borne in mind that when the tribunal gave Manx Radio 50 per cent. needle time it said in summing up that the only reason why Manx Radio was given so much was that there were special circumstances and that this should in no sense be taken as a precedent for any other application for needle time.
I hope that the Minister will write into the Bill, and ensure, that negotiations on needle time for commercial radio are between the I.B.A. and Photographic Performance Ltd. rather than individual contractors.
Mr. Gorst: Why?
Mr. O'Malley: Because I should expect the I.B.A., as a public body, to take into account the public interest, and I should not expect commercial radio operators to have the same sense of responsibility.
Mr. Gorst: Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the only bodies which can negotiate with trade unions are public authorities and not commercial enterprises? That is an extraordinary proposition.
Mr. O'Malley: I am saying no such thing. Lord Denham, speaking from the Government Front Bench in the other place, speculated on the possibilities. I am replying to that speculation and saying that in my view the negotiation
1298
should be between I.B.A. and the P.P.L. rather than the contractors.
The musical profession would expect that any needle time agreement with commercial radio operators should be not more favourable to them than the agreement with the B.B.C. I would oppose any undermining of the B.B.C. and any endangering of employment levels for the musical profession within the B.B.C. The Musicians Union, to which I belong, does not object to any extension of the amount of time devoted to music on the air. Rather the reverse. The profession is concerned that there should be a proper balance between music which is specially produced for broadcasting and recorded music.
Mr. Robert Cooke: What would be the position of live music produced by non-union performers?
Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman would do better to discuss that subject with would-be commercial radio operators and the Musicians Union. It is not helpful to this debate.
The musical profession would not object to the extension of time devoted to music on the air, but asks the Minister to ensure that there are criteria to be implemented by the I.B.A. Due regard should be paid to the interests of the musical profession, and the best way of doing that is to ensure that a defined proportion of programme content is specially produced material, and that there is a defined relationship between the total amount of music broadcast and the specially produced musical material.
If this is to be responsible broadcasting, it should not only provide employment for musicians but should ensure that there is a proper spread of employment throughout the local radio stations.
Under Clause 4(4) and (6) the I.B.A. will have a fund which, subject to certain directions from the Minister, can be used for several purposes determined by the Authority and the Minister. It might be possible for the I.B.A. to sponsor an orchestra or orchestras in London and in the provinces where major local radio stations are set up.
I sum up by saying that most of the prospective contractors who have expressed opinions in the last 12 months

1299
have made it clear, implicitly and explicitly, that they are primarily concerned about the massive exploitation of gramophone records. That is the nature of commerical radio all over the world, and it is one reason why I am strongly opposed to the proposals. Even if I approved of the principle of commercial radio, which I do not, the framework of local radio envisaged by the White Paper and the Bill provides the wrong structure to serve the public interest and the interests of the professions concerned with broadcasting. So I oppose the Bill, root and branch. It is a bad Bill. But, since the Government are determined to push it through, we must try to improve it wherever we can. I have given early notice to the Minister of the lines along which the Bill might be improved. I hope that the Minister will consider writing specifically into the Bill a regard for the professions concerned with broadcasting, including the musical profession, in the same way as he has shown in the Bill concern for the newspaper proprietors.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Julian Critchley: I shall be very brief indeed. In the debate on the White Paper some months ago I said that my support for commercial radio was lukewarm. Nothing that has happened in the intervening months has served to heat my enthusiasm. I fear that commercial radio will be a massive vulgarity rivalled only by the first and second channels of the B.B.C. It is only as a motorist that I shall be induced to enter the Lobby on the same side as my hon. Friends.
I wish to raise three points: news, excess profits and the rÔle of newspapers in the formulation of this Bill. I am still not convinced it is a good idea in a local radio service to oblige local radio operators to interrupt their programmes at frequent intervals with national and international news. Were I passing through Scunthorpe—I say Scunthorpe since the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) opposite seems to have a thing about Scunthorpe—I would not want to hear national or international news. I would want to know who were behind in their rent. If there is to be local radio, the news should be local. The argument for having a news service
1300
in London boils down to this: that two Hardcastles are better than one. This is not a thesis I would go along with.
Nor am I convinced that the local newspapers should be granted this curious status which this Bill would allow them. I do not think there is a single interest in this country that should be shored up in this way. When I am led to believe on very good authority that the example in the United States of the effect of commercial radio on newspapers is to increase the profitability of commercial newspapers, I suspect that my hon. Friend has surrendered to the pressures of the Newspaper Society in making this special arrangement for this one interest. This is not something I could support were I fortunate enough to be on the Committee on this Bill.
It is extremely difficult to decide how to define "excess profits", but surely the preferred solution in the hypothetical circumstances of hard-faced men making a great deal of money is to inject into the structure more competition and to increase the number of stations. I have been told that 60 stations is the limit, but for years we have been told by the B.B.C. that five stations, then 15, then 25 and finally 60 stations are the limit. Even if it is true that 60 stations are the limit—and I doubt that that is true— there is nothing to stop new stations on VHF, and surely this is the only way to meet the whole problem of excess profits.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to say in his reply what is the maximum number of stations in which one company may have an interest or a controlling interest.
I am not certain whether my right hon. Friend has discussed the hours of broadcasting and to what extent commercial radio will be allowed to broadcast over a period of time. This again is something on which I should like clarification.
My final point concerns watchdogs; namely, a broadcasting council. I have advocated outside the House the setting up of a broadcasting council. I will not rehearse the arguments I could deploy in favour of a broadcasting council, save to say that the idea has widespread support on both sides of the House as well as in the country as a whole. If we are now introducing legislation to

1301
increase the area of broadcasting, surely the argument for a watchdog broadcasting council is strengthened. If my right hon. Friend—who has been moderately inflexible in his attitude to setting up a broadcasting council, since he has been shifting his weight from one foot to the other—is now suggesting that it might be possible in 1975, 1976 or 1977 for a broadcasting council to be considered along with all the other recommendations at that period for the revised structure of broadcasting, it is strange that he will not apply that argument to this Bill. He will not wait until 1975 or 1976 before introducing a Bill in favour of commercial broadcasting, but he uses as an argument against a broadcasting council that he will not move now, but will wait for four or five years before giving any consideration to this matter. Therefore, my support for his Bill will be a reluctant support.
6.46 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Listening to this debate, an idea occurs to me regarding the number of stations, which I feel might be of value to the Minister. It seems to me that the natural number of sound broadcasting stations should be equivalent to the number of Government back-bench Members of Parliament. I say this because a whole number of Government back benchers are not here in the Chamber. Are they to he excluded from the pork barrel if the Bill becomes law? It would be monstrously unfair. I hope the Minister will consider this suggestion since he might find this a convenient course at a later date.
I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend about the main weakness of the Bill being that it entrusts to the I.T.A. powers which the I.T.A. from its present record has shown no capacity to exercise properly. Nobody who has studied the record of the I.T.A. can doubt that from first to last it has handled its responsibilities with lamentable weakness and a lack of influence and power in regard to programme companies.
We have had long arguments about the amount of advertising that should be allowed, and the Minister is to leave this entirely to the I.B.A. I ask him to study the record of the amount of advertising allowed on commercial television. He
1302
will find the early controversy in which the then Minister, unlike the present Minister, who was in charge of the Television Bill, exercised his judgment and said to the House that he had in mind a period of five or six minutes to the hour. It was notable that this formula was taken by the I.T.A. and interpreted in a way that was wholly inconsistent with the then intentions of the House; it was interpreted as meaning five or six minutes in the hour averaged over the day.
This meant that at lunchtime, for example, when there were virtually no viewers and when advertising rates were low, two or three minutes of advertising were allowed; and then at peak hours, when advertising rates were high and everybody was watching, up to 10 minutes in the hour were allowed and the whole exercise worked out at six minutes an hour average. That is how the I.T.A. handled the matter when the Television Bill went through. We shall want a lot more convincing over this Bill before handing over to the I.T.A. the same powers on sound broadcasting.
I wish now to deal with the question of contracts. We are told that we can trust the I.B.A. to handle the contracts for the sound broadcasting companies. I suppose the evidence the Minister wants us to consider is the way in which I.T.A. handled contracts for the existing programme companies. Why should we assume that the T.B.A., in view of the record of I.T.A. on the Thames Television and the London Weekend contracts, will be qualified to judge in the public interest which programme company is or is not capable of running these stations? Why should we trust the I.T.A. to carry out this duty in relation to sound broadcasting in the light of its record on television programme companies?
I confess that my opposition to this Bill is fundamental. I oppose the whole conception of broadcast advertising. I consider it has not proved itself, and I believe that long before 1976 arrives there will be a tide of opinion against it. I shall come on to my reasons for saying that a little later, and I shall indicate that I believe will be a very lively subject of controversy before 1976; namely, a wholly new form of financing broadcasting in this country.

1303
I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments which I hope are now accepted on both sides and by public opinion about the weaknesses of broadcast advertising. All the surveys show that the commercials in themselves, especially those which interrupt programmes, are not liked by viewers or listeners. It is true that a certain amount of steamrollering has hardened our skins to commercial advertising on television, but there is still a dislike of commercials. I have not heard any hon. Member opposite say that, other things being equal, he prefers his broadcasting with advertising rather than without it. No one takes that view, and I do not think anyone's constituents take that view.
There are still occasions when commercial advertising causes great offence and is monstrously intrusive. I cannot help reminding hon. Members of a most extraordinary broadcasting event which took place recently. Some hon. Members may have seen it. It was a performance on I.T.V. of Hamlet. As an old critic of I.T.V., naturally I felt in duty bound to watch. It was a shortened and souped-up version. One sequence, lasting a minute, was wholly memorable. The first part showed the Danish king at prayer:
"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below…".
The second half of the sequence showed a bottle of Danish lager being poured into a glass. One should not knock I.T.V. After all, this was its great cultural event of the year. But I could not help thinking what a splendid description it was of the propaganda of the commercial broadcasting lobby: "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below." In their prospectus, the commercial companies show the wonderful standards of broadcasting that they will observe. But their thoughts are on the bank balance. They stay downstairs. That is the secret of a great deal of the propaganda for commercial broadcasting.
Advertising is wholly wrong because— I think that it is agreed on both sides— since it is motivated to maximise advertising revenue, it is motivated to ignore the interests of minorities. This has been proved over and over again. The Minister has indicated it. He should know better. In the debate on the White Paper he said:
1304
"If people do not want to listen, people will not advertise, and no one gets any money. The person who has invested in the station loses his money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 502-3.]
Of course that is right. The converse is also true. The more people listen, the more people advertise, the more money comes in, and the more profit is made by the station.
What the Minister fails to understand is that to try to maximise one's audience is not the way to produce those programmes which are most keenly enjoyed by those who see or hear them. That can be proved. There are two audience research indices by the B.B.C. One registers how many people see a programme. The other registers how keenly enjoyed it is by those who see it. There is no relation between the two. One might think that the larger the audience, the more keenly enjoyed the programme. That is disproved. What is proved is that a programme designed for a specific interest, a programme of a particular type or for a particular audience, is more keenly enjoyed, just as we prefer a tailor-made suit to one off the peg. I think that the I.T.A. has conceded that. It is what we meant when we talk about "balance". To maximise advertising revenue is to maximise one's audience. To maximise one's audience is to ignore minorities, local interests and local issues.
Moreover, all this is based on the illusion, of course, that if we allow advertising, we are getting something for nothing. Many people believe that advertising is a miraculous provider of free television, cheap newspapers, and so on. To believe that is to ignore that normally we pay part of the cost of advertising when we buy the advertised product. That is another reason why the case against broadcast advertising is so strong.
I suppose that the Bill will pass, albeit with some difficulty. But I do not think it will survive much beyond 1976. It gives the wrong motivation to broadcasting, it is based on the illusion that we are getting something for nothing, and the commercials themselves are disliked by viewers and listeners. I sense among young people a growing disillusionment with commercial advertising and its intrusions. I have been cheered to see that outdoor advertising is now virtually banned. People see an advertisement

1305
which interrupts their view of the countryside as a form of environmental pollution. In due course they will see that an advertisement which interrupts their broadcasting is also a form of environmental pollution. The first is a form of the pollution of the physical environment. The second, which is more pervasive and damaging, is a form of pollution of the cultural environment.
It is strange that the Minister, who before he got his present post was active in campaigning against environmental pollution, is now leading the race for what might be called cultural pollution. This will become increasingly evident as the years go by, because it is intrusive and is alien to the conception of broadcasting.
As 1976 approaches, I believe that there will be more discussion of a radically different means of financing our broadcasting. I am not wedded to the B.B.C. monopoly, but a different means of financing broadcasting can help create a form of public service competition.
The time is over when the licence fee was a suitable instrument for financing the B.B.C. It was suitable at a time when only a proportion of the public had radio or television sets. Then it was logical and fair that those who had them should pay licence fees and that those who had not should not. But always it was a clumsy method. Always there was evasion. There is now £9 million a year worth of evasion, as a result of our sticking to the licence system. Licence money is also a nuisance and rather expensive to collect. But now that over 90 per cent. of the people have sets it is becoming quite inappropriate as a means of financing the B.B.C.
The argument used against financing it from general taxation is that the licence gives the B.B.C. independence from the Government. That is a false argument, for two reasons. In the first place, from 1947 to 1960 the Treasury raided the licence money. For all that period of 13 years the B.B.C. was directly dependent on Government good will for its financing. We did not hear any complaint about that situation. In the second place, we finance our universities, our theatres and our music out of the general fund of taxation without compromising their independence. We have learned how to do it. We have learned that it is pos-
1306
sible to finance an independent body through an independent channel from the general fund of taxation. That is how we should look at it in the future. Enormous savings will be made on the fees which are at present evaded and on the cost of collection.
What about I.T.V.'s financing in this context, because that comes into this? In 1976, with a Labour Government, we shall have legislation to reform I.T.V. in the direction recommended by the Pilkington Committee some years ago. That will mean that the I.T.A. becomes the recipient of all the advertising revenue and purchases the programmes from the programme companies for networking. That will be the first stage.
The second stage thereafter will be the transformation of I.T.V.'s advertising revenue into a grant from general taxation in the same way as we now grant money for the universities, for theatres and for music, which are subsidised by the Treasury. Then we shall have a much more civilised and infinitely cheaper method of financing our broadcasting. For I.T.V. the economies would be enormous. There is first the 15 per cent. which the advertising agents take from advertising revenue. That is a vast sum. This is one of the biggest rackets in broadcasting. Then we should save all the money wasted by all the different advertising departments of all the companies.
As the years go by and as we come to 1978 broadcast advertising will be seen for what it is—a phoney, and an unacceptable form of environmental pollution.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will allow me to explain the position of the Chair at the moment. We have about 135 minutes before the Front Bench speakers will wish to speak. I know of about a dozen hon. Members who still want to speak. That will guide hon. Members who catch my eye as to the length of their speeches.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)—I almost said, in my off-the-peg suit. He wants to take us into a grey, miserable world. I have only been in such a place once. I was

1307
in Moscow for 36 hours. If that is the sort of world he wants, he can keep it because it is a depressing place.
I shall try to stick to the 10 minutes suggested. I have here a several-years-old newspaper cutting. I am glad that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) is on the bench opposite because he may remember it. I shall take poetic licence with it:
"It is a healthy sign in an informed democracy when new radio stations are founded, and it is particularly encouraging to find this taking place at a time when other media of communication are competing strongly. I welcome the new station as yet another sign that local communities are demanding their own voice. I wish the enterprise every success."
That could apply to every radio station opened in this country, but it did not. It applied to a newspaper, the Doncaster Evening Post, and the man who wrote that diatribe is the present Leader of the Opposition, and he has there the perfect argument for local radio.
I am very disappointed with the Bill, which will not surprise many hon. Members. It is a piece of market rigging. The Bill looks to me like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, and the shape of the Bill reminds me of that exactly. It has been created for various vested interests, the Musicians Union, and advertising agencies which, if there is really local radio, will not be able to get their 15 per cent. from the advertising revenue.
The whole debate is taking place on a completely false base. The House is assuming that there can be only 60 radio stations. In my opinion and the opinion of technicians around the world—one of my hon. Friends has made the point— there could be very many more radio stations, and some people think there could be up to 600 on V.H.F. with limited power. If we take the attitude that we could have very many more stations, we can see that the market is really rigged.
I ask the Minister: if we have 60 stations created, with that group of vested interests, how shall we get station No. 61? A lot of people who are not in the large conurbations obviously will not get commercial radio. There will be only one city with competition between commercial stations, and that is London. The rest of them will almost be C.C.B.B.C.—
1308
carbon copy B.B.C. We shall not have true commercial radio as I understand it.
Looking at the powers granted to the I.B.A., the body which will dish out the licences, we ought to know how it will dish them out. Applicants will reach for "Who's Who", look up the local bigwigs and then swap two generals for a bishop. or try, if possible, to find the best looking or the most affable member of the public or politician—from either side of the House—to get a spectrum of people who they think will be the ones who should win this kind of raffle for a licence.
We should lay down a criterion for granting a licence when there are competing bodies of almost the same quality —the same as we do in the House. We should have a ballot for the station. If we can do this in the House for Private Members' Bills and Notices of Motion. I do not see why competing companies with approximately the same qualifications for operating the station should not take part in a ballot.
Another thing that disappoints me about the Bill is that only last week the Government were pleased to welcome the Bolton Committee Report on small businesses. If ever there was a Bill which was going to cut out the small man in communications, it is this Bill. I make a plea to the Minister to lean on the I.B.A. to make sure that there are several small stations. I should like to see two small stations in one small area just to see how they developed. I am sure this is the only way we shall ever get community radio in Britain. We have never experienced it here yet.
The B.B.C. could never have afforded to go into local radio and never wanted to. It did not want to do it because of competition from television. When the hon. Member for Woolwich, East suggested other methods of paying for radio he must have been alluding to subscription radio. But the world is a moving place and we have to realise that this type of subscription radio would not necessarily work here.
I seek another assurance from the Minister. For the first time in my life I read the paper City Press. It contained an article about what the shape of commercial radio will be.
Mr. Buchan: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "radio"? He has

1309
talked about true commercial radio and the concession being given by ballot. On the second one, by definition, he does not care what is put out by the radio, because if it were done by ballot one would have no idea what the contractors intended to put out. Is he saying that all he is concerned with is small business, an element of the market, or has he any sense of true commercial radio in the sense of output?
Mr. Proudfoot: By true commercial radio I mean commercial radio stations in competition with each other. I worry about what goes out. I have my ego to contend with, and I should want to put out something which satisfied me. This would be what will be put out by every local radio station.
Mr. Whitehead: Was the hon. Member satisfied with the output of Radio 270 when he was connected with it—the Top 40 three times a day? Was that a community service?
Mr. Proudfoot: No, but I enjoyed doing it. It was a service.
When the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) was saying that his taste was the one that mattered, I do not believe that the House of Commons has the right to dictate taste. That has nothing to do with this Chamber. After reading the City Press this morning and finding that there is a rumour that the commercial stations will have to go off the air at 2 a.m. and come on at the same time as the B.B.C., I consider that this is only another bit of market rigging. I make the plea to the Minister that they should be on the air for 24 hours a day if they so desire. The B.B.C. would still be the major competitor. In most areas there will be four or five B.B.C. stations to one commercial station.
I believe the stations should own their own hardware. This afternoon I rang up a company which sells radio transmitters. They are not esoteric objects; one can buy them off the shelf. A 1 kilowatt transmitter can be purchased, built, tested and be ready to go on the air in 45 days. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the question of the I.B.A., because under this system it will be years before 60 stations are operating.
1310
It is easy to get round this question of profit. I should love to know how many gallons of whisky and gin are consumed each day in the B.B.C. green rooms, or even per hour of broadcasting. The I.T.A. has had to copy all that.
I can imagine no worse set-up than having local advisory committees. Marks and Spencer Ltd. and J. Sainsbury Ltd. do not need local advisory committees, yet they satisfy their customers' demands. I do not see why local radio stations need local worthies to tell them what to put out.
It staggers me that the religious lobby is now starting to ask for free time on commercial radio stations. They do not get free space in local newspapers to advertise their sermons. Local news papers charge for notices of births, deaths and marriages. Anyone who wishes to advertise his religious wares in a news paper is charged. This is one respect where we should have sponsored time. If I had my way, the stations would be selling time to any religion which desired to go out over the air, and the religion would have to pay the going rate.
Mr. Mayhew: How much would the hon. Gentleman charge for the Sermon on the Mount?
Mr. Proudfoot: The going rate. It is always the same answer. I do not see wiry religion should be in a separate category. I do not see why political parties should not be asked to pay for their broadcasts, as they pay elsewhere in the world. All three parties buy advertising space in newspapers. I do not see why they should not be allowed to do this on the air.
7.12 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is always refreshing to listen to the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), because he said out loud what many hon. Members opposite only dare to think to themselves. Many of us on this side dislike the Bill as it has been presented, but if it were to turn out as the hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough would like, we should like it even less.
The Bill is not wholly objectionable, for this reason, I believe that an alternative radio service to the B.B.C. is desirable in principle. In so far as the

1311
Bill produces an alternative to the B.B.C., I welcome it. But I do not like it, because it is riot the type of alternative to the B.B.C. which I should like to see. I am therefore bound to vote against the Bill tonight, because it contains so many objectionable features.
I do not go along with my hon. Friends who think that advertising in itself is evil. Tribune and Morning Star could do with much more advertising and would be more viable if they had it. I wholeheartedly agree, however, that the interruption of radio and T.V. programmes by advertising is objectionable. I would confine advertising to between programmes so that there would be no interruption; there would be a section between each programme when advertising was allowed. That would be a welcome opportunity for people to do their cooking or make a cup of tea.
I hope that in Committee we shall strengthen the Bill by writing into it a provision to ensure that advertising does not become a nuisance but can be used by the programme contractor without destroying the listener's pleasure in the programme. It is undoubtedly correct that people tolerate advertising but do not like it. Sometimes viewers have a reluctant admiration for a particularly clever commercial, but it is a distraction from the purpose for which they look at television.
We on this side get a pretty raw deal from the communications media generally. We have very few friends over the whole range of the media. We do not get a very good deal from either I.T.A. or B.B.C. However, an analysis undertaken by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians of the treatment of the Industrial Relations Bill by I.T.A. and B.B.C. showed that we got a much squarer deal from I.T.A. than from B.B.C. Therefore, nobody should imagine that because the B.B.C. is a public corporation and does not take advertising revenue, we have some sort of Socialist trend in the B.B.C. No one who has worked for the B.B.C. will labour under that delusion.
On the question of bias, although the Press has been very pro-Market the B.B.C. has been much more biassed in that direction than has I.T.A. This
1312
applies particularly to B.B.C. sound radio. At 8 a.m. on the "Today" programme there is a solid mass of pro-Market propaganda every morning under the guise of questions on the subject of the Market. Therefore, the view that the B.B.C. is an admirable corporation which is always impartial, which must be left alone and to which there must be no alternative is not in accordance with the facts.
I hope to be fortunate enough to join the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough in the deliberations in Committee on the Bill. Incidentally, I hope that we shall decide to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. This is an important subject which should be debated in the open with people available to listen to the arguments.
If in Committee there is sufficient support on either side, I hope that hon. Members will join me in amending the Bill to create a third broadcasting authority instead of putting the new venture under the wing of the Independent Television Authority. The more spread there is in media of communication the better. If we were to create a third broadcasting authority we should have ready-made an authority which could get channel 4 when it comes. We should not then be faced with the almost inevitable outcome of channel 4 becoming I.T.V.2.
The existence of a third broadcasting authority would not necessarily close down the options. If it were responsible for general supervisory control over local commercial radio, it would be an authority which we might think of in connection with channel 4 of television in due course.
Whether we do that or not and whether the authority is the I.B.A. or a third broadcasting authority, I hope that the Bill will be amended so as to give the Authority powers to take a percentage of the revenue of local broadcasting stations. That would be a very desirable form of revenue which would give the Authority a good guide to the profitability of stations. It would keep the Authority in close touch with the various stations. The Authority would know the stations which were prospering, because its return from those stations would be

1313
large. The Authority would be able, if it chose—it should be empowered to do this—to support a station which was failing to prosper out of funds it acquired from more prosperous stations.
That would not be at all in accordance with the strict business ethics of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, but it would solve the problem of providing local radio to areas where it would not otherwise be profitable. I shall not spread the point now because of the time factor, but I think that here there is something which, on examination, may commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps in Committee we can put down an Amendment to this effect. I wish to give the Authority other powers to use the revenue that it would receive.
Contrary to what is proposed in the Bill, I believe that newspaper and television holdings in local radio should be prohibited. It is wrong that newspapers, television organisations, music publishers, gramophone recording companies, film producing organisations, theatre owners, producers, and entertainment or literary agents should be allowed to have an interest in local radio, because they could utilise it for their own purposes instead of for the purposes of local radio.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have forgotten that the object of the exercise is to produce something to which people want to listen. The object is not to produce something which will make a profit for those who put money into it. It is not even for the purpose of employing actors or journalists. We ought to provide listeners with a reasonable range of entertainment, and one of the things that we shall have to do is to strengthen the Bill so that the Authority is required to make sure, to a greater degree than is now the case, that the range of programmes available covers the whole spectrum of broadcasting, both minority and majority tastes. It must make sure that there is a genuine and real alternative to the B.B.C. which will do something to add to, to expand and to provide a medium to which people can listen and not merely use as background music or "audible wallpaper". Those are some of the things for which I hope we shall provide.
I hope, too, that we shall provide that amateur performances will be limited to
1314
organisations already in existence, and that local radio companies will not be allowed to create amateur organisations for the purpose of employing cheap labour. Local radio companies ought to be allowed to use existing amateur organisations to provide a cross-section of what is happening in the areas they cover.
We shall try to make substantial improvements to the Bill in Committee, but for tonight, as the Bill seems to be unsound in principle, and wrong in the way it sets about dealing with the problems, we on this side of the House, followed possibly by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite, will vote against the Bill. I hope to see the hon. Member for Peter-borough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) in our Lobby tonight.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. John Gorst: I shall not follow any of the interesting arguments produced by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) except to refer to what he said about newspapers, and I shall do that in due course.
First, as is customary, I should like to declare the interest which I have as the secretary of the Local Radio Association, a post which hon. Gentlemen opposite will be delighted to hear I am giving up at the end of the year.
It is difficult, from the speeches that we have heard today, to find anyone, on either side of the House, who is totally in favour of the Bill, other than my right hon. Friend the Minister. Therefore I should like to draw attention to certain merits of the Bill before following everybody else's example.
First, I am delighted that we are to have an alternative service financed by advertising. Second, I am delighted that there is provision for the separation of radio and television finances. Radio being such an essentially different medium from television, I hope this provision means not only that its finance will be different but that it will in every respect be treated as a different medium.
Third, I am delighted with the reference in Clause 2 to local sound broadcasting meaning a broadcast from one or more stations covering a particular area. I take comfort from the fact that even though "particular locality" is not defined, it will mean that we shall have

1315
a chance of having a few stations which are truly local.
The advantage of cutting up big areas and serving them with more than one frequency—which I hope will be the way in which this is done—will be threefold. First, it will give the 15 million or 16 million listeners who will not receive any form of commercial local radio service, even when the 60 stations are transmitting—because only up to 70 per cent. of the country is to be covered—an opportunity to be included if we use transmitters on low power.
Second, it will give flexibility, which is essential if, at a later stage, the Authority wishes to change the contracts because areas are either too large or too profitable. It will be able to split them without changes of a technical nature. Third, although under common control, an area can be fragmented at various times of the day to provide truly local advertising, as well as local news and information, in a way that a regional station could not.
I now cone to my reservations about the Bill. First and foremost, I do not believe—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills)—that 60 stations will be adequate. At best, 60 stations will mean covering areas of about 300 square miles each. To my mind that is regional radio and not local radio. Indeed, I am certain that with only 60 stations it will be very difficult to have any competition in places other than London, Manchester and Birmingham. If there is not to be competition in those places, one wonders what will happen to places such as Merseyside, Tyneside, Glasgow, West Yorkshire. Bristol. Edinburgh, Belfast, the Solent, Teesside and Sheffield, all of which are large enough to cope with an additional station. Of those 13 places which I have mentioned, clearly very few are intended to have competition at the stage when they really ought to have it.
If, on the other hand, the Minister ensures that the transmitters operating on medium frequencies are operating at a realy low power, the frequencies can be made available. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will look very care-fully at what I have put forward and see what can be done.
1316
My main objection to the Bill—and here I echo what has been said by many hon. Members, on both sides of the House—centres on the special rights to be accorded to newspapers.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: How is the hon. Gentleman going to vote?
Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman asks me how I am going to vote. Perhaps I am excluding myself from the Standing Committee in saying this but I shall, nevertheless, find it very difficult to support the Clause in question, and in that respect I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). If the Government believe in the policy that lame ducks which cannot face competition should go to the wall, it is arguable that they ought to go to the wall; and if a local newspaper cannot face competition it is arguable, if the Government are to be consistent with his policy, that it ought to be allowed to close down. If, on the other hand, newspapers should not go to the wall, because the media of communications are too important, it is arguable that the right way to ensure their continued existence is by providing a subsidy. This is the way we do it when we deal with the Post Office and when we deal with uneconomic services. Perhaps they ought to be subsidised as a social service which is required by the nation; but to hand them a special privilege seems to me to be totally unjustified.
The only justification for the inclusion of newspapers—and here I do not necessarily go along with those hon. Members, on both sides, who have expressed concern about the involvement of commercial television companies and newspapers—is where they have merit for the medium. If they have that, let them be judged on their merit; but they should not receive shares as of right. If, however, the argument for involving them is that this is a way of buying their silence, I feel, quite honestly. that this will meet with no acceptance in the country or elsewhere.
Moving on from the role of newspapers to other matters and, in particular, the central news organisation, here again I have reservations. My reservations are based on two grounds. The role of local radio is to provide local news and in-formation in the locality. If it is to succeed commercially, it must be local

1317
news and information. Admittedly it will require supplementing with the head lines of what is happening in the country at large, but it is not a medium for national and international news.
If my right hon. Friend wishes to set up a medium to compete with the B.B.C., it ought to be a national commercial station, not a local commercial station. It is just as if the Government were to turn to the local Dundee newspaper and ask it to tell its readers about the visit to Birmingham of President Tito. This is Birmingham news. It is of little interest to Dundee, and it would be unthinkable to expect the Dundee newspaper to publish the matter in detail. It is just as unthinkable that local radio should be saddled in this way.
My second objection to the central news organisation is a matter of principle. It is utterly wrong for any Government to dictate to a medium of communication where it will go for its news. For these two reasons, I hope that it may be possible to think again about that aspect of the Bill.
As has been said on both sides of the House, there are many unanswered questions raised by the Bill. It highlights how little Parliament will have to say in the matter. I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in this respect. I believe that Parliament should be concerned in the structure of how commercial radio is set up; but I certainly do not believe that it should be involved in either the selection or the judgment of the programme contractors, once these have been appointed. I hope that, at some stage, the Minister will consider obtaining more powers so that Parliament may have a more direct say in some of the structural arrangements made.
Many questions have not been answered. Applicants will want to know not merely what is meant by the objectionable phrase "excessive profits" but also what "reasonable profits" are. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North talked about a blank cheque. I would say this. Anybody may talk about a blank cheque. But the Government are asking contractors to accept that they will have blank invoices. Whether or not we shall have a central news organisation, people will want to know, not merely how much it will cost, whether
1318
it be £¾ million or £2 million, to support this organisation, but also will want to know what will be the cost of getting news from the central London source to the outlying stations selected. This is a considerable overhead in the viability of the operation. Will it be done by landline or by microwave? What sort of fee will the I.B.A. demand as a licence fee? What sort of imposition will be negotiated, if the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has his way, between the Musicians Union and the I.B.A. in terms of royalties and copyright fees?
What will be the cost of the news? So heavy are likely to be the overheads borne by local stations that they will cease to be local and become national. They will not be able to continue to produce programmes of quality at a local level because they must do so much that is national. Quite apart from the degree to which the programme will be of a local nature, how local does the Minister expect the ownership to be? An hon. Member suggested that Granada would go to the Solent. I wonder how much of the Solent, if Granada went there, would be in the hands of anyone from the Solent. The Bill must give some giudance to the I.B.A. as to the degree of local ownership.
The question of frequencies is a complicated one, but I hope that the Minister will ensure that when the V.H.F. transmitters are set up they will transmit not merely on V.H.F. but also in stereo so that, in this country, we can start, as the United States started, using a system of first-class quality. I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate whether the I.B.A. itself will be composed of the same people as at present serve on I.T.A. or whether he intends to strengthen I.B.A. with additional people. If the additional people were adequate to deal with the television problems, surely more people will be needed when it comes to considering radio and television.
I wonder how it will be possible for the I.B.A. to identify on radio the natural break which has become a familiar thing on television. Yet the words are still retained in the Television Act of 1964, saying that the advertisements must be clearly distinguishable and separate from the rest of the programmes.

1319
I refer now to a somewhat anomalous matter in Clause 10 in which it is stated that the Act will extend to the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man already has a commercial station, which is owned by the Isle of Man Government. Is it the intention of the British Government to install the Independent Broadcasting Authority as a senior authority over and above the Isle of Man Government? If the local newspapers in the Isle of Man should wish to acquire an interest in the Government-owned station, will they, in order to be consistent with the Act be granted their request? This seems to me to be one of the anomalies to be looked at.
I end by quoting what an executive of Thomson Newspapers said in evidence to a Canadian Government inquiry on the subject of the freedom of the Press. It is particularly relevant not only to the local radio station as a medium of communication but also as an argument against the special rights of newspapers. This is what the executive said:
"Any attempt to legislate separately for the Press as against industry in general would be deplored in that it would strike at the whole principle of an independent Press free from special administrative or judicial interference. We believe this to be the case "—
and I emphasise this—
"whether the legislation is intended to provide a special benefit to the Press, or to regulate or restrict the Press or the ownership thereof in any way."
If Thomson Newspapers in Canada can survive without special benefit, I suggest that the newspapers in this country can do likewise.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) might be surprised if I were to say that I agree with a large part of what he had to say. He is right about the Bill—from his point of view it must be a disappointing one. It was disappointing to the hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) for precisely the same reasons. The gravy train is not running as fast as they would like; it is not as heavily loaded as they would like. They are to get only 60 stations when the hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough thought that he would get 600 and that he would charge the going rate for the Sermon on the Mount. That is the significant "Quote
1320
of the week" from the House of Commons. I wonder what the going rate would be for Psalm 119!
The people in the country must wonder about our priorities in this House. We had a slight exhibition of that from the Strangers' Gallery a few moments ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred to this earlier. Here we are, spending a whole day on the first Bill to be produced in this new Session —dealing with commercial radio! This is at a time when we have 7 million old-age pensioners who do not know how they will survive in the next two years. It is at a time when we have 1 million people on the dole, when housewives do not know how they will make ends meet week after week because of the roaring inflation.
We have such problems and yet the House chooses to spend an entire day on giving to commercial sources, to vested interests, a little bit more profit, not because the people desperately need commercial radio but because for years there has been a lobby in the country and in the House aiming to get their fingers into this gravy bowl.
A good part of the legislation produced by this Government since June, 1970, has been designed precisely to pay back their paymasters. I sat on the Committee which examined the Bill designed to give back to the brewers all the State-owned pubs in Carlisle, Cromarty Firth and the other State-controlled areas—despite the fact that the local populace was either indifferent, or wished to retain the pubs. We have a Bill to be debated next week giving private landlords freedom to charge what rents they like. I have a list here of all the contributors to the Tory Party, the big industries which will provide the equipment for commercial radio. One such industry is the Rank Organisation, which was one of the biggest contributors to Tory Party funds at the last General Election. It will be providing a large part of the equipment for commercial radio if the Bill goes through.
In subsequent legislation we are to have the hiving-off from the public sector of industry of most of the profitable parts, with the same purpose. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons

1321
Court (Mr. Richard) was right when he said that one of our big problems is how to control and finance the mass media of communications, whether television, radio or newspapers. I am no uncritical adherent of the B.B.C. but we would generally agree in this House that, although it might be suspect sometimes in leaning too much to the Right and too much to the Left, what is undeniable—and every visitor from overseas will say this—is that it is the envy of the world in its objectivity, comprehensive appeal and attempt to cater for minor and major interests and parties in the country.
The whole purpose of this Bill is not to provide a public service. The public service is being served by the B.B.C., the minority and majority interests by B.B.C.1 and 2. The Bill has one purpose and one only—to provide some profits for some people. The squalid record of commercial television has been documented. It is one of the most squalid stories of how a commercial interest can impose its will on an elected Government. That elected Government is invariably Tory, because it represents in large part and almost exclusively outside vested interests.
A short while ago we had a Report from a Select Committee on Members' outside financial interests. It was printed on 4th December, 1969. I submitted a paper to that Select Committee. I wanted, and I still want, a compulsory register of Members of Parliament who are paid by outside financial interests to further those interests in the form of legislation in the House, because they are Members, principally on the other side of the House, who are being paid by outside interests to further the Bill.
Only one of them up to now has declared his interest, the hon. Member for Hendon, North. There are provisions in Eskine May for declaring invalid the votes of Members who have a direct pecuniary interest in a Bill and who will profit from having a Bill on the Statute Book.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that an hon. Member has taken part in the debate and has a pecuniary interest in the subject of the debate but has not declared his interest? If he is, he ought to name the Member, but if he has no such name in his mind, he should withdraw that frivolous and objectionable charge.
Mr. Hamilton: if the hon. Member had been listening to the debate, he would have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who is known to be a Member who will benefit—
Sir Harmar Nicholls: He declared his interest.
Mr. Hamilton: No, he said nothing. That is the point I am making. He did not at any time declare his interest. It is an outrage that we get Members here, whom we have to call honourable Members, who engage in that kind of activity not to serve the public interest but to serve their own private financial interests.
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious allegation about an hon. Member who is not here. I should like to tell him for his information, because I know—my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) has told me— that my hon. Friend has no interest at all in commercial radio. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) will withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Hamilton: Of course I withdraw, but it is well known that the hon. Member ran one of the pirate radio stations, and he said so himself in his speech. It would have been as well if he and other Members had said whether it was their intention to seek to get control of one of these stations, and that is the clear inference. If it is not his intention to seek to get a financial interest out of the Bill, of course I withdraw.
The whole point is that there are hon. Members on that side who are known to have a financial interest in furthering commercial radio, and that is the whole point of the exercise. They have had this lobby, as there was a similar lobby for the introduction of the I.T.A.
Mr. Gorst: Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far in suggesting that hon. Members on this side of the House are alone in having an interest in commercial radio, it may interest him to know that there are some on his side who are interested, some to a similar extent as some hon. Members on this side.
Mr. Hamilton: I make no distinction between hon. Members on this and hon.

1323
Members on that side. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the favour of reading my memorandum, he will see that I put this to the Select Committee. Everyone knows who are the trade union sponsored Members on this side of the House. Everybody knows what they get out of it in terms of services and finance, and it is right and proper that the public outside should know that and should know the outside financial interests of every hon. Member. The Bill indicates the importance of such a register. If hon. Members opposite particularly—I do not exclude hon. Members on this side of the House—were registered, these things would be known, and it is right that the public should know whether and where hon. Members are directly concerned.
I come now to the broad issues. We shall have great difficulty in Committee. I am a simple-minded layman. Going through the Bill at random, I found that on page 7 it said:
"In subsection (2)(a) of this section 'disqualified person', in relation to contracts for the provision of local sound broadcasts, means a person who either falls within paragraph (a), paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of this section or, being an individual or a body corporate, carries on (whether alone or in partnership) a business which consists (either wholly, or to an extent which in the opinion of the Authority is substantial) of the manufacture of records or of the publication of musical works, or has control over any body corporate which carries on such a business, or is a director or officer of any such body corporate, or is employed by any person who carries on such a business."
That is all one sentence. Is there anyone here who is any the wiser after reading that?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Yes.
Mr. Hamilton: I am glad. It is probably the substance of 50 Amendments, for I am anxious to know exactly what that provision means. There are 16 pages of that kind of rubbish. Never has there been such an enormous amount of verbiage to create simply a gravy bowl for such a small number of people.
Sir Harmar Nichollsrose—
Mr. Hamilton: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; he flits in and out like a grasshopper.
1324
In view of the very lukewarm reception which the Bill has had from both sides of the House and as the right hon. Gentleman clearly displays gross ignorance of his own Bill, he had better think again and withdraw it and then set up his Royal Commission so that we may have a good look at the way in which after 1976 we shall set about controlling and financing the mass media of radio and television. Meanwhile, let the right hon. Gentleman take his horrible little Bill behind the scenes and wring its neck.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Richard Hornby: The speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) contained a large proportion of the malice but very little of the good sense which we associate with his contributions from time to time. Its most significant phrase was when he referred to controlling and financing the mass media of communications as being one of our major problems. I agree about the size of the problem, but too many of his hon. Friends put the emphasis on "control" and how they mean to set about that. It is a serious word to use about the communications industries.
If the hon. Member had not got so excited about it, I should have told him that I rather agreed with him about the need for a register of the interests of hon. Members. However, I should need to study his memorandum carefully before saying that I agreed with its wording. On the subject of this debate, I should like the House to know my two interests in it. The first is as a member of the General Advisory Council of the B.B.C. The second is as someone who for 20 years has worked in an advertising agency part time. I hasten to add that I do not regard those two interests as conflicting one with the other or with a speech on this subject in the House.
In this vexed and difficult question of broadcasting on television and sound there are three principles which guide my thinking. The first is the primacy of the public broadcasting corporation, the B.B.C., for whose initial establishment we have good cause to be thankful, something which the world at large recognises and envies. The second is the principle that holding a monopoly in communications is very dangerous. While urging the

1325
first principle of the primacy of the B.B.C., I urge that it is not in the interests of the nation or of the B.B.C. that it should have an exclusive rÔle.
Third, if one accepts the second principle—the non-exclusivity of the B.B.C.'s position in broadcasting—and if one goes on from there to consider the possibility of a commercially financed alternative, it is important in the interests of standards in the commercial channel that that channel should be allowed and be able to be viable. If we squeeze it commercially too hard, our chances of having high standards become virtually nil, as the operation of the television levy showed only too well.
I come now to what is said by the critics of the Bill, and in particular, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). I must say at the outset, having heard the whole of the debate so far, that I consider that we have made rather heavy weather of a Bill on only an arguably important subject. I do not regard this as a major Measure. It is a useful little Bill. Contrary to what many have said, I think that it is probably a quite popular Bill, but it is not a major step forward.
The Bill has been criticised on a number of counts. It is regarded by some as a threat to the B.B.C.'s position. Let us remind ourselves in this context of what we are talking about. The B.B.C. retains four main national radio channels and 20 local stations which have been able to establish themselves in the field before any rivals appeared. The B.B.C. has publicly said that it welcomes fair competition. I do not believe that it could regard as unfair competition 60 stations, or thereabouts, and no national rival in competition with its own four national channels and 20 local stations.
In passing, I must express my personal regret that the scheme which my right hon. Friend has adopted will not provide for rather fairer competition than is envisaged here. For my part, I should have preferred—I know that there are technical problems, but I believe that they could have been solved—a national commercial channel and supporting local stations. But that, apparently, is not to be.
Incidentally, again on the question of the B.B.C., contrary to what some have said—including my right hon. Friend the
1326
Prime Minister, I think—I take the view that the B.B.C. is right to insist that it should regard itself as having a comprehensive rÔle, not a "minority groups only" rÔle, to perform. The two must be seen as one by any major broadcasting interest, and there must be an attempt in programming to balance the needs of the two groups. I do not support the view that the B.B.C.'s role should be one of serving minority groups only.
The next line of criticism has been, broadly, what one may describe as fear of the commercial interests. Here, let us remind ourselves of the financial scale of the proposed exercise. It is by no means large. The forecasts have been many and varied, but probably the best guess is that it will be 4 to 5 per cent. of the total national advertising revenue. That is the sort of measure we are talking about in relation to commercial radio. It may add up to £15 million or thereabouts —I think that that is as good a guess as any— in a full year of operation, spread across all the stations. There is no picture here comparable with what we saw in the early years of commercial television.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) said that this was a scheme commercially rigged by the advertising agencies themselves, or words to that effect. I greatly doubt that they have, in fact, any major interest in the Bill at all. The bulk of the advertising, I believe, will be local rather than national, anyhow in the early stages.
The next criticism is fear of triviality. Again, let us remember that the B.B.C.'s position remains undisturbed, and, what is more, the B.B.C. itself is sometimes trivial—and quite rightly so. Certainly, we want serious programmes both in the spoken word and in music, but not all the time. There is a variety of tastes to be catered for, and we do not want solid stuff the whole time.
I return now to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. It was a mixture of the authoritarian politician and over-cautious lawyer, and the trouble was that where he ought to be cautious he was authoritarian and where he ought to be a little more authoritative he was cautious. The hon. and learned Gentleman was authoritarian in criticising the Bill's silence on the criteria regarding

1327
the appointment of the contractors and the way in which they will operate. If there is anything in which, above all, one should beware of leaving it to a Minister to decide who can come in and exactly how they should do it, it is the communications field, be it Press, television or radio. Yet there was the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he wanted the Minister to say who would run the programmes, how the programmes would be run, and so on—precisely the sort of thing that any liberal democrat ought to avoid.
Then, after being so bold in that respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman turned cautious on the question of the timing of the Bill. "Let us do nothing until 1976", he said. "Let us wait and see." Why should we wait and see? Certainly, 1976 is an important year—I see that the hon. Member for Fife, West agrees—and it is right that the Charter of the B.B.C. and the position of the I.T.A. should be reviewed simultaneously; but, as I said in an intervention earlier, I do not accept that it is all that unwise or that it is in any way damaging to the pre-1976 review, whatever form it may take, to allow an additional type of broadcasting to go forward in about 60 areas, while at the same time leaving undisturbed the already existing alternatives run by the B.B.C. It is simply injecting one additional method which can be examined. We shall have had the opportunity to see what the public thinks of it and how the stations are run before we have cause to make up our minds on the subject in 1976.
I come now to the question of news papers and their relationship with commercial radio. I have no worries about the national Press. It seems to me that the national newspapers are but minimally affected, and, even if they were affected, I should shed no tears for them as their serious financial troubles, where they exist, are substantially, or overwhelmingly, the result of their own mismanagement.
On the question of the local Press, I take a different view. The local Press is a special and important institution, certainly at its best, in most recognisable local communities. Economically, the Bill is shoring up something which, some
1328
would argue, should stand wholly on its own feet. In this case, however, I should be more careful, believing that the local newspapers have an important role in the community, and I feel that my right hon. Friend has got the answer just about right; that is, broadly speaking, to ensure. if there seems to be damage to their interests, that they have an opportunity for a compensating but not a controlling role in the broadcasting station which affects them.
Moreover, interest by the local Press can be extremely useful to the new broadcasting stations. The local newspapers have experience of gathering news—this is what they have been about—and they have experience of dealing with advertisers in the business sense of collecting revenues and so on. In my view, the experience which they can inject into some of the local radio companies will be useful.
The I.B.A. is criticised by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the ground that we do not know how it will make judgments as between standards and viability. We shall have a pretty good idea as time goes on, because, with the review of the contractors' three-year per formance, we shall begin to see the picture, and, if we do not like the way they are behaving, we shall be able to make our views felt. Doubtless, they will read in some measure to such criticism
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough when he says that there is no reason why there should be limits to the hours of broadcasting. In my view, this is a matter on which the individual stations can make up their own mind on straight commercial popular-interest criteria. I hope that the stations will give the maximum place in their programmes to genuinely local interests, and that, I very much hope, will be one of the criteria adopted by the I.B.A.
In conclusion, I revert to what I said earlier. I feel that we have been making rather a meal of what is a sensible though not very large step forward in a field of broadcasting which will come up for review in three years. By bringing this Measure forward now and, one hopes, taking it through quickly, we shall gain some useful information to go on in three years' time.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I must declare my interest as a full-time official of the Post Office Engineering Union.
In this debate on the introduction of local commercial broadcasting it has been clear from the speeches of Conservative hon. Members that they see the Bill as one to give us commercial broadcasting. All the emphasis has been on commerce, accounts and profitability, and we have heard far too little about the local nature of the proposals.
I oppose the Bill because I support B.B.C. local radio very strongly. It has been a great success. The proposals in the Bill will restrict the expansion of public service B.B.C. local radio. I think that the commercial stations will fall short of the high standards established by the B.B.C. local stations.
Radio Stoke, the local broadcasting station serving Newcastle-under-Lyme, my constituency, has made its impact partly because it is heard by many, partly because it has met the needs of a community which sees itself as having a separate identity, and partly because it has catered for the serious needs of its working-class audience. Neither Birmingham nor London, the regional or national network can provide a service so suited to our community. Local radio in Stoke is not wholly dependent upon V.H.F. It is piped by Rediffusion to large council estates, and because of this a third of the population listen to Radio Stoke. They listen becasue it provides 7½ hours a day of local programmes, which are more relevant to their experience than the programmes produced with the south-eastern car commuter in mind.
Radio Stoke has made a considerable contribution to local education. I wonder what contribution commercial radio will be expected to make to education in the localities it serves. Radio Stoke also provides 2¼ hours a day of local news and current affairs. It makes possible a greater participation in local affairs and an independence from London which we should encourage. It provides an opportunity for all types of groups to communicate directly with the community. Both councillors and Members of Parliament can speak directly to their electorates. That is invaluable when most
1330
of the mass media are dominated by the national party leaders or the extremists in both parties. The local station gives both councillors and Members of Parliament a platform. There is a two-way process of communication with the people they represent.
B.B.C. local radio is an experiment which has succeeded. Commercial local radio will hinder the development of that very good experiment. Having listened to the Minister and his supporters, I think that commercial radio will not be able to provide the same type of local news service and current affairs coverage as B.B.C. local radio gives us. I cannot see the commercial stations giving us each day 7½ hours of local programmes, 2¼ hours of which are local news and current affairs.
I also oppose the Bill because it provides for the participation of local news papers in their local radio station, although, unlike the two Conservative hon. Members who made that point, I shall not disqualify myself from sitting on the Committee. Most local newspapers have a Conservative bias. Their proprietors owe an allegiance to the Conservative Party. One of the great civic benefits of local radio is that it provides an alternative, neutral platform. Many local newspapers are fair in their presentation of news, but we have only to read their leader articles as we sit in the tearoom of the House to see that they are heavily biassed in favour of the Conservative Party. If we tell the local newspapers, "You can play a part in the running of the local radio station", we are telling the wider audience outside that they cannot expect impartiality from the station concerned.
If the Minister wants to protect the newspapers from competition, it would be much more reasonable to adopt the principle he has adopted for television, and say that local newspapers can have an interest in local radio, but it must be outside the area in which they operate.
I oppose the Bill on those general grounds. But one aspect of it pleases me, and that is the part which makes it clear that the transmitters are to be owned not by the contractors but by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. However, pleased as I was to see that the transmitters were not being handed over

1331
to the contractors, I should have preferred the Minister to take this opportunity to rationalise broadcasting transmission and hand the responsibility over to the Post Office.
It is a pity that one of the Minister's first acts on coming into office was to sack the Annan inquiry into the future of broadcasting. I wonder when we shall receive the report of the depart-mental committee which the right hon. Gentleman established in its place to inquire into the future technical aspects of broadcasting. When the committee was appointed the Minister told us that he hoped that its report would be made available at the beginning of this year. It would have been better for us to have a discussion on the future technical aspects of broadcasting before the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill.
We on this side will oppose the Bill very strongly. We shall do so for the reasons given by some of my hon. Friends. We believe that the Bill is similar to the immigration Act. It has been introduced only because of pressure within the Conservative Party. Political and commercial pressures have been brought to bear. As was the case with the Immigration Act, we have seen tonight that the only person satisfied with the Bill is the Minister himself. Not one speaker in the debate apart from the right hon. Gentleman has given wholehearted commendation to the Bill. We have heard hon. Members opposite telling him that if the were to dare to put them on the Standing Committee which will give the Bill detailed examination they will vote against most important parts of it. That may be because those individuals do not want to be on the Committee, but it is a serious matter when a Minister presents to the House a Bill which finds no support from his hon. Friends behind him and receives general condemnation from the Opposition in front of him.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I apologise to my hon. Friend for just entering the Chamber. Can he tell me why, in opposing the Bill, he is supporting the monopoly of the B.B.C., which to my mind has abused the whole system of democratic reporting, particularly on political issues?
Mr. Golding: It is very difficult to reply to an intervention when one has
1332
made clear earlier in one's speech just what one is supporting. I commended B.B.C. local radio, which many individuals who have been concerned with it have appreciated as a much more worthy B.B.C. venture than its national or regional broadcasting. My hon. Friend will just have to take my word for it that the common experience of many of us is that local radio has been preferable to both national and regional broadcasting.
We on this side who are fortunate enough to be on the Standing Committee will table a considerable number of Amendments to the Bill. This we must do because we believe that its drafting is very faulty. It is clear, having listened to the criticisms not only from the Opposition but from hon. Members opposite, that the Bill is riddled with inconsistencies. When I read that the Minister had been given the job by the Prime Minister of converting the people to a pro-Common Market stance, I concluded that he would not have time during the summer to prepare this Bill properly. He has failed lamentably to change public opinion on the Common Market and at the same time he has failed completely to produce a Bill which does him any credit whatever.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey FinsbergI first declare my interest in this subject, which is nil, and secondly I say to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who appears to have left the Chamber and who made a wholly unfounded attack on hon. Members on this side of the House, that he has no need to declare an interest because I doubt whether anyone would wish to be represented by his sort of argument.
I welcome the Bill, which may give some satisfaction to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I find that we are sailing somewhat between the twin rocks of Scylla and Charybdis. We have had the assertions of hon. Members opposite that everything commercial is evil and the assertion from one or two of my hon. Friends that the more commercial things there are, the better. I think that the Bill tries to steer a middle course, and for that reason it is to be welcomed. It is a logical extension to commercial

1333
television. At the time of the introduction of commercial television, HANSARD recorded the diatribes of the Opposition about how terrible it would be, but when it came to the point they never had the courage to repeal the Act because they knew that the public wanted competition of the sort which commercial television provided.
It is also right to say that there is danger in monopoly. Many people will remember the comedian who was unable to be on B.B.C. radio because he had said something that offended the B.B.C. It is precisely when one breaks a monopoly and gives an opportunity of freedom of choice to the consumer to listen to more services that one also gives choice and freedom to workers in broadcasting to have more than one place where they can sell and use their talents.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a specific question. Clause 3(6)(a) refers to the "appropriate local authority". After the reorganisation of local government, is this reference to be taken as meaning the new district councils or the new county councils, since county boroughs will have disappeared? I am not certain whether "county districts" is meant to be the new terminology. I hope at any rate that these powers will be given to the new district councils outside the metropolian counties.
I believe that the freedom of choice that this small Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) called it, will give us will provide something which the younger generation wants. It is sick and tired of the bromides and cheap and foolish jokes which are churned out daily and to which we listen on our car radios all too frequently. It will be nice to be able to switch to an alternative programme and to listen to something different and on which the jokes might be less corny. It is incomprehensible how hon. Members opposite can disregard the clearly understood wishes of the vast number of young people who want commercial radio—and there is no argument about that.
I come to a controversial part of the Bill, namely, that dealing with local news papers. I firmly believe that local newspapers play a very important part in the community and that they should be able to have a stake in local commercial radio.
1334
In London, newspapers like those which circulate in my constituency, such as the Hampstead and Highgate Express and the Kilburn Times, are sufficiently important that although they may not suffer financially from commercial radio, they should have an opportunity of participating in commercial radio as a link between the written word and the spoken word. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that the powers in the Bill enabling local newspapers to make representations and, in certain circumstances, to have an equity interest will be used flexibly and, wherever possible, to help rather than hinder local newspapers.
I do not like some of the pompous and priggish remarks of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, about what people should and should not listen to. The tone was set by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). With great respect to both of them, I do not think they are particularly good arbiters of public taste. They are being quite arrogant in reserving for themselves the right to say, "We think we know what the public wants".
My right hon. Friend the Minister has done us a service in presenting the Bill. About a year ago I had the opportunity of looking at some commercial radio stations in North America. I broadcast on the small commercial station in Niagara, on the American side, and I was interested to see how in what was clearly a very commercial atmosphere it was possible to combine commercial advertisements and public service advertisements. Interspersed with records and with what must have been to my audience a fascinating talk on the procedures of this Parliament—I do not know how many people in Niagara were interested, but they had to listen to it—there was an advertisement for "Aunt Jemima's pancakes" and a notice that the following day the mobile library would be at the corner of such-and-such a street and that two days later the local scouts were to hold a bazaar in aid of the spastics. This is the sort of mixture of commercial and public service interest which can be provided in radio stations if they are sufficiently local and if the incentive is right.

1335
It is, therefore, correct that the Minister should have given Parliament and the country the opportunity of choosing an alternative. People who listen to radio on the Isle of Man will know that that is a very good system which can be adapted for use in this country.
For years there was a campaign in official circles to the effect that no further wavelengths were available. It was run by certain faceless individuals in the B.B.C. or in the Post Office. I am glad that the Minister has made it clear that this is not a feasible argument. It never stood up if one examined expert evidence which was produced. The battle by the faceless officials has been lost. I am glad about that and I think that the public benefits as a result.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say a little more about the news broadcasts? I am not clear whether he is saying that all the stations will have to have national news produced, as it were, by the I.T.N. of commercial radio or whether it would be possible for it to be known that at, say, midday, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock all the stations would carry five minutes of national news, not comment, and the rest of the time the local radio station would carry news items applicable only to the locality or the region, which is what the hon. Member for Newcastle- under-Lyme said is done by Radio Stoke, Radio Brighton, and so on. I should not welcome something which merely gave us a second B.B.C. programme of news and comment all over the country on the 60, 90 or whatever number of stations we have.
We should welcome the proposal for advisory committees. I hope that their membership will be flexible. I hope we shall not just have the statutory woman on a committee. I hope we shall be able to have more than one woman on it. I hope that we shall go somewhat wider than having—in saying this, I hope that I do not offend anybody, at least anybody present in this Chamber— committees filled simply with the local grocer and the superannuated trade union official and that we shall be able to get people much more representative of public opinion, and particularly some people under the age of 25. These are the people who, after all, will be particularly interested. It is important that
1336
the advisory committees should be drawn as widely as possible.
There is one thing which has not been said about the Bill, although a lot has been said about it. In the diatribe which we heard from the hon. Member for Fife, West—whether relevant or not, it was still a diatribe—the one thing which he did not say was that the Bill fulfilled yet another election promise. I submit that it is none the worse for that.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: Since the habit has begun, I want to declare an interest; that is, as a consumer of radio, rather than as having a financial interest.
Let me deal first with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) just in case he is thinking of intervening in the course of my speech. I want to make it perfectly clear to him that my opposition to the Bill is based on the fact that it is a commercial local radio Bill, not because it provides an alternative service. I support the idea of an alternative service, but I see no reason why it should be a commercial local radio service. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me on that.
The word "competition" has been bandied around during talk about this Bill and as a consequence of the White Paper. We are well accustomed to hon. Members opposite worshipping at the shrine of the god competition. They declare that an alternative service will of necessity improve choice. I will agree that competition would strengthen the search for more popular programmes— that is, programmes having a wider appeal—but it does not necessarily follow that choice will improve under the Bill. It may mean that another channel is drawn to a type of programme similar to that being broadcast on another channel. In any case, it would be competition not between one local station against another; it would be a local station against the national network of the B.B.C. The local station would simply be complementary to the B.B.C., because its aims would be different.
Whilst acknowledging that an alternative service of this kind has its uses, I would submit that it does not follow that it has to be a commercial service or one financed by advertising. I contend that

1337
the strongest supporters of commercial radio are not concerned with providing a service. Rather are they more concerned with the financial rewards which accrue to thorn and their friends. I do not agree with this method of financing the service in any way.
I do not want to go into all the effects of having programmes which are interrupted by advertisements, but the question of finance has to be faced. If the new local stations were to be financed by the B.B.C. or a new corporation set up for the purpose, we are told, there would have to be an increase in the licence fee. I would accept that, provided that I accepted the need for a licence fee, but I do not feel that it is necessary to have a licence fee, for I would like to see television and radio financed by the Exchequer. It would be much simpler and less expensive, but the Minister seems to think that it would result in the B.B.C. losing its independence. I do not follow the reasoning behind this, but we should be less than worthy if we could not devise safeguards for the independence of the B.B.C. if it were financed directly by the Exchequer. We produce safeguards for the I.T.V.; why not the same for the B.B.C.?
It may be argued that the licence fee should be retained so that the viewer paid directly for the service and the burden was not spread throughout the community. But this would not happen under the Bill, People are given the impression that they will be receiving something for nothing. On the contrary, the payments would be spread throughout the community in that we should pay for the advertising in the extra cost of the goods and services which we buy. Everyone throughout the country would be paying, and not simply those who are able to receive the local radio programmes. A person living in rural Wales, where there is not likely to be a local radio station, would be paying for listeners in other parts of the country. If the Minister considers that this is fair in this context, it should be equally fair for the B.B.C. to be financed from the Exchequer.
The effects on local newspapers are twofold. They may suffer a loss of advertising revenue and a loss of custom. The Minister suggests that the newspapers
1338
should be allowed to invest in radio companies. This is not in the interests of local newspapers but simply to make good their losses, which is absurd. They might just as well invest in bingo halls or other profitable activities.
The Minister, in introducing the White Paper, said:
"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 he 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 401.]
It may be much more slight but, in comparative terms and proportionately, the effect might be just as disastrous, and the Minister should face this.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) mentioned the plight of the rural areas. These areas could most usefully be served by local radio, but what hope have they under the Bill? Many hon. Members have said that rural areas have no hope of ever receiving local radio. It could be argued that they do not receive it from the B.B.C. and will not for some time, but, had the B.B.C. been allowed to expand local radio, the B.B.C. would have seen to it that the rural areas were covered. The commercial station set-up under the Bill could never be viable in the rural areas.
There are no B.B.C. local radio stations in Wales. That means that Wales will have to rely on commercial local radio if it is to have any. The Minister will realise if he follows the news that there is a language problem in Wales. There is no provision in the Bill requiring that there shall be any local broadcasting in the Welsh language.
In the debate on the White Paper the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) said:
"I end by stressing the importance of radio and television to Wales in connection with the suvival of the Welsh language. I pay tribute to the work already done by B.B.C. radio and

1339
television, and by I.T.V., in the promotion of the language. We very much hope."
Note the word "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May. 1971; Vol. 818, c. 422.]
I suggest that "hope" is not a strong enough word in this context. Hope will not safeguard the language and will not ensure that we shall have Welsh language broadcasting on local radio. Admittedly, this is a minority interest, but it involves a substantial minority and ought to be catered for. However, the Bill says nothing whatever about it.
Finally, I wish to mention the effects of advertising in sound broadcasting. Some would like us to believe that introducing advertising into sound broadcasting would be no different from introducing advertising into television. I am not an expert on this subject, but I suggest that advertising on radio is dangerous since it will have a subliminal effect. Millions of people keep their radios on when working or performing various tasks and the occasional advertisement thrown in could register on their sub-conscious. This is not so true of television since people tend to watch television consciously and can thus resist advertising. I have confined my remarks so that other hon. Members can take part in the debate; I contend that hon. Members have been making the case for local radio but not for commercial local radio.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I, too, shall be brief in my remarks. I should declare an interest since I am a director of an independent television company, a small company in the South-West called Westward Television. So far as I know. my company has not as yet expressed any interest in commercial radio, and, therefore, it is not for that reason that I seek to intervene in the debate.
I wish to support my right hon. Friend in the difficult job of producing a Bill which will introduce an alternative public service. I believe the Bill is the art of the possible since the Labour Government licensed the B.B.C. to enter this field of activity. If the B.B.C. was not already in on this, then a different situation would exist. The slate would be
1340
clean and all sorts of other possibilities would flow from it. However, I believe the Bill is a vehicle to which other things can be added. It is an opportunity for further improvement and choice.
The Labour Party has said it is in favour of alternative choices but has also said that the commercial undertakings are not the bodies to provide them. Therefore, in its view we shall need to have another B..C. at more cost to the taxpayer, who will be obliged to pay an increased licence fee to the B.B.C. for a further service.
As we see the situation, the public will be able to have another service paid for by advertising. Such advertising may take revenue from other forms of advertising, but this may be no bad thing when one sees some of the offensive forms of outside advertising which some of us as environmentalists do not like.
The standards to be pursued by the companies have been attacked. The I.T.A. exercises a strong hand over television companies, and I see no reason why the new Authority, the I.B.A., should not, in its strengthened form, tackle the job adequately.
One of the things we complain about is that the B.B.C. tends to editorialise— something it is not allowed to do under the Charter. I have been associated in Press comment and articles with those who are anxious about political bias in the B.B.C. However, I have said no such thing. Political bias one way or the other is inevitable in life and, because politics is part of life, politicians must look after themselves. What we object to in the B.B.C. is that it editorialises. Surely an alternative form of news and views which will be provided by the new private enterprise will be very helpful.
Most of the complaints from the public about the mass media are rooted in the fact that there appears to be a monopoly or near-monopoly. However, we do not seem to find this problem so marked in respect of the newspapers. There are plenty of newspapers, and they cancel each other out in their more extreme views, and the public can form a judgment. That is what we want to see in broadcasting, and this Bill takes us a step further along that road. It will provide a further element of public choice.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: In view of the lateness of the hour, I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks in detail. I join him in declaring my connection with commercial television. It is not to the illustrious extent of a directorship, which I am never likely to be offered, but it represents a period in which I was employed by Thames Television, as indeed I might be again some day.
The hon. Gentleman, like the Minister, must understand that those of us who criticise these proposals do not do it from a position of outright defence of the B.B.C. monopoly as it stands at present. What we say and what we have said throughout is that there must be an alternative system whereby one gets competition rather than the cosseted way in which the companies are brought into being. By that, I mean competition with the B.B.C. in the way of alternative public services.
Most of us hoped that the Minister would amplify the somewhat confusing small print in the Bill. I was sad that he had failed even to read it. That was shown clearly when he was interrogated about some of the subsections by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). The right hon. Gentleman also said nothing about the technical provisions which will be necessary for the introduction of the commercial system. What, for example, will be the situation with regard to wavelengths and with regard to mediumave broadcasting? Are we to have the series of low-powered medium-wave transmitters which Hughie Green and others tell us is feasible but which the B.B.C. tells us will he limited to a range of one mile or less from the transmission point? Such matters very much affect the viability and financial sense of the system, about which hon. Members like the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) are so concerned and have expressed themselves so forcefully.
It would be possible for any hon. Member on this side of the House to make a speech in favour of competition, in favour of the widening of the area of choice and in favour of that degree of experiment to which those who have for-
1342
mululated the Bill have paid lip service. However, we should ask ourselves whether the Bill does anything of the kind. Has it produced a third form of public authority? Has it produced an alternative public authority capable of guiding and producing a new form of broadcasting communications, using the exciting potential of broadcasting in a new way? It has not. It has merely revamped the old discredited I.T.A. in a new form.
The Bill also resurrects the Television Act, 1964. I should remind the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) that when he says that we on this side do not have the courage to criticise the I.T.A. system as we did when it was instituted in 1954, it was his Government in 1964 who had to rewrite the 1954 Act precisely because it had not worked properly to ensure the proper output and quality amongst the television companies.
The I.B.A. is given wide powers under the Bill. They are left deliberately vague, and this is one of the most deplorable features of the proposed legislation. It does not produce a new form of public service with real competition to existing media in the localities that it is designed to serve.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) about the way in which the buying-in of Iocal newspapers and the subsidising of these limp putative lame ducks will take place. We have heard from the hon. Member for Aldershot that he does not think that it will be a success. He was typical of hon. Gentlemen opposite in his lack of enthusiasm and tepid welcome for the Bill. The lack of enthusiasm among hon. Gentlemen opposite stems from the fact that they realise that anomalies will prevent it from operating in the way the Government wish.
Clause 7(5) gives carte blanche to every local newspaper in the country to buy its way into local radio if it wishes. I have with me a list of the main conurbations and towns in Britain with a population over 80,000. Looking at it quickly, one sees that there are only 12 without a local dominant newspaper which, under Clause 7(5), would be able

1343
to buy its way into its local radio station, precisely as outlined under the Bill. To my mind, that is not competition between alternative media. It is not giving us the best possible alternative source of news and information in a particular locality, whatever is said in the Bill about the holding of the local newspaper concerned not being dominant.
At last today the Minister has stripped off the veils from his news stations. At last we are told which of the three alternatives touted around over the months of debate on this proposal is to be the one favoured. What does it turn out to be? Not the I.T.N., oh no, but a separate company, which indeed can make money in London—it would be surprising if it did not, with news around the clock in a great metropolis like this—buying news from I.T.N. and other sources and then selling, or trying to sell, and making a profit from the other local radio stations throughout the country. A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite would welcome this.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough thinks that is a waste of money. Indeed, in the debate on the White Paper he told us that he was absolutely scared by this waste of money. He said:
"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".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 479.]
We may want to give the people what they want. We may think that what they want is the phone-in and rip-and-read.
The reasons why I.T.N. is of such a high reputation in Britain—it is widely acknowledged to be a valid alternative to the B.B.C. and to have pepped up the standards of the B.B.C.—are, first, our central non-profit-making agency, which I know perfectly well was imposed on the overlords of independent television companies largely against their wishes, and, second, the fact that it is carried in mandatory fashion by all companies of the LT.A. network. There is nothing mandatory whatever about the proposed system and nothing at all to revive the
1344
interest of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough in broadcasting the Sermon on the Mount at the going rate once all this comes up. There is nothing whatever to make him carry the news sold by the central news station.
The B.B.C. employs 150 journalists among its 20 stations and a number of freelances at the N.U.J. rate. Nothing like that proportion of news staff and journalists will be employed by these new stations. On the contrary, the new stations will be on the breadline and will make things as tight as they can, on the old basis of the disc jockey with a pile of records, a national agency service, or, where it can be done, some sort of pool service from the local newspaper which has an interest in the local station concerned and does not want to have competition from an alternative source of news in the locality.
Does the Bill provide competition among 60 independent commercial stations? It does nothing of the kind. It provides a kind of sustaining fluid of syndicated material written in under Clause 2(4). How much of this
"news, information, music or other material"
will be supplied to other contractors, and to how many companies? Will it be possible for one contractor on the Hughie Green model to supply this material to 60 companies and, if so, for how much of the time? Local stations of the B.B.C. put out about seven hours a day of originally sponsored material. There is nothing in this material, and the I.B.A. is left to decide how much sponsored material should come from the local stations.
What does the phrase "other material" mean? I think it hides the kind of mass-produced, syndicated material appealing to the largest possible audience and to the lowest possible taste which can be put together by those who wish to make a killing out of this. I do not believe this is the sort of local service which the Minister has suggested that commercial radio and its ideology will provide.
We know that it costs the E.B.C. about £100,000 a year to run each of its local stations. I bet that none of the local stations which are envisaged under the Bill, given the means by which they will be operated and the necessary

1345
revenue, will be able to carry anything like the necessary staff or will have anything like the required operating outlet. I am afraid that what is being created now, in the time the Minister has bought for himself by the cancellation of the Annan Committee, is a kind of shadow colossus opposite to but equal in power to the B.B.C.
We have seen the enormous, wellfinanced lobby for I.T.V.2. Who wants it? It is wanted by the five programme controllers who run the network of I.T.V. The people who want this system of commercial radio are essentially those who will make a killing out of it, and the largest killing will be made by the largest concern which can get itself in, wearing some kind of little local cap for the occasion.
I am sorry that Clause 6(2) provides that commercial television organisations shall be allowed to go to other areas and does not say that they will be cut out altogether. Local television stations have 14 other opportunities. Each one has 14 other areas to which it can go. Each of these companies is an enormous mass media conglomerate: it controls music companies, record companies, hardware, software, television, radio, the lot. All of these companies want to get into local radio if they can, and most of them will try to do so.
Lastly, if this is all precast in the image of mammon by 1976 and it is all there so that we cannot do much about it and cannot shift it because we shall be told, "These compaies have made this enormous outlay and must be kept there", what will regulate these companies in the intervening period? The poor old I.T.A. is very eager to take on 150 new men and accept this new role.
It is ironic that at this very time Lord Aylestone has departed to Australia to look at the Australian radio system. Australia is widely acknowledged to have one of the most rotten commercial radio systems in the world. The Prime Minister is known to think that Australia is a terrific place and that the whole world should be one great version of the Sydney-Hobart race. It is not good enough to take the Australian model and to say that we want it for commercial radio here. I.T.A. has not been told how many franchises there should be. It has not been told, in accordance with the
1346
squalid policies followed in commercial television, that these franchises should be submitted in public. Of course not. Keep them out of the spotlight !
How should the I.T.A. intervene? Why should we believe that the I.T.A., which has failed again and again in exercising its powers under the 1964 Act, will do any better with the vague provisions which are written into the Bill? The Bill says, not "shall exercise control over schedules" but "may exercise control over schedules". It is that control over schedules, inadequately exercised so far by the television companies, which is to be dropped altogether for the 60 commercial radio stations.
The I.T.A. has not worked in the way that it should. This is just a pallid echo of the 1954 debates. We should have learned something from the history of independent television since then. What we are being given by the Bill is not a widening of choice, but a foreclosure of choice. The Bill has preempted public debate about a public asset. The Bill will hand over that public asset to a small greedy group who want to make a killing and to whom communications are a commodity just like any other commodity.
To me communications are more than that. They relate man to his environment. That is what the trinity of education, information and entertainment is all about. What kind of environment will these radio stations relate to? What kind of environment does the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough want them to relate to? They will have the artificial catchpenny vulgarity of the pirate radios and all the moral concern of a one-armed bandit. Broadcasting deserves better than this.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: I shall not follow directly what was said by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), but I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that I have no interest to declare other than that of a former employee of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I am no longer connected with either.
I have only just about enough time to make my main points, but I am grateful for this opportunity to do so. I welcome

1347
the Bill in so far as it provides yet another channel of communication. I have long been of the opinion that the safety of the public from domination in this sphere of communication depends to a large extent on the diversity of the means of communicating. My criticism of the Bill therefore concentrates on those limitations within it which, to my mind, will detract from the independence and freedom of the new system in communicating.
The first fact which we have to consider is that the new system is to be under the auspices of the Independent Broadcasting Authority; namely, the pre- sent I.T.A. writ large. I should like to make one or two points in this connection. I hope that the I.B.A. will be more assidious and insistent on the execution of its directives than the I.T.A. has been in the matter of E.M.I. ridding itself of its stake in Thames Television. How can we be sure that the new commercial radio companies will be independent as to finance and control unless such directives are obeyed and seen to be obeyed?
Second, if Press reports are correct, we know that the I.T.A.'s view is that the projected second I.T.V. channel should be given to the existing I.T.V. contractors. If the allocation of that channel is delayed, as I understand it may be, I hope that the local radio stations will not be regarded as compensation to I.T.V.'s Socialist tycoons for their disappointment.
I have put these matters somewhat crudely because the new I.B.A. will have a great deal of power—perhaps too much power—under the Bill. It will be a temptation for it to turn to those whom it knows best; namely, the existing television contractors who will claim to have all the know-how and the ability to set up the new radio service. Let the I.B.A. remember that know-how is very soon acquired, and that the easiest course is not necessarily the best.
I am sorry that the Minister has seen fit to allow the I.T.V. contractors a financial stake in local radio stations in their areas. This is bound to result in deals for local news, programmes and talent.
Having said all that, the I.T.A. is not such a bad organisation after all, and
1348
I feel that the I.B.A. will discharge its duties as best it can, which is what the Television Act and this Bill require.
The Bill does not guarantee that the new service will be local to the extent which I personally would require it to be, and I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will say something about Wales. He has mentioned Scotland, but there has been no mention of Wales, apart from a reference to it by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). I assure the hon. Gentleman that local stations using the Welsh language are feasible under not this Bill but the Television Act, 1964. which also applies in this case.
9.09 p.m.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I suppose all debates are significant for something. The significant thing about this debate is that not one speaker has been wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill, and it has received only mild approval from the hon. Members for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) and Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby). Had the hon. Member for Tonbridge been here, I should have told him that even in the wildest depths of my imagination I could not see him being a devotee of the kind of local radio station which may emerge as a result of the Bill—if it ever sees the light of day and gets on the Statute Book.
This is the second time we have discussed broadcasting this year. We have had the White Paper, the Bill we are discussing today, and I think I have heard all the speeches. Like everyone else, I have read the massive amount of material sent to us by the various interested organisations. At the end of the day. there seem to be dozens of questions unanswered on the whole question of broadcasting. There is so much uncertainty. There are so many contradictions in attitude. I hope that the Minister will think again about the question of an inquiry not just into the technique but into the whole question of broadcasting. As I understand it, there are many of his hon. Friends, many friends outside, and other people who, to their credit have given the matter a lot of thought and who are asking him to do precisely this. They realise that the decisions we shall take in the next few years, be it on commercial radio, or about a fourth channel on

1349
television, or about the most sensible use of frequencies, all act upon one another it would seem sensible and fair for us to examine the whole question in depth.
I must confess that, like the majority of lion. Members. I am a layman. I do not have the professional expertise on broadcasting of some of my colleagues. Therefore, I would welcome a lot of the kind of advice that we had from Pilkington a few years ago. With no disrespect to the Minister and his colleagues, after the speeches we have heard today they, too, could do with advice. All we are discussing is this piecemeal approach to the structure of broadcasting, loosely called local commercial radio. This is, to many of us, a description which is in itself a contradiction.
What has surprised me in the course of this debate has been the unwillingness of the Minister and some of his hon. Friends, in putting their points, to discuss the principles lying behind the Bill. They were anxious to talk about some of the technicalities, about some of the problems, but they were not anxious to talk about the commercial principles. Neither were they anxious to talk about local radio, as many of us understand it.
It is worth while recalling that the Bill is before us because, no matter what the attitude of hon. Members who have made speeches from the other side of the House today, they all came here on the same General Election ticket. That ticket was a pledge by the Prime Minister that he would break the monopoly of the B.B.C. and provide an alternative form of broadcasting. What is before us today, in the shape of this Bill, does not seem to bear any resemblance to that pledge. We are getting something quite different.
The right hon. Gentleman was, by this pledge, put in something of a dilemma. To use a phrase often employed, it has been said of him that he inherited a slogan and not a policy. Having heard his description of the White Paper and the Bill, this is certainly true. No matter that he did not spell it out in great detail, there are many people in this country who thought there was much more to this Bill commercially than the
1350
right hon. Gentleman would like us to believe.
When the Prime Minister some years ago said that he was thinking in terms of commercial radio, this information caused a number of companies to put a spurt on in registering for commercial purposes. There are now 400 companies hoping to get in on the act, 400 companies which see it in a different way from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman sees it. They do not see it as simply an alternative form of radio, a high quality service; they think it is about making money, about getting a dividend, a purely commercial operation and nothing to do with an alternative service. Not everyone shares the lofty approach that we have had from Lord Eccles who is responsible for the arts. The noble Lord was telling us in another place what he thought local commercial radio would do. I went along to hear him, as no doubt other hon. Friends did.
Mr. William Ross: Glutton for punishment.
Mr. Mackenzie: At one point he told us that commercial radio on a local basis would be used to advertise events of an artistic and cultural character.
In fairness to Lord Eccles, he gave us a view of local broadcasting which many of us found acceptable and to our liking. He said—and I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind throughout discussions in Committee—that he would champion local radio because it could do so much to illustrate and enliven the character of the places in which we make our homes and to involve people in community activity. That is a fair and useful definition. It was a little unfortunate that two sentences later he let the cat out of the bag when he said that he was all for having this kind of local radio but not for himself, that he would not be listening to it. He told us that this was for the "plebs"; it was for the lower classes. He would be listening to the middle-class news on one programme while they were listening to the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) on another. This is what we do not understand. We do not understand how the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Tonbridge could find themselves in the same Lobby as the

1351
hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough.
I have a confession to make which some of my colleagues will not like. I have a sneaking regard for the hon. Member.
Mr. William Hamilton: Withdraw.
Mr. Mackenzie: Yes, I have. He is the one fellow on that side whom I understand on this subject. He does not try to dress it up. He tells us when he makes his speech that he does not want local radio fostering community interests. We shall not have Lord Eccles' advertisements about symphony concerts, and so forth, on Radio Brighouse and Spenborough. The hon. Member wants the 40 top records, and he wants them played three times a day.
Mr. Proudfoot: The only way to make a profit with local radio is to give a service to the community in which the station operates. It is as simple as that. I was describing the programmes on a particular radio show of which I was managing director.
Mr. Mackenzie: That is what the hon. Gentleman is always telling us—give the people what he thinks they want. What he thinks they want is the 40 top records, played three times a day. He also told us in our last debate that "There's a bob or two in this, boys; there's money in this." He made that statement without apology.
Mr. Proudfoot: No.
Mr. Mackenzie: The hon. Gentleman said, "If there is any money in it, the lads want their share; they are looking for their loot." He shakes his head, but I can quote HANSARD. He must look at that speech again. He will find that he said that there was profit in local radio for many people.
Mr. Ernie Money: The hon. Member has made a swingeing attack on what he said were 400 companies concerned with this subject. I declare an interest at once in that I am a director of one of the 400 concerned. On what basis is The prepared to attack all the individuals concerned as acting on a purely commercial basis and without
1352
being as concerned for the areas which they seek to serve as any hon. Member on his side?
Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure that the Minister will be delighted with that. There is one vote which he will have in support. I was dealing with the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who was talking about his 40 top records three times a day. He may be right and there may be money in that.
But what one has to emphasis is that it is not local radio; and that is what the argument is about. It bears out what many of us have said from time to time: that there can be good local radio and there can be commercial local radio, but it is exceedingly difficult to get good commercial local radio, especially on the basis laid down by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough.
Mr. Loughlin: There is often a difference of opinion about what is good radio and what is bad. Would my hon. Friend like to tell the House what radio programmes he listens to?
Mr. Mackenzie: It would take me a very long time and I do not want to be distracted.
Mr. Money: Answer.
Mr. Mackenzie: I was saying that it was exceedingly difficult to combine commercial and local radio.
Mr. Green, the high priest of commercial radio, puts it very well. He says, "All this backyard stuff may be O.K., but it will not get the audiences as mass entertainment will." In a nutshell, both Mr. Green and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who undoubtedly have much experience, say that local radio will not be a good investment for them unless they can drop what most of us would regard as good local radio.
The Minister may say, and no doubt he will, that he can ignore Mr. Green and reject his plea. No doubt he can reject the attitude of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, for the Whips can be put on and the hon. Member will vote as he voted last time. But these are only the tiddlers in the pool and there are some people about whom some of us are genuinely worried. Some

1353
big fish are involved, and these are the people who see local radio as a good investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who chose to use some elegant language which I could never hope to match, indicated that there were bigger fish than Mr. Hugh Green. He told us about the Rank Organisation.
Mr. Chataway: Oh!
Mr. Mackenzie: The Minister says "Oh." Many of us find it objectionable that an organisation like the Rank Organisation will even be in the running for one of these stations. It gave £25,000, directly or indirectly to the Conservative cause at the last General Election. The Rank Organisation made an investment and now, perhaps, it is waiting for its dividend. After all, the biggest contributors to Conservative Party Funds were the brewers, and they got their Bill last year. Rank came very close to the top of the list,and now it says, "The brewers have got their bit; it is time we had ours." That is what the whole thing is about.
Of the 400 companies registered for local commercial radio, about 30, in one guise or another, are tied up with the Rank Organisation. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will think about that and consider whether it is wise that these people should be favourably considered by the I.B.A.
In the last debate, and again today, though in fewer words, the Minister told us that he understands the fears which some of us have about standards. and he said that by putting the Authority at the top he will ensure that we do not have the sort of thing which many of us have been worried about—we shall not have all Radio Manx, or, with respect to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), we shall not have a sort of Radio Luxembourg, and we shall not have the "pop" pirates pouring out 40 records three times a day.
The Minister assures us that we shall have real local radio with properly controlled high standards. Neither the Bill nor the 1964 Act, if amended, indicates that the I.B.A. will have an easy task. I read the Bill with great care, but, after a long time, I still could not understand a word of it, and I was fortunate that my
1354
colleague in this matter, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) was able, with his professional expertise, to give me a little advice. Without it, I could only think, as so many of us had thought, that the Bill was something of a legal mess.
We still wonder how the I.B.A. will manage to exercise the sort of controls which the Minister envisages. Over a number of years, the Independent Television Authority has had its difficulties. Its members have tried to do their job well, the staff in the regions have tried to do their job well, and some of the companies have tried to co-operate with the I.T.A.; but the Authority has no teeth, and the Bill will not give it any in its new form. As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, it all turns on the four words "so far as possible". So far as it is able to do so, the Authority may do this or that. But it will not have an easy task. The task has been difficult with television. Radio will be even more difficult, as the Minister well knows.
As I understand him, the Minister envisages a system of inspection after presentation. This will not be an easy objective to achieve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) clearly established that when he spoke about advertisements. The Minister and the I.B.A. will have the further difficulty of having to deal with impromptu announcements, and so on.
If we are to have 60 radio stations, not just 14 or 15 as we have in television, how will the Authority cope unless it employs a vast number of people to look after the inspection? What is said in the Explanatory Memorandum on the question of manpower in no way corresponds with what I have always understood to be Conservative Government policy. Many Conservative hon. Members fought the last General Election on the basis that they would reduce manpower throughout the public service. Whatever the Bill does, it will not do that, nor will it spell out for the taxpayer the cost of the extra manpower the Minister needs for a properly-constituted form of control.
How do the potential contractors, the 400 people who have registered companies for commercial local radio, see themselves fitting into the structure? I understand

1355
that the Minister saw many people during the summer. There would be no point in discussing these matters with them unless he can tell us that in his view the structure he is setting up will be sought after by potential contractors. If the right hon. Gentleman is putting radio space on the market, it is up to him to explain precisely what sort of market surveys he has carried out.
The same applies to finance. The Minister has made provision in the financial Clauses for the returns, and has clearly seen that when we have local radio there will not be a licence to print money. We agree with him on that. But at some time it must be a return for the taxpayers' outlay on the venture. If the contractors are to be allowed to sell radio space, and we are selling them, through the I.B.A., the precious frequencies so scarce in this country, we are entitled also to ask what sort of return there will be for the taxpayer. We are spending £2 million to set up the venture. If there is to be a profit for the contractors, what is there in it for the public as a whole? I ask this because there have been wide variations in the amount of money that it is said will be spent on advertising in the medium. Some say that it will be £10 million and others say that it will be £25 million a year. If the Minister proposes commercial arrangements of the kind before us, it is his duty to explain them in commercial terms that we all understand. It is a commercial venture from his point of view, and therefore he should spell out in detail what sort of return we are getting for the people's money and the frequencies we shall virtually sell to the contractors.
I have several points on finance. First, if local radio were run on a shoestring, like Radio Manx, with poor programmes and poor wages, it would be a disaster.
Second, if the Minister is anxious to ensure viability, what limits will he set on the number of stations owned by any group? I do not mean holding companies, but how many actual people are to be involved and how are they to be allowed to carry the venture on? It is important to keep ownership of this important means of communication as
1356
wide as possible and not to have it fall into very few hands, as with the newspapers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) and the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) were concerned about the fairness of competition in Scotland, Wales and some parts of England. I raise the question not in any parochial sense because I am from Scotland but because I remember the Prime Minister's statement that where there were B.B.C. local radio stations there should also be commercial radio stations. We say to him that the reverse is also true—that if we are to have commercial stations in Scotland, Wales and the rural parts of England we should also have the opportunity of B.B.C. local radio. That would seem to be fair and to be genuine competition.
I am not here to apologise for the B.B.C. Nor am I its greatest advocate. But I will say that the young people, talented and enthusiastic, who run its local radio do an exceedingly good job in most of the stations presently set up and, in my view, completely justify the confidence which we placed in them a few years ago. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will think again about this problem of Scotland, Wales and the rural parts of England, and ensure that if we in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff have commercial stations we also have the opportunity of B.B.C. local stations
The last time we raised this matter with the Minister he said that the B.B.C. was just not interested in doing anything of the kind. I hope that he will re-read the report of the Advisory Council of the B.B.C. in England and Wales and will talk to the people involved in management. I read recently in the Glasgow Herald a report by the Controller of the B.B.C. in Scotland, who said:
"All the signs indicate that by 1973 there will be commercial local radio stations in Scotland. We welcome competition on equal terms—but Radio 4, Scotland (the old Scottish Home Service), is not in our view, or in the view of the Broadcasting Council for Scotland on equal terms with commercial stations in Glasgow and Edinburgh."
Having heard that, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about this question of broadcasting in the communities in this way.

1357
I know that the Government do not give a lot of thought to and do not think much of Scotland and Wales. Of course, truth to tell, we in Scotland and Wales do not think much of the Government. Nevertheless, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about this and other apects of the Bill. If he does not, it will prove what we have thought for a long time—that the Bill has nothing to do with choice or an alternative service but is simply about business and about advertising and is not about local radio.
We think that this Bill is a sham, a legal mess and a waste of frequencies. We think also that to introduce it as the first major Bill of this Session is an affront to the many people in the country who are concerned about unemployment, about social questions and about education. If this is the best the Government can do for their first major Bill of the Session, it does not deserve a Second Reading.
9.38 p.m.
Mr. Chataway: With permission. Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it is the procedure of the House that if an hon. Member or a Minister wishes to speak a second time in a debate, he has to ask leave of the House. Hon. Members on this side have decided that we do not wish to hear the Minister twice on this occasion. We have heard him once already today and we do not want to hear the same case put again. In these circumstances, since there is an objection to the Minister's speaking twice, will you now inform the House what situation now arises from the objections we on this side have made?
Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to the point of order. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the debate has been comparatively good-humoured and hon. Members have endeavoured to explore the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. The speech with which my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill has resulted in a number of questions being asked by Members, on both sides of the House, which they are genuinely anxious to have answered in another speech by my right hon. Friend.
1358
As there are Members on the benches opposite who have asked to hear a reply from the Minister, who have been here throughout the debate and who are opposed to those who now object—it is quite obvious that the whole thing is contrived—will you, Mr. Speaker, protect the interests of hon. Members on both sides who are very anxious to hear the Government's reply?
Mr. Darling: Further to the point of order. During my observations I suggested that the Minister should not reply tonight but should consider our questions that we should postpone the Second Reading debate and that he should later reply to our questions after he has considered them. Therefore, I am wholly in support of my hon. Friends.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to the point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you can accent the point of order from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) when, as I believe— I cannot say this for certain—he was not in the House when my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate. If the hon. Gentleman who has raised the point of order was not in the House at that time, he is deliberately twisting the procedures in order to make a narrow party point. However, those of us who have heard most of the debate know that nearly all the time has been taken up by hon. Members on both sides asking intricate and technical questions.
It is a well-known fact that on a Bill about which technical and intricate questions have been asked a compliment is paid to the House by the Minister responsible being prepared to reply. Far from allowing the situation to degenerate to a level at which the procedures of the House are brought into ridicule, we should be prepared to congratulate the Minister on being willing to open and close the debate, because by so doing he is paying tribute to the House.
Is it in order for the hon. Member for Walton to make the protest which he has made when he was not present to hear the opening speech by the Minister to whom he has objected?
Mr. William Hamilton: Further to the point of order. I am relatively innocent about the procedures of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I have always understood that no Member can speak twice in any

1359
debate, other than during a committee stage, unless he has the leave of the House. One of our objections to commercial radio is the repetitive nature of the trash we are served up.
It is obvious to us that the Minister does not know his own Bill and that we shall not get answers to the many questions which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and others have asked. It is equally obvious that we shall have a very long Committee stage on the Bill. Therefore, the Minister cannot contribute anything more in the quarter of an hour which remains and, moreover it would be against the procedures of the House for him to speak again. I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to explain whether the Minister can speak again unless he has the permission of the whole House—and it is clear that he does not have it.
Mr. Chataway: Further to the point of order. An enormous number of detailed questions have been directed towards me today. In fact, most hon. Members opposite who have spoken have put questions to me. There is a large number of questions for the Minister, both in opening and in replying to the debate, to answer, and I would hope that out of consideration for those who have been here all day, who have spoken from both sides of the House and who have asked questions, I might be allowed to reply.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: If I may intervene for a moment, the question whether a Minister or anybody else may speak a second time without the unanimous leave of the House is a fairly narrow point of order.
Mr. O'Malley: Further to the point of order. As I understand the situation, when a Minister, or any right hon. or hon. Member of the House, seeks to speak a second time in one and the same debate, he can speak only by leave of the House. The point raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) may not be correct; my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was present during the debate. Whatever may be the answer to the question by the hon. Member for
1360
Peterborough, it is the case that I was present during the debate and I saw what happened. It seems to me that we are faced with two problems in deciding as a House whether the Minister should have the leave of the House to speak a second time.
Mr. Speaker: I think that this is broadening out the issue considerably. It is not whether the Minister should or should not have the leave of the House, but whether he needs it. The point is, therefore, a very narrow one.
Mr. O'Malley: Precisely. I was coming to the point whether the Minister needs the permission of the House to speak a second time. There are two points we ought to bear in mind as a House before coming to a decision on this matter. First, it is undoubtedly the case that a number of hon. Members who wished to speak have not yet been called, but the second, and much more relevant, point is that on the evidence of the speech which the Minister made earlier, he was completely unable to answer any of the questions that were put to him then. Surely, therefore, we should postpone the Second Reading of the Bill and the debate until the Minister is able to get a proper briefing from his Department to be able to answer the questions.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Is not the convention that a Minister may speak twice with the leave of the House a convention which is designed not for the convenience of Ministers but for the benefit of the House as a whole? Surely this convention exists so that when points have been raised by Members in the course of a debate, there will be an opportunity for those points to be answered. Is it not the case that if these conventions are challeneged, the only result is that the House will be lowered in the eyes of the public? Is it not strange that the very people who objected most strongly because of a certain amount of light-heartedness should now, by raising these points and this objection, be abusing the procedures of the House?
Mr. Michael Foot: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason for the convention which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is that

1361
it has been found convenient for the House that sometimes a Minister who has spoken at the beginning of a debate should reply at the end of the debate when the rest of the House has accepted that that would be the best way of disposing of the matter? It is entirely up to the House whether that should occur. It is clear that no such concession— because it is a concession—from the House is tonight available to the Minister.
I suggest to the Minister that the only way for him to escape from his embarrassment, particularly since he says that he needs a great deal of time to answer all the points, is for the matter to be set down for debate tomorrow or on another day.
This is the only way of dealing with the matter properly. According to the rules of the House, there is no way by which the debate can proceed if the Minister has not won the will of the House thus to proceed. As he has not done so, the only proper and orderly way is for the Government to move the adjournment of the debate and to set down the debate for, let us say, next Monday. Many of us would prefer to discuss—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must insist on a hearing for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
Mr. Foot: That is an old custom which has not been quite understood. I thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. Many of us would agree that it would be better to proceed with this Bill, dislike it though we may, rather than the Bill which is set down for discussion on Monday. Since it is clear that the House of Commons is not prepared to hear the Minister, I suggest that the matter should be set down for Business on Monday or Tuesday of next week and that the only orderly way in which this could be done is for the Leader of the House—I do not know where he is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—to move such a Motion.
Several Hon. Members:rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have never known such a disposition of the House to help the Speaker on a simple and narrow point. The question is whether the Minister can proceed without the leave
1362
of the House. He cannot. But the hon. Member is quite wrong; the debate can continue.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker:Mr. O'Malley.
Mr. O'Malleyrose—
Mr. Darlingrose—
Mr. Richard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) had already risen on a point of order. Mr. O'Malley.
Mr. O'Malley: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Since many hon. Members apparently are unwilling to listen to the Minister, not because they do not want to listen to him but because they feel he is not properly briefed and prepared to answer the questions which have been put to him, and since, unfortunately we do not have the Leader of the House with us at the moment——
Hon. Members: Where is he?
Sir Harmar Nichollsrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must insist that, since the House has refused permission to the Minister to reply the debate must continue.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Francis Pym)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. Richard: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. This debate concludes at ten o'clock and not at five minutes to ten. Since all that has happened is that the House, for what it regards as good reason, refuses to give the Minister the right to speak again, should we not now hear somebody who wishes to continue the debate?
Mr. O'Malley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it is clear that the debate has not been concluded on the Bill this evening, and since we have the Patronage Secretary, if not the Leader of the House, present, would it not be for the convenience of the House to give the Minister an opportunity to

1363
receive the briefing he needs? Would it not be right for the Patronage Secretary, acting in the absence of the Leader of the House, to move that this debate be adjourned until the House has a suitable opportunity to conclude the debate?
Sir Harmar Nicholls: If, Mr. Speaker, you are not accepting the Motion, "That the Question be now put", could I, since I have not yet spoken, continue the debate?
Hon. Members: No !
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker:Mr. Whitelaw.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Speaker: Is it possible that I got it wrong? Mr. Whitehead, on a point of order.
Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I am grateful that, on the second time of asking, you have not con- fused me with the present Leader of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I wish to address myself to the very simple point that, while hon. Members on this side of the House have sat through this entire debate and are not prepared to allow the customary courtesies to the Minister to reply to the debate, it should be pointed out that there is another convention of this House; namely, the convention that when in the course of a speech by a right hon. Gentleman in introducing——
Mr. Pym rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Several Hon Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. O'Malley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was the case that one of my hon. Friends was speaking on a point of order when the Chair put the Question, "That the Question be now put". Surely, when an hon. Member is putting forward a point of order, he should not be interrupted by the Chair putting the Question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to take this situation a little more calmly. The Patronage Secretary moved the Closure — [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
There is no point in hon. Members shouting "No" at me. The Patronage Secretary moved the Closure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members do not want me to rule, I will not.
Mr. Darling (seated and covered): On a point of order. You, Mr. Speaker, invited hon. Members to continue the debate. I rose in an attempt to continue the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What happened was that the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure at five minutes to Ten o'clock. I did not immediately accept that Motion. Then there were so many points of order that I was not able to call an hon. Member to continue the debate. In any event, if I had called the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hills- borough (Mr. Darling), he would have needed the leave of the House to speak again, which I doubt that he would have got. I was willing to hear any hon. Member. Then the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure a second time, and I accepted it.
The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 254.

Division No. 4.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Allason. James (Hemel Hempstead)

Benyon, W.

Bryan, Paul

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

Astor, John

Biffen, John

Buck, Antony

Atkins, Humphrey

Biggs-Davison, John

Bullus, Sir Eric

Awdry, Daniel

Blaker, Peter

Burden, F. A.

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Body, Richard

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

Balniel, Lord

Boscawen, Robert

Carlisle, Mark

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bossom, Sir Clive

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Batsford, Brian

Bowden, Andrew

Channon, Paul

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Chapman, Sydney

Bell, Ronald

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Churchill, W. S.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

James, David

Raison, Timothy

Clegg, Walter

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Cockeram, Eric

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Cooke, Robert

Jessel, Toby

Redmond, Robert

Coombs, Derek

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Cooper, A. E.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Jopling, Michael

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cormack, Patrick

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Costain, A. P.

Kaberry. Sir Donald

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Critchley, Julian

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Crouch, David

Kilfedder, James

Ridsdale, Julian

Crowder, F. P.

Kimball, Marcus

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff,N.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmith,Maj.-Gen.James

Kinsey, J. R.

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dean, Paul

Kirk, Peter

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Kitson, Timothy

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rost, Peter

Dixon, Piers

Knox, David

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Lambton, Antony

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Drayson, G. B.

Lane, David

Scott, Nicholas

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Scott-Hopkins, James

Dykes, Hugh

Le Merchant, Spencer

Sharples, Richard

Eden, Sir John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

Simeons, Charles

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

Sinclair, Sir George

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

Longden, Gilbert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Farr, John

Loveridge, John

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

Fell, Anthony

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Soref, Harold

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

MacArthur, Ian

Speed, Keith

Fidler, Michael

McCrindle, R. A.

Spence, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Sproat, lain

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

McMaster, Stanley

Stainton, Keith

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Fortescue, Tim

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Foster, Sir John

Madden, Martin

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Fowler, Norman

Madel, David

Stokes, John

Fox, Marcus

Maginnis, John E.

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

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

Marten, Neil

Sutcliffe, John

Fry, Peter

Mather, Carol

Tapsell, Peter

Gardner. Edward

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

Gibson-Watt, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Tebbit, Norman

Goodhart, Philip

Miscampbell, Norman

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Goodhew. Victor

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

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Gorst, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

Gower, Raymond

Moate, Roger

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Molyneaux, James

Tilney, John

Grav. Hamish

Money, Ernle

Trew, Peter

Green, Alan

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Tugendhat, Christopher

Grieve, Percy

Monro, Hector

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Grylls, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Gummer. Selwyn

More, Jasper

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Gurden, Harold

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Waddington, David

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Morrison, Charles

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mudd, David

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Murton, Oscar

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Wall, Patrick

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Neave, Airey

Walters, Dennis

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Ward, Dame Irene

Haselhurst. Alan

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Hastings. Stephen

Normanton, Tom

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Havers, Michael

Nott, John

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Hawkins, Paul

Onslow, Cranley

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hay, John

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Wiggin, Jerry

Hayhoe, Barney

Orr, Capt. L. P. S

Wilkinson, John

Heseltine, Michael

Osborn, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Hicks, Robert

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Higgins. Terence L.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hiley, Joseph

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Parkinson, Cecil

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Peel, John

Woof, Robert

Holland, Philip

Percival, Ian

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Holt. Miss Mary

Pink, R. Bonner

Younger, Hn. George

Hornby, Richard

Pounder, Rafton

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Howell, David (Guildford)

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

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Howell. Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Hunt. John

Abse, Leo

Garrett, W. E.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Albu, Austen

Gilbert, Dr. John

Mendelson, John

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Mikardo, Ian

Allen, Scholefield

Golding, John

Milian, Bruce

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Milne, Edward

Armstrong, Ernest

Gourley, Harry

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Ashley, Jack

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Molloy, William

Atkinson, Norman

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Baxter, William

Hamling, William

Moyle, Roland

Beaney, Alan

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Murray, Ronald King

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hardy, Peter

Oakes, Gordon

Bidwell, Sydney

Harper, Joseph

Ogden, Eric

Bishop, E. S.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

O'Halloran, Michael

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hattersley, Roy

O'Malley, Brian

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Orbach, Maurice

Booth, Albert

Heffer, Eric S.

Orme, Stanley

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hilton, W. S.

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Horam, John

Padley, Walter

Bradley, Tom

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Paget, R. T.

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Palmer, Arthur

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

Huckfield. Leslie

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pavitt, Laurie

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pendry, Tom

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Pentland, Norman

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes. Roy (Newport)

Perry, Ernest G

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hunter, Adam

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Cant, R. B.

Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur(Edge Hill)

Prescott, John

Carmichael, Neil

Janner, Greville

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Price, William (Rugby)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Jeger, Mrs. I ena

Probert, Arthur

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Rankin, John

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Cohen, Stanley

John, Brynmor

Richard, Ivor

Concannon, J. D.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cronin, John

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

Rodgers. William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Roper, John

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda. W.)

Rose, Paul B.

Davidson, Arthur

Judd, Frank

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Kaufman. Gerald

Sandelson, Neville

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kelley. Richard

Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kerr, Russell

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Kinnock, Neil

Short, Mrs. RenÉe (W'hampton, N.E.)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lambie, David

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Lamond, James

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Deakins, Eric

Latham, Arthur

Sillars, James

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lawson, George

Silverman, Julius

Delargy, H. J.

Leadbitter. Ted

Skinner, Dennis

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Leonard. Dick

Small, William

Dempsey, James

Lestor, Miss Joan

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Doig, Peter

Lever, Rt Hn. Harold

Spearing, Nigel

Dormand, J. D.

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshlre, E.)

Lipton. Marcus

Stallard, A. W.

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lomas. Kenneth

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Driberg, Tom

Lyon. Alexander W. (York)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lyons. Edward (Bradford. E.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Dunn, James A.

Mahon. Dr. J. Dickson

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Dunnett, Jack

McBride, Neil

Strang, Gavin

Eadie, Alex

McCann, John

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Edelman, Maurice

McCartney, Hugh

Swain, Thomas

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McElhone, Frank

Taverne, Dick

Ellis, Tom

McGuire. Michael

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

English. Michael

Mackenzie. Gregor

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Evans, Fred

Mackie. John

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

Ewing, Harry

Mackintosh. John P.

Tinn, James

Faulds, Andrew

Maclennan. Robert

Tomney, Frank

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

McMillan. Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Torney, Tom

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

McNamara. J. Kevin

Tuck, Raphael

Fitch. Alan (Wigan)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Urwin, T. W.

Fletcher, Raymond (Ileston)

Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

Fletcher. Ted (Darlington)

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

Wallace, George

Foley, Maurice

Marks, Kenneth

Watkins, David

Foot, Michael

Marquand, David

Weitzman, David

Ford, Ben

Marsden, F.

Wellbeloved, James

Forrester, John

Marshal. Dr. Edmund

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fraser. John (Norwood)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Freeson, Reginald

Mayhew, Christopher

Whitehead, Phillip

Galpern, Sir Myer

Meacher, Michael

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Woof, Robert

Mr Donald Coleman

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

Division No. 5.]

AYES

10.11 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Fidler, Michael

Knox, David

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Lambton, Antony

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Lane, David

Astor, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Atkins, Humphrey

Fookes, Miss Janet

Le Marchant, Spencer

Awdry, Daniel

Fortescue, Tim

Lewis. Kenneth (Rutland)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Foster, Sir John

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

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Fowler, Norman

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

Balniel, Lord

Fox, Marcus

Longden, Gilbert

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

Loveridge, John

Batsford, Brian

Fry, Peter

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Beamirh, Col. Sir Tufton

Gardner, Edward

MacArthur, Ian

Bell, Ronald

Gibson-Watt, David

McCrindle, R. A.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Glyn, Dr. Alan

McMaster, Stanley

Benyon, W.

Goodhart, Philip

Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Biffen, John

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Biggs-Davison, John

Gower, Raymond

Madden, Martin

Blaker, Peter

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Madel, David

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Gray, Hamish

Maginnis, John E.

Body. Richard

Green, Alan

Marten, Neil

Boscawen, Robert

Grieve, Percy

Mather, Carol

Bossom, Sir Clive

Grylls, Michael

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginalo

Bowden, Andrew

Gummer, Selwyn

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Gurden, Harold

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Miscampbell, Norman

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

Bryan, Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Moate, Roger

Buck, Antony

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Molyneaux, James

Bullus, Sir Eric

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Money, Ernie

Burden, F. A.

Haselhurst, Alan

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hastings, Stephen

Monro, Hector

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

Havers, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Carlisle, Mark

Hawkins, Paul

More, Jasper

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hay, John

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Channon, Paul

Hayhoe, Barney

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Chapman, Sydney

Heseltine, Michael

Morrison, Charles

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hicks, Robert

Mudd, David

Chichester-Clark, R.

Higgins, Terence L.

Murton, Oscar

Churchill, W. S.

Hiley, Joseph

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

Neave, Airey

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Nicholls, Sir Harmer

Clegg, Walter

Holland, Philip

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Cockeram, Eric

Holt, Miss Mary

Normanton, Tom

Cooke, Robert

Hornby, Richard

Nott, John

Coombs, Derek

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Onslow, Cranley

Cooper, A. E.

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Howell, David (Guildford)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Osborn, John

Costain, A. P.

Hunt, John

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Critchley, Julian

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Crouch, David

Iremonger, T. L.

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Crowder, F. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Parkinson, Cecil

d'Avigdor-Goldsm'd, Sir Henry

James, David

Peel, John

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

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Percival, Ian

Dean, Paul

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Pink, R. Bonner

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Jessel, Toby

Pounder, Rafton

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Dixon, Piers

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Price, (David (Eastleigh)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Jopling, Michael

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

Drayson, G. B.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Proudfoot, Wilfred

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Dykes, Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Eden, Sir John

Kilfedder, James

Ralson, Timothy

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kimhall. Marcus

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

Kinsey, J. R.

Redmond, Robert

Farr, John

Kirk, Peter

Reed, Laurance (Bolton. E.)

Fell. Anthony

Kitson, Timothy

Rees, Peter (Dover)

The House divided: Ayes 289, 257.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stainton, Keith

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Wall, Patrick

Ridsdale, Julian

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Walters, Dennis

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Stokes, John

Ward, Dame Irene

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Warren, Kenneth

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Sutcliffe, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Tapsell, Peter

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Rost, Peter

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Wiggin, Jerry

Russell, Sir Ronald

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Wilkinson, John

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Tebbit, Norman

Winterton, Nicholas

Scott, Nicholas

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Scott-Hopkins, James

Thomas, John Stradling(Monmouth)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Sharples, Richard

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

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Woodnutt, Mark

Simeons, Charles

Tilney, John

Worsley, Marcus

Sinclair. Sir George

Trew, Peter

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Tugendhat, Christopher

Younger. Hn. George

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

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Soref, Harold

van Straubenzee, W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Speed, Keith

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Spence, John

Vickers, Dame Joan

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Sproat, lain

Waddington, David

NOES

Abse, Leo

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Albu, Austen

Dempsey, James

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Doig, Peter

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Allen, Scholefield

Dormand, J. D.

Hunter, Adam

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

Armstrong, Ernest

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Janner, Greville

Ashley, Jack

Driberg, Tom

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Atkinson, Norman

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Dunn, James A.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Barnes, Michael

Dunnett, Jack

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Eadie, Alex

John, Brynmor

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Edelman, Maurice

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Baxtez, William

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

Beaney, Alan

Ellis, Tom

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

English, Michael

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Evans, Fred

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

Bishop, E. S.

Ewing, Harry

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Judd, Frank

Booth, Albert

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

Kaufman, Geraid

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Kelley, Richard

Boyden, James (Bishod Auckland)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Kerr, Russell

Bradley, Tom

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Kinnock, Neil

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Foley, Maurice

Lambie, David

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

Foot, Michael

Lamond, James

Latham, Arthur

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Ford, Ben

Lawson, George

Buchan, Norman

Forrester, John

Leadbitter Ted

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

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Leonard. Dick

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Freeson, Reginald

Lester, Miss Joan

Campbell, I. (Dunbarionshire, W.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Cant, R. B.

Garrett, W. E.

Lewis. Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Carmichael, Neil

Gilbert, Dr. John

Lipton, Marcus

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Lomas, Kenneth

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Golding, John

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Lyons. Edward (Bradford, E.)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Gourlay, Harry

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Cohen, Stanley

Grant, Geoge (Morpeth)

McBride. Neil

Concannon, J. D.

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

McCann, John

Corbel, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

McCartney, Hugh

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

McElhone, Frank

Cronin, John

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McGuire, Michael

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Hamling, William

Mackenzie, Gregor

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

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Mackie, John

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Hardy, Peter

Mackintosh, John P.

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Harper, Joseph

Maclennan, Robert

Davidson, Arthur

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Hattersley, Roy

McNamara, J. Kevin

Davies, G. Elfed (Ehondda, E.)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Heffer, Eric S.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tyd il)

Hilton, W. S.

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

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Horam, John

Marks, Kenneth

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Marquand, David

Deakins, Eric

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Marsden, F.

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Huckfleld. Leslie

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Delargy, H. J.

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Mayhew, Christopher

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Meacher, Michael

Price, William (Rugby)

Strang, Gavin

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Probert, Arthur

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R

Mendelson, John

Rankin, John

Swain, Thomas

Mikardo, Ian

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Taverne, Dick

Millan, Bruce

Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

Milne, Edward

Richard, Ivor

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Molloy, William

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Tinn, James

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Tomney, Frank

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

Torney, Tom

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Tuck, Raphael

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Roper, John

Urwin, T. W

Moyle, Roland

Rose, Paul B.

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

Murray, Ronald King

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Wallace, George

Oakes, Gordon

Sandelson, Neville

Watkins, David

Ogden, Eric

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Weitzman, David

O'Halloran, Michael

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Well beloved, James

O'Malley, Brian

Short, Mrs. RenÉe (W'hampton, N.E.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Orbach, Maurice

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Orme, Stanley

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Whitehead, Phillip

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Sillars, James

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Padley, Walter

Silverman, Julius

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Paget, R. T.

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Palmer, Arthur

Small, William

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Pavitt, Laurie

Spearing, Nigel

Woof, Robert

Pendry, Tom

Spriggs, Leslie

Pentland, Norman

Stallard, A. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Perry, Ernest G.

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Mr. Donald Coleman

Prescott, John

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mellish.]

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

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Mendelson, John

Short, Mrs. RenÉe (W'hampton, N.E.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Mikardo, Ian

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

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

Millan, Bruce

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Milne, Edward

Sillars, James

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Silverman, Julius

Judd, Frank

Molloy, William

Skinner, Dennis

Kaufman, Gerald

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Small, William

Kelley, Richard

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Kerr, Russell

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Spearing, Nigel

Kinnock, Neil

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Spriggs, Leslie

Lambie, David

Moyle, Roland

Stallard, A. W.

Lamond, James

Murray, Ronald King

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Latham, Arthur

Oakes, Gordon

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Lawson, George

Ogden, Eric

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Leadbitter, Ted

O'Halloran, Michael

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Leonard, Dick

O'Malley, Brian

Strang, Gavin

Lestor, Miss Joan

Orbach, Maurice

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Orme, Stanley

Swain, Thomas

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Taverne, Dick

Lipton, Marcus

Padley, Walter

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

Lomas, Kenneth

Paget, R. T.

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Loughlin, Charles

Palmer, Arthur

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

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Tinn, James

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Pavitt, Laurie

Tomney, Frank

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Pendry, Tom

Torney, Tom

McBride, Neil

Pentland, Norman

Tuck, Raphael

McCann, John

Perry, Ernest G.

Urwin, T. W.

McCartney, Hugh

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

McElhone, Frank

Prescott, John

Wallace, George

McGuire, Michael

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Watkins, David

Mackenzie, Gregor

Price, William (Rugby)

Weitzman, David

Mackie, John

Probert, Arthur

Wellbeloved, James

Mackintosh, John P.

Rankin, John

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Maclennan, Robert

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Whitehead, Phillip

McNamara, J. Kevin

Richard, Ivor

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Marks, Kenneth

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

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Marquand, David

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Woof, Robert

Marsden, F.

Roper, John

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Rose, Paul B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Mayhew, Christopher

Sandelson, Neville

Mr. Donald Coleman.

Meacher, Michael

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Buck, Antony

Dykes, Hugh

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Eden, Sir John

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Burden, F. A.

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Na rn)

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

Astor, John

Carlis e, Mark

Eyre, Reginald

Atkins, Humphrey

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Farr, John

Awdry, Dan el

Channon, Paul

Fell, Anthony

Baker, Kenne h (St. Marylebone)

Chapman, Sydney

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Chr stopher

Fidler, Michael

Balniel, Lord

Chichester-Clark, R.

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Churchill, W. S.

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Batsford, Brian

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Beamish, Col. Sir Tuf on

Clarke, Kenne h (Rushcliffe)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bell, Ronald

Cockeram, Eric

Fortescue, Tim

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Cooke, Robert

Fowler, Norman

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Coombs, Derek

Fox, Marcus

Benyon, W.

Cooper, A. E.

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

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Fry, Peter

Biffen, John

Cormack, Patrick

Gardner, Edward

Biggs-Davison, John

Costain, A. P.

Gibson-watt, David

Blaker, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Boardman, Tom (Le cester, S.W.)

Crouch, David

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Body, Richard

Crowder, F. P.

Goodhart, Philip

Boscawen, Robert

d'Avigdor-Goldsm d, Sir Henry

Gorst, John

Bossom, Sir Clive

d'Avigdor-Goldsm d,Maj.-Gen.James

Gower, Raymond

Bowden, Andrew

Dean, Paul

Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Gray, Hamish

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Green, Alan

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Dixon, Piers

Grieve, Percy

Brown, Sir Edward (Ba h)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Grylls, Mhael

Bryan, Paul

Drayson, G. B.

Gummer, Selwyn

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

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Gurden, Harold

1376

1377

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Madel, David

Russell, Sir Ronald

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maginnis, John E.

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Marten, Neil

Scott, Nicholas

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mather, Carol

Scott-Hopkins, James

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Sharples, Richard

Harrison, Brian (Malden)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Simeons, Charles

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Sinclair, Sir George

Hastings, Stephen

Miscampbell, Norman

Skeet, T. H. H.

Havers, Michael

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

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

Hawkins, Paul

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Soref, Harold

Hay, John

Moate, Roger

Speed, Keith

Hayhoe, Barney

Molyneaux, James

Spence, John

Heseltine, Michael

Money, Ernie

Sproat, Iain

Hicks, Robert

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Stanton, Keith

Higgins, Terence L.

Monro, Hector

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hiley, Joseph

Montgomery, Fergus

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

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

More, Jasper

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Holland, Philip

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Stokes, John

Holt. Miss Mary

Morrison, Charles

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Hornby, Richard

Mudd, David

Sutcliffe, John

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Murton, Oscar

Tapsell, Peter

Howell, David (Guildford)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Neave, Airey

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Hunt, John

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Tebbit, Norman

Iremonger, T. L.

Normanton, Tom

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Nott, John

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

James, David

Onslow, Cranley

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

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Tilney, John

Jessel, Toby

Osborn, John

Trew, Peter

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Jopling, Michael

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Parkinson, Cecil

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Peel, John

Vickers, Dame Joan

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Percival, Ian

Waddington, David

Kilfedder, James

Pink, R. Bonner

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Kimball, Marcus

Pounder, Rafton

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Kinsey, J. R.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wall, Patrick

Kirk, Peter

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

Walters, Dennis

Kitson, Timothy

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Ward, Dame Irene

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Warren, Kenneth

Knox, David

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Weatherill, Bernard

Lambton, Antony

Raison. Timothy

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Lane, David

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Le Marchant, Spencer

Redmond, Robert

Wiggin, Jerry

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Wilkinson, John

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

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Winterton, Nicholas

Longden, Gilbert

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Loveridge, John

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

MacArthur, Ian

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Woodnutt, Mark

McCrindle, R. A.

Ridsdale, Julian

Worsley, Marcus

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

McMaster, Stanley

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Younger, Hn. George

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Mr. Walter Clegg and

Maddan, Martin

Rost, Peter

Mr. Victor Goodhew.

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

SOUND BROADCASTING [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the functions of the Independent Television Authority, renamed the Independent Broadcasting Authority, so as to include the provision of local sound broad- casting services, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of advances to the Authority to defray capital expenditure and to provide working capital in connection with the provision of local sound broadcasting services, subject to a limit of £2 million on the amount for the time being outstanding by way of principal in respect of such advances;

(b) of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Statutory Instrument, every Scheme or Amendment of a Scheme, requiring approval by Statutory Instrument, and every draft of such an Instrument, Scheme or Amendment, being an Instrument, Scheme, Amendment or Draft which is laid before the House and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in the House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, every other general Statutory Instrument, and every Order which is subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:—

(1) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(2) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period;

(3) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;

(4) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(5) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(6) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification to Mr. Speaker under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(7) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation;

(8) that the drafting of it appears to he defective;

or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons there-of in any particular case:—and the Committee was nominated of Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. Michael Havers, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Ernie Money, Mr. Ronald King Murray, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. David Waddington, and Mr. Walder.
Ordered,
That the Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit not- withstanding any Adjournment of the House and to report from time to time:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Instrument or other Document which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Instrument or other Document:
Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any Instrument or other Document the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the department think fit:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memoranda submitted or other evidence given to the Committee by any Government department in explanation of any Instrument or other Document:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any Instrument or other Document—[Mr. Rossi.]

PROCEDURE
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Procedure in the Public Business of the House; and to report what alterations, if any, are desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business:—and the Committee was nominated of Mr. Austen Albu, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. John P Mackintosh, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. John Parker, Sir Robin Turton, and Dame Irene Ward.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time:
Ordered,
That Four he the Quorum of the Committce.—[Mr. Rossi.]

CIVIL LIST
Ordered,
That the Select Committee on the Civil List have power to report the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Civil List, together with the Memoranda laid before them, in the last Session of Parliament, and referred to the Committee on 8th November.—[Mr. Rossi.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

ROADS (FINANCE)
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Alan Fitch: I much appreciate this opportunity to raise the important subject of road congestion. It is necessary to do so since figures recently issued by the Department of the Environment show that after a period in the doldrums the motor trade is picking up. This is good news. It means more employment; it means increased exports; it means that more people are able to afford a car and enjoy its use. It does, however, also mean that realistic action should now be taken to modernise our road system, since our interurban roads are heavily overloaded while the situation in our towns and cities has reached crisis point.
For the last seven years, I have taken part in the activities of our all-party roads study group, and I have the honour now to serve as joint-chairman with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). We have been able to study conditions at home and abroad. Experts have given us the benefit of their knowledge—county surveyors, borough engineers, town planners, professors, economists. I myself have attended meetings when experts have addressed us, and I have visited Sheffield, Manchester, Stuttgart, Vienna, Brussels, Liege and and Antwerp. However, throughout these seven years, I have also been a Whip and therefore subject to the monastic discipline of virtual silence which is expected of that office. Now that I am free of that discipline, I should like to take this early opportunity to speak on the difficult problem of road
1384
congestion and to suggest, humbly, how it could be dealt with.
I start with some truisms. Roads begin and end at every front door, office, factory gate, shop, school and place of entertainment. All our family lives therefore depend upon them. So does all industry and commerce. Furthermore, all roads begin and end at every railway station and goods yard, at every dockside and at every airport. So all other forms of transport depend upon them too. Roads are things of paramount importance.
But regrettably they are not always considered to be so. From reading the newspapers and sometimes watching television and listening to the radio, one gains the impression that roads and the vehicles that run on them—our cars and lorries—are inventions of the devil. It is the anti-roads, the anti-car and the anti-lorry lobbies which make the headlines. Their propaganda is effective too.
It is true that at national and local government elections lip service is paid to roads. We say that we will do this and that we will do that. But we have our reservations. Roads are all right in theory but in practice all too often, it would seem, only over our dead bodies are we willing to see such and such a new road or road improvement go through our country, borough or parish. Through someone else's—yes; through ours—no.
As a result of this attitude of mind, our road network is grossly inadequate. As I have said, most of our trunk roads are heavily overloaded, whilst in the great conurbations in this most urbanised of countries the average speed of traffic is 11 miles an hour—very little faster than it was 100 years ago in the age of the stage coach. This is throttling our national economy and making our personal lives miserable when we go on our business or, indeed, on our pleasure.
The reason our road network is grossly inadequate is because we grossly underinvest in its modernisation. Let us look for a moment at a comparison between Great Britain and Japan, another island nation. It is of interest to note that Japan's capital expenditure on new roads and major improvements is running at over £700 million a year, whilst ours is well below half that figure. Comparisons

1385
are odious, but I make no bones about it that I consider that this is worse than odious; I find it tragic. It points straight to economic decline. The situation is grim because it happens that the Japanese figure is about the right figure for Great Britain if we are to conquer congestion. We will probably need to double the money for the roads programme if the wealth and prosperity of this nation are to be assured.
Let us for a moment look at a few more figures. Take the inter-urban problem, which now, happily, is in hand. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that a great deal of credit should go to his right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who was in the hot seat that the right hon. Gentleman is now in, for the preparation of plans by which it is intended to provide the country by about 1981 with a primary network of 3,500 miles of high quality strategic trunk routes, of which about 2,000 miles will be motorways. The cost is estimated at £2,300 million and will therefore require an expenditure at the rate of about £230 million a year. Unfortunately, that is not even half the problem. In financial terms, it is only one-third of it.
It is absurd to build a spanking new inter-urban network which will simply pour traffic into the conurbations where congestion is already at crisis point. Urban roads need to be modernised at the same pace as inter-urban roads, for roads are virtually indivisible. In other words, it is time to take the long overdue action to implement at least some of the recommendations of Professor Buchanan and Lord Crowther in their work, "Traffic in Towns". We need to build the urban primary distributor networks, and we need to make the once-and-for-all financial effort required to pay for them.
Here again the experts have worked out the figures. Mr. Christopher Foster estimated the cost at between £5,000 and £6,000 million; but that was for complete modernisation. Professor E. V. Morgan, aiming at a target date of about 1980, roughly that of the present interurban plans, estimated the cost of a modified urban network at £4,100 million for the roads and off-street parking spaces. However, not much has been done in the five years since these estimates were made, and inflation will obviously in-
1386
crease them. It would probably be close to the mark if we said that an expenditure of about £5,000 million was necessary to meet the 1981 target. Breaking down the annual rate, this would mean £500 million for urban roads, plus £230 million for the inter-urban, making a total requirement of £730 million a year.
The winds of change are, however, blowing through the corridors of financial power. Our former colleague Richard Marsh is playing some interesting financial gambits to get money for British Rail's rolling stock and to develop its land and property. In connection with roads, I think the Secretary of State might well take a look at how the building of the Manchester Ship Canal was financed nearly 100 years ago. It was done by a combination of private and municipal investment. A similar system is used in Belgium to raise the money to build motorways, and there seems no reason why it should not be considered here. If the terms are right, new capital sources could be tapped in our regions to provide the new urban and inter-urban roads they need. It is a scheme which needs to be considered.
I turn to my constituency of Wigan. The county borough council, as would be expected from its go-ahead policies in all matters affecting the well-being of its people, has been quick off the mark in dealing with traffic congestion in the town. The inner ring road, or town centre ring road as it is aptly named, is going well. I am pleased that the Minister has given permission for the reconstruction of the Chapel Lane Bridge which, with Riverway, Powell Street and Dicconson Street, is an essential part of the town's centre ring road. Unfortunately, the construction of the dual carriageway in Wallgate has had to be put back because the Minister has asked the corporation to undertake a study in land use transportation which will take at least two years to complete. I am all in favour of having a good look at any project before it is embarked upon. I hope that when the study is complete it will not be tucked away in a Ministry pigeon hole for months after that but will be acted upon immediately.
I now turn to the intermediate link road which is being paid for by the ratepayers of Wigan without any Government help. Already Robin Park Road, completed a

1387
few years ago, has cost over £108,000, and the Spencer Road Bridge, just completed, cost £157,596, and the estimate for the extension of Scot Lane, which will include three bridges, is roughly £500,000. Is it not possible for the Minister to be more flexible in financing essential road systems such as those I have mentioned, and make a grant for these projects? I know they are not regarded, in the language of the Ministry, as principal road networks, but still they are essential to the relief of congestion in many of our towns.
My last local point concerns the proposed route 255 which, I understand, at the moment consists of a bypass from Skelmersdale to the M.6. Are there any plans to continue this route east of the M.6 to Bolton, thus diverting traffic which at the moment passes through Wigan? The Minister for Local Government and Development, replying to a Question on 27th October, said:
"Early next year I intend to add to the principal road preparation list a large additional instalment of schemes to a total value in the region of £500 million-£600 million." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1706.]
This is the sum which, in my view, should be spent not only next year but for many years to come. I am wondering whether this upgrading of expenditure as outlined by the Minister is the Government's policy or intention for the future. There is understandable concern that urban roadways could spoil the environment, but with modern methods of planning there is no reason why they should not improve it. We want an economically prosperous country. We are more likely to get it was a good roads network.
10.48 p.m.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) for giving the House this evening an opportunity to examine the basis of financing the road improvements in this country. I followed his speech very closely. He referred to inter-urban road networks and motorways, but I should like to focus the attention of the Minister on the financial provisions for nonprincipal roads.
The Minister and his Department ought to examine what has happened since the
1388
introduction of the rate support grant, which brought into effect global financing provisions for local government services. Prior to the introduction of the rate support grant, Government financial provision was made for specific local government services. Since the introduction of the rate support grant we have had what I can perhaps best describe as global financial provision, and, as a consequence, local authorities have been spending less each year on non-principal roads.
I can best illustrate this point by referring to the situation in my own local authority, Manchester County Borough. In that area I have been informed, as a consequence of the introduction of the rate support grant, expenditure in the city on non-principal roads has remained pretty much as it was in the year 1967–68. At that time the local city council was obliged to impose a major cut of about £240,000 in revenue expenditure on highways. Even to this day the council has not been able to restore the expenditure on non-principal roads to the presupport grant level, and the necessary highway improvements and other road safety measures which the council has sought to introduce, and the expenditure on service road, footpath and carriageway repairs for 1971–72, is little more than half what it was in 1967–68.
I give general support to many of the views expressed by my hon. Friend and I should like the Minister and his Department to look at the expenditure of major provincial local authorities on nonprincipal roads.
10.51 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment(Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am sure the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch), who has at last broken his self-imposed silence of many years, will have earned our gratitude for raising this massive subject, which, if time were available, would merit a much longer period of time and the contributions of many more hon. Members than are able to be present at this essentially late-night exercise.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, particularly since I have been involved in the problems to which he drew our attention almost ever since I was elected to the House. The complexity of the decisions and the opportunities that flow from them following

1389
the massive investment of public money that is now available for the roads programme and the associated transport investment programmes is such as to excite the imagination of anyone who has responsibility for directing the flow of that money.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the amount of money involved. If we had a magic wand and were able to increase expenditure I should be the first to press the case of the road programme. But it is a question of priorities, and, in the context of the likely outturn of Government expenditure over the years ahead, the road programme is attracting an increasing proportion of public expenditure.
Total public expenditure this year on the new construction of motorways, trunk and principal roads in England—and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for roads in Scotland—is expected to reach £330 million. Of this, over £200 million will be spent on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads.
Both hon. Gentlemen have referred to the two programmes which the Government have announced in detail, the inter-urban road programme and the principal road programme, and the scale of those announcements. I should like to amplify what the hon. Member for Wigan said and to refer to the considerations which the Government had in mind when they made the decisions in June about the inter-urban road programme, and the considerations which they will have in mind in the spring of next year when they make their decision about the preparation and approval of principal roads.
The House will recall that the Labour Government put out a road programme stretching well towards the end of the century. The present Government felt that the Labour programme lacked immediacy and urgency, and we felt it necessary to give credibility in the eyes of local people to the plans at that time put forward by the Labour Government. Therefore, although we were not prepared to go as far ahead as the previous Government, bearing in mind the lack of credibility that flowed from this long-term outlook, and also because the programme did not indicate sufficiently clearly between one road and another which was
1390
like to come into being earlier rather than later, we wanted a more precise approach to the programme over the next decade. We also wanted to associate the road programme with the environmental factors which everybody now associates with the opportunities that flow from road building.
We did not simply want to put lines on maps and say, "The traffic flow from these roads will mean such-and-such an immediate economic return to society", though that is very important. We wanted to show that our proposals for road building involved not only moving bulldozers up and down the countryside, but also meant real environmental benefits flowing from the opportunities available to us.
There are three factors flowing from our concern to give new impetus to the programme we published. Obviously we wanted to get the largest number of miles we could for the value of money expended. But that is not the end of the story. First, we wanted to ensure that there was a through network joining all the principal centres of population so that anybody who wanted to go from one place of size to another would find it possible to do so without leaving the main network; there would be no necessity to find one's way through urban areas.
Secondly, we wanted to show that roads could be used to remove traffic positively from areas, particularly historic areas, in which congestion was particularly damaging to the heritage of this country. At this time we published plans showing how effective our proposals would be in relieving congestion in these historic towns.
The third aspect we took carefully into account was the feeling of frustration on the part of many members of the public when they saw a heavy container lorry heading to the ports along good inter-urban roads but which then had to go through residential and industrial streets of a city before reaching the dock gates. We took great care, where powers were available to do so or by making direct approaches to local authorities, to ensure that roads went direct to the dock gates. In this way we thought that the environmental damage to people living in the areas would be greatly lessened. This was the approach we adopted in June of this year, and it was widely welcomed and commented upon.

1391
As the hon. Member for Wigan said, we are now involved in the preparation of the other side of the coin—the road network for the principal road scheme which largely involves local authority roads in cities and large urban areas. We have said that we intend in the early part of next year to select from the candidates put forward by the local authorities something in the region of £500 to £600 million-worth of schemes on which work can begin. This is a particularly exciting facet of the work of the Department of the Environment.
As the House will know, I have been responsible for a committee which for over a year has been looking into the whole problem of urban transportation. It is a difficult subject and this matter has been referred to in Adjournment debates and on many other occasions to show our awareness of the problem. We in the Department are very concerned about this matter. One of the indications of our concern is shown in the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development that he will be selecting certain schemes.
He said it will not be enough to put before us schemes which had an efficiency rating higher than some other schemes and which could attract or move cars from A to B at a higher average speed than would now be possible on existing roads. If that is done, it has the effect of encouraging more cars, and they may come along that piece of road at a higher average speed. Where do they go? They go into a part of the network which has not been improved. They look for car parking facilities. They need to be coped with by traffic management schemes and, given better public transport facilities, larger numbers might prefer that form of travel.
We have made it clear in the announcements that we have made that when we come to select those schemes in the spring of next year we shall bring the same sort of cohesive and comprehensive approach to bear on that selection of candidates as we tried to do when we announced our strategic network in June of this year.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) dealt with another area of concern which flows
1392
from one aspect of the problem to which I have referred to generally. It is the financing of non-principal road schemes in local authority areas. I make two points about that. The first is that perhaps the concept of one's ability to cope with urban transport will be helped greatly by the reorganised local government structure for which we shall be legislating shortly. That will bring into being much larger authorities able to take a more comprehensive view of their problems. The studies which are going on in the areas which both hon. Members represent will be helped greatly by the eixstence of a smaller number of more geographically comprehensive authorities than exists at the moment.
There is a strong mood which we in the Department share and encourage that local authorities should have a greater degree of individual choice in the way in which they spend their money. We have tried to give greater local autonomy in the allocation of expenditure. We have not cut expenditure. Indeed, it has risen to record levels, and all the forecasts are that it will continue to be one of the most rapidly rising forms of public expenditure. The total sums have risen, but if local authorities are to use their freedom, it follows that they must be free to decide whether the money should be spent on non-principal roads. There is a balance here between the degree to which the central Government should intervene and the extent of the freedom of local government.
We have raised the options open to the central Government in any changes that we want to make in the financing of local authorities in the Green Paper that we have published as a consultative document on the possibilities of changing the financial structure. That is now on the table for discussion with the local authority associations. It may mean that there are greater opportunities for local authorities to exercise their responsibility independently. If they exercise it, it follows that they must answer to their electors for the consequences.
I share the views of both hon. Members on the schemes in their constituencies. Many are going on, and others have been completed recently. There are the transportation studies. My Department is aware of them and maintains a close relationship.

1393
In trying to answer this debate, the tone of which was set at a high level by the hon. Member for Wigan, I have attempted to indicate how we are approaching these matters in the Department. I want to express the Department's gratitude for the interest that both
1394
hon. Members have shown in the work that it is doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Industrial Relations Act, 1971
  Industrial Relations Act, 1971
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  Coventry and Nuneaton
  Coventry and Nuneaton
  Mr. W. P. Stone
  Mr. W. P. Stone
  Employer's Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969
  Employer's Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969
  Thorne Local Employment Committee
  Thorne Local Employment Committee
  Redundancy Payments Fund
  Redundancy Payments Fund
  Fife
  Fife
  Faversham
  Faversham
  Employment Services
  Employment Services
  Teenagers
  Teenagers
  Ealing
  Ealing
  South Shields
  South Shields
  Employment Prospects (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Employment Prospects (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Alien Workers (Immigration)
  Alien Workers (Immigration)
  THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
  THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
  Houghton-le-Spring
  Houghton-le-Spring
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Tool Room Agreement
  Tool Room Agreement
  Health and Safety (Robens Committee)
  Health and Safety (Robens Committee)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Industrial Action (Lost Days)
  Industrial Action (Lost Days)
  Labour Force
  Labour Force
  Stockport
  Stockport
  Low Wage Earners
  Low Wage Earners
  Building Trade Workers
  Building Trade Workers
  National Institute of Industrial Psychology (Accidents Study)
  National Institute of Industrial Psychology (Accidents Study)
  South-West Scotland
  South-West Scotland
  Servonics Limited, Macclesfield
  Servonics Limited, Macclesfield
  Older Persons
  Older Persons
  Unfair Dismissals
  Unfair Dismissals
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
    School Milk and Meals
    School Milk and Meals
    Research Councils (Dainton Report)
    Research Councils (Dainton Report)
    Apprenticeships
    Apprenticeships
    Student Unions
    Student Unions
    Handicapped Persons
    Handicapped Persons
    Teacher Training (James Committee)
    Teacher Training (James Committee)
    Dental Service
    Dental Service
    Tate Gallery (Departmental Correspondence)
    Tate Gallery (Departmental Correspondence)
    Medical Students
    Medical Students
    Lancashire (Primary Schools)
    Lancashire (Primary Schools)
    Colleges of Education (Expenditure)
    Colleges of Education (Expenditure)
    St. Paul's Primary School, Royton
    St. Paul's Primary School, Royton
    Immigrant Children
    Immigrant Children
    Youth Employment Committees
    Youth Employment Committees
    Direct Grant Schools
    Direct Grant Schools
    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
    Departmental Correspondence
    Departmental Correspondence
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Police (Medical and Dental Reimbursements)
    Police (Medical and Dental Reimbursements)
    South Africa (Security Services)
    South Africa (Security Services)
    Fire Station Biggin Hill
    Fire Station Biggin Hill
    Dogs Fouling Footways
    Dogs Fouling Footways
    Police (Security Departments)
    Police (Security Departments)
    Obscenity and Pornography (Legislation)
    Obscenity and Pornography (Legislation)
    Local Government Reorganisation (Police Forces)
    Local Government Reorganisation (Police Forces)
    Historic Buildings (Security)
    Historic Buildings (Security)
    Fire Precautions (Designation Orders)
    Fire Precautions (Designation Orders)
    Stolen Property
    Stolen Property
    Guerrilla Activities (Literature)
    Guerrilla Activities (Literature)
    Robberies, London (Police Action)
    Robberies, London (Police Action)
    Licensing Trade (Tied Houses)
    Licensing Trade (Tied Houses)
    Lambeth (Urban Aid Programme)
    Lambeth (Urban Aid Programme)
    Mr. Daniel Burns
    Mr. Daniel Burns
    Mr. Paul Raymond
    Mr. Paul Raymond
    Security Firms
    Security Firms
    Unpaid Fines
    Unpaid Fines
    Rate Defaulters (Police Action)
    Rate Defaulters (Police Action)
    Horserace Betting Levy Board (Chairman's Salary)
    Horserace Betting Levy Board (Chairman's Salary)
    Mr. Paul Raymond
    Mr. Paul Raymond
    Road Fund Licences
    Road Fund Licences
    Borstals (Accommodation)
    Borstals (Accommodation)
    Stolen Property
    Stolen Property
    Commonwealth Citizens
    Commonwealth Citizens
    Police (Taxpayers' Damages and Redress)
    Police (Taxpayers' Damages and Redress)
    Drunken Driving Charges
    Drunken Driving Charges
    Security Firms
    Security Firms
    Persons Awaiting Trial (Treatment)
    Persons Awaiting Trial (Treatment)
    Commissioner of Metropolitan Police (Appointment)
    Commissioner of Metropolitan Police (Appointment)
    Metropolitan Police (Appointments)
    Metropolitan Police (Appointments)
    Departmental Correspondence
    Departmental Correspondence
    Fire Insurance and Protection
    Fire Insurance and Protection
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    Sittingbourne (Redundancies)
    Sittingbourne (Redundancies)
    Concorde
    Concorde
    Wild Animal Skins
    Wild Animal Skins
    Rochdale Report
    Rochdale Report
    Small Businesses (South-West Region)
    Small Businesses (South-West Region)
    Industrial Grants
    Industrial Grants
    Industrial Development (Wales)
    Industrial Development (Wales)
    Coal Imports
    Coal Imports
  ENVIRONMENT
    Building (Labour-Only Sub-Contracting)
    Building (Labour-Only Sub-Contracting)
    A57, Ragnall
    A57, Ragnall
    Council Tenants (Subsidies)
    Council Tenants (Subsidies)
    British Acheson Electrodes Company, Sheffield
    British Acheson Electrodes Company, Sheffield
    Empty Properties (Rates)
    Empty Properties (Rates)
    Clean Air Acts, 1965 to 1968 (Prosecutions)
    Clean Air Acts, 1965 to 1968 (Prosecutions)
    Channel Tunnel
    Channel Tunnel
    Motorways
    Motorways
    Local Government Reorganisation
    Local Government Reorganisation
    Construction Industry (Tendering)
    Construction Industry (Tendering)
    Road Schemes (Forward Programme)
    Road Schemes (Forward Programme)
    Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts, 1951 and 1961 (Prosecutions)
    Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts, 1951 and 1961 (Prosecutions)
    Ministerial Residences
    Ministerial Residences
    Controlled Tenancies
    Controlled Tenancies
    Goods Vehicles (Regulations)
    Goods Vehicles (Regulations)
    Police Station, Orpington
    Police Station, Orpington
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Poverty (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Poverty (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Drugs (Committee on Safety)
  Drugs (Committee on Safety)
  Labour Force
  Labour Force
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Household Incomes
  Household Incomes
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
  WALES
    Chester Bypass
    Chester Bypass
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  DRUNKEN DRIVING CHARGES
  DRUNKEN DRIVING CHARGES
  DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
  DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
  CIVIL SERVICE
    Departmental Correspondence
    Departmental Correspondence
  DEFENCE
    Royal Air Force (Trainer Aircraft)
    Royal Air Force (Trainer Aircraft)
    Airfields (Under-use)
    Airfields (Under-use)
    Flying Clubs
    Flying Clubs
    Northern Ireland
    Northern Ireland
    Service Personnel (Trade Unionism)
    Service Personnel (Trade Unionism)
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Parliamentary Delegations
    Parliamentary Delegations
    Duncan Report
    Duncan Report
  SCOTLAND
    Regional Hospital Boards (Staff)
    Regional Hospital Boards (Staff)
    Pay Beds
    Pay Beds

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

RHODESIA: PERSONAL STATEMENT
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, yesterday, when winding up the debate on the Rhodesia Order, I referred (at column 440) to the late Lord Malvern when I was in fact meaning to refer to a recent Press statement by Sir Roy Welensky. I apologise for this inadvertent slip of the tongue, and I hope that this short statement will serve to put the Record straight.

EXPORT CREDITS AND INTEREST RATES
3.6 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the introduction of a scheme to provide fixed interest rate long-term export credit by the setting up of an equalisation fund into which the clearing banks would make payments when the fixed rate exceeded bank rate, and from which they would draw when the position was reversed.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the review of the whole matter of export finance arrangements announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on January 26 has recently reached a stage at which it was considered useful to set up a joint Working Party. As has been announced, this will consist of representatives of the clearing banks, the Bank of England and the Government Departments concerned.
460
The Working Party will explore on a technical basis the practicability of possible schemes for the financing of export credits of two years and over. There have been discussions and correspondence between the British Export Houses Association and officials about the Association's scheme for an equalisation fund. This scheme and other schemes will be taken into account by the Working Party.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer and for the fact that progress is being made. Are Her Majesty's Government aware that this is an extremely urgent matter, because the monetary instability in world affairs today means that there is a likelihood of changes in the percentage charged for export credit, and large engineering firms, who are exporting very importantly, are now in a situation of having no stable rate on which to base their quotations for the future? They are in this uncertain condition, which is affecting export effort.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that; and the Working Party has already started and is getting on with all due dispatch.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain one thing which I did not follow? Why, when the statement was made as early as January, has it only recently been found possible to convert this into a working atmosphere by setting up a Working Party? This is a matter of considerable interest to all sections. It is of great importance for export, and it is a matter which all exporters, in my experience, have always regarded as very relevant to their future.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thought the point of the noble Lord's noble friend was that the recent action of the United States of America had made the question particularly urgent. At any rate, now I can say, in view of that particular urgency, that things are going ahead with all speed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, are the Government really fully aware of the fact that the Government's economic policies have themselves placed many heavy engineering firms, upon whom we rely for exports, in a very precarious economic and financial position? The

461
Government ought quickly to be leaning over backwards to give any help they can to such firms.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would not agree with what the noble Lord has said. The difficulties have largely come about as a result of the lack of liquidity, and this is what our policy has been designed to relieve.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the current 5 per cent. bank rate, the recent reduction of the interest rate on export credit from 7 per cent. to 6 ½ per cent. is sufficient, in the Government's opinion, to place British exporters in a position to compete, on credit terms, with the exporters of Japan and France.]
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is difficult to make precise comparisons with foreign credit rates because most countries, including France and Japan, have a range of rates related to the length of the credit and other factors, and they may change fairly frequently. The new United Kingdom rate of 6 ½ per cent. is above the minimum but below the maximum rates currently in force in France and Japan for medium and long term credits and is about the middle of the range of rates in the main competitor countries. This should place British exporters in a generally competitive position so far as credit is concerned. The United Kingdom rate is fixed both for the life of contracts to which it applies and also in the sense that it does not fluctuate with short term changes, and it is not therefore directly related to bank rate.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the 70 per cent. increase in direct exports which was achieved during the last Government's period in office was very materially assisted by a highly competitive rate on export credits, which has now disappeared? Those concerned are left in
462
a situation of non-competitiveness with a number of other countries, and this is very important to the future export efforts of these very large engineering firms.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that when the export credit scheme originated, the rate was fixed on the average bank rate in previous years and was intended to last for a considerable time. Because the bank rate remained exeptionally high for some time, this borrowing rate of 5 ½ per cent. became out of date and had, in the pressure of circumstances, to be changed to 7 per cent.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why it was that during the period of the last Government it was possible to maintain a stable rate of 5 ½ per cent while the bank rate was consistently well above that rate. and that during the period of this Government although the bank rate is now down to 5 per cent. the export credit rate is up to 6 ½, per cent.—that is, it is above the bank rate?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is the banks that lend the money, not the Government. The banks were lending at an exceptionally low rate well below the hank rate. That can be done only at the expense of others.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, while the previous Government were able to influence the banks to give this benefit to exporters, is it the policy of this Government to leave the question of export credit rates—which is so important to the national economy—solely to the banks?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. This matter has not been left solely to the banks. The banks agreed to reduce the rate from 7 per cent. to 6 ½ per cent., in view of the fact that there had been a relaxation of lending rates abroad.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in view of the economic depression, will Her Majesty's Government not agree that a bank rate of 5 per cent. is too high?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I suggest to my noble friend that that is another question.

ST. HELENA: ALLEGATIONS OF APARTHEID
3.14 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 on what grounds they have rejected an investigation into the allegations that apartheid-like conditions exist in St. Helena.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has received no authoritative evidence or advice that such conditions exist.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware, first, that a leading trade union official in St. Helena has made these allegations; and, secondly, that a Member of another place has had an interview with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this matter? Is it therefore accurate for the noble Earl to say that he has had no intimation of it? Also, is he prepared to authorise a Parliamentary delegation, which might include a Member of another place, to visit St. Helena to find out whether or not these allegations are true?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is perfectly true that a Member of another place has had an interview with my right honourable friend, but the evidence he produced in that interview was entirely anonymous, and it is up to Her Majesty's Government to decide how best to balance anonymous allegations with the duties and authority of the Governor. It is Her Majesty's Government's view that the authority of the Governor was in this case correct.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not clear that if there is truth in these allegations—and I do not know whether there is—they would require to be anonymous if the complainant was not to suffer? Are Her Majesty's Government aware of the fact that it was a well-known trade union official who made this complaint?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords. It was specifically made anonymous at the request, or instigation, of a Member of
464
another place. There is a representative Government in St. Helena and no complaints or objections have been levelled at Her Majesty's Government from this representative Government. would further point out to the noble Lord that the Question which he put down relates to apartheid,which was not the substance of the representations made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

INDIA: REFUGEE AID AND DEBT RELIEF
3.16 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, with regard to the £12 ¾ million reported as recently allotted to India for refugees, they will state the total indebtedness of India to the United Kingdom presently outstanding, and what proportion of such loans have been revised from their original terms.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Britain has offered £14¾ million for the relief of refugees in the form of grants. The total outstanding indebtedness of India to the United Kingdom at March 31, 1971, including undisbursed amounts, was £424 million, of which £395 million relates to official aid loans and £29 million relates to guaranteed commercial credit. No revisions have been made to the original terms of any official aid loans. However, all the members of the Aid India Consortium have joined in giving debt relief to India, and the United Kingdom has made debt refinancing loans totalling £50 million over the past six years. The World Bank is now studying India's aid and debt position and expects to produce further proposals for action by the consortium.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of that massive figure of the total indebtedness of India, and the global overall figure which the noble Earl gave to the House quite recently, will he make sure that consideration is given to the proposal that there be a moratorium on any further aid advances to India? Further, will he accept that this figure

465
gives support to the often-represented view, that a bigger proportion of loan should be through private agencies, which would possibly effect better policing and would certainly be at less cost to the Exchequer?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with regard to the matter of future loans, Her Majesty's Government are bound to wait upon the World Bank's recommendations. I think that India is unique, as has indeed been recognised by many countries in the world, and the fact that it has been in receipt of very large sums of loans is not merely a measure of its indebtedness, but is a measure of the investment that has been put into India in order to try to help it towards a degree of prosperity.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, should we not be proud of our record on aid, of our record on loans, instead of carping? We are an affluent nation, far more affluent than countries like India. Should we not be proud and stand on that?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness is perfectly right. Our record of help to India is very considerable; indeed, the United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral creditor.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the size of our aid to India up to date, most of us feel that in the acuteness of India's present need we should extend ourselves to the very limit to give further aid now?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the views which my noble friends have expressed are views which Her Majesty's Government hold as well. Of course we are deeply concerned with the plight and the concern of India, particularly at this moment, and it is not without significance that we have in fact made two substantial grants-in-aid to help this particular predicament in which she finds herself.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is it not a fact that during the very great number of years when the British Raj ruled India, and thereby gave to India
466
many benefits, this country nevertheless extracted from India immense wealth, and that therefore to some extent we are indebted to India and should give her as much help as possible?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is precisely what the Government are trying to do in the amount of aid they have given India over recent years.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, can the Government confirm a recent article in the Economist which stated that the debt-servicing charges repayable by India to the Soviet Union were somewhat in excess of the current aid passing from the Soviet Union to India; and, if so, will the Government congratulate themselves on the fact that we are not in that position?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think I should have to have notice of the aid which the Soviet Union gives to India and of India's repayments before being able to answer that question. But certainly her total repayments are very considerable and in fact amount to somewhere in the region of 600 million dollars per year, which is 30 per cent. of India's total earnings.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, does not the noble Earl consider that the ending of the British Raj in India was an equal disaster for India and for this country, and is there not a lesson to be learned from this?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I dare say that there are many lessons to be learned from that, but I rather feel that it is slightly wide of the original Question.
LORD LEATHER LAND: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that one of the lessons we have to learn, bearing in mind what is happening in Ulster, is that if we had remained in India we should need at least two million armed men to keep order in that country?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not know quite how the noble Lord does his mathematics, and I should certainly be delighted to learn; but I think his question is not really relevant.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S VISIT TO FRENCH SENATE
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the House kindly gave me permission to attend the 25th Anniversary of the foundation of UNESCO, which necessitated my absence from this House on November 3 and 4. One of the additional duties which I was thereby enabled to perform was a visit to the Senate of the French Republic at the invitation of its President, M. Poher; and as an incident then took place which I believe will give your Lordships pleasure, I will describe it shortly.
I was shown into the gallery of the Senate, where they were discussing what in our House would he described as a Committee stage. and since I have spent my life in the British Parliament, where we pay no attention whatever to what goes on in the Gallery, I was not prepared for what then took place. Just after my arrival, the President of the Senate drew the attention of the Senate to the presence in the gallery of the Speaker of the House of Lords in words which would have been highly gratifying to your Lordships. After equally gracious words from M. Tinaud, the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government of the Republic, the assembly rose, turned round and clapped. Perhaps I should repeat to your Lorsdhips what the Secretary of State said. He said:
"I should like, in the name of the Government, to associate myself with the words of the President. No one in France, any more than elsewhere, has forgotten that in 1940, when the fate of the Free World was in danger, the Free World owed its safety to a great country, your country; to a great people, your people; and to a great Parliament, that which you represent here to-day. It is for that reason that it is pleasant for me to greet you with gratitude in the name of the French Republic."
My Lords, I was greatly sensible of the fact that what was intended was a compliment to your Lordships' House, all the more moving because it was universal and obviously sincere, and of the warm feelings of friendship which subsist between this country and France. I recount this incident because it pleased me greatly when it happened, and I trust
468
that your Lordships will feel equally gratified. Since then, I have received a most gracious letter from M. Poher containing a certified copy of their equivalent of Hansard in which the incident is recounted. I am sure I would be expressing the wish of the House when I say that we would wish to reciprocate the warm feelings then expressed to this country and to your Lordships' House by our sister institution across the Channel, and say how much we welcome their kindness and share the feelings of friendship shown by the Senate and the Government of France.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am not clear, my Lords, whether this is a personal or a Ministerial statement, but I am sure the House will wish to echo the message which the noble and learned Lord proposes to send, and to share his gratification.

BUSINESS: STATEMENT ON E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir will, with the permission of the House, be making a Statement on the E.E.C. negotiations at a convenient moment after 3.30.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit or restrict the export of certain animals; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read la.
—(Lord Somers.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do

469
not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named ofthe Committee.

M. Salisbury,

E. Jellicoe,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Colville of Culross,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Hood,

L. Aberdare,

L. Beswick,

L. Brooke of Cumnor,

L. Byers,

L. Caccia,

L. Champion,

L. Concsford,

L. Denham,

L. Diamond,

L. Gardiner,

L. Greenwood of Rossendale,

L. Henley,

L. Merthyr, L. Rea,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang,

L. Tanlaw,

L. Wade,

L. Willis,

L. Wilberforce,

B. Wootton of Abinger:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while appreciating that my noble friend Lady Wootton is equal to 29 males, I should like to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees why there are not more Baronesses on this Committee.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comment, and I will certainly draw the attention of the Procedure Committee to what she has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BENEFICES MEASURE
3.28 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Benefices Measure, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords I beg to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Benefices Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. This Measure extends already existing powers to meet a new and developing situation in the life of the Church of England. Under the Benefices Act 1898, a Bishop has the power—a discretionary power—to refuse to institute to a benefice a clergyman who may be presented to him by a patron if that clergyman has not completed three years from the date of his ordination. This power is to be exercised by the Bishop in order to protect a parish from having appointed to that parish a clergyman who may not have the necessary experience. Of course, up to recent years the norm of the ministry of the Church of England was clergymen who were full-time employed in parochial work, but in recent years—and it will be so in the future—a number of men have been ordained who have had either little or no parochial experience; that is to say, the worker priests. There are also those priests to whom we refer as exercising a supplemental ministry; that is to say, they are earning their living in some secular employment, but are able to render very valuable ministry in their spare time, in the evenings and at weekends. This type of ministry is likely to increase in future years when people have more leisure. It is a very valuable ministry and it is of great help to overworked parochial clergy. But as the law now stands, a clergyman might exercise such a supplemental ministry for a number of years and then be offered a benefice by a patron, and the Bishop would not have any power to refuse to

471
institute him, even if the Bishop was persuaded that that particular clergyman had not the experience and the pastoral opportunity that was provided by exercising a ministry in a parish. Therefore the Benefices Measure extends this existing power to give to a Bishop discretionary power to refuse to institute to a benefice, if he thinks it right, a clergyman who has not had any parochial experience or who has less than three years' experience as a full-time parochial minister. I stress that this is a discretionary power. There is an appeal to the Archbishop of the Province if it is thought that the Bishop has acted in an irresponsible way. This Measure passed through the Church Assembly and the General Synod without any dispute and without any Division being called. It has been adjudged expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and therefore I trust that this House will give affirmative agreement to the Motion.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Benefices Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate one question? He has explained to the House that the difficulty of the Church is that there is a shortage of experienced men and that men are not qualified because they have not worked in an area for a certain time. Can he explain why it is that the Church uses the services of very experienced deaconesses who have all the qualifications that he has described, yet refuse to ordain them?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, the matter of the ordination of women to the priesthood is a living issue in the Church. The Lambeth Conference considered it sympathetically in 1968 and the Anglican Consultative Council earlier this year also gave the matter favourable consideration. It is a matter of debate and controversy in the Church; but the noble Baroness may rest assured that this matter is a very living issue in the life of the Church and that it is likely to be considered during the coming year, since I understand the Anglican Consultative Council desires
472
an answer by the end of 1972 from the Church of England.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does the right reverend Prelate realise that I am really being practical in this matter and that the country finds it difficult to understand the Church's professions of race equality in the light of its sex discrimination in this matter?
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, according to our statistics of church attendances, women are the more religious sex; and according to our criminal statistics they arc the less wicked.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, having myself been chairman of a commission on the whole question of the ordination of women to the priesthood, I have a good deal of understanding and sympathy with the points of view expressed by both noble Baronesses. They will understand that there is a great deal of prejudice in this matter and that that prejudice has to be overcome in order that we may steadily go forward, as I believe we shall, in the way in which the noble Baronesses suggest.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the right reverend Prelate aware that the Church is dragging its feet in this matter, and that by the time it decides there will be nobody in the churches to preach to?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I cannot accept the argument that the noble Baroness puts forward in that way. I can assure her that this is very much a living issue and one to which the Church will be giving its attention in great detail in the near future.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EDUCATION POLICIES AND SOCIAL EQUALITY
3.45 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS rose to call attention to the need for educational policies which pay full regard to the requirements of social equality; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
"Where there is much desire to learn there will be of necessity much arguing, much

473
writing, many opinions; for opinion is but knowledge in the making."
That was written by John Milton in the 17th century. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is the spirit in which we approach this debate to-day. At the beginning of a Parliamentary Session it is right that we should take a long, cool look at our educational philosophies; where they are taking us and whether they are producing the results that we hope for. Can we regard it as the occasion for a Green Paper for education?
I shall limit my introductory remarks to one or two aspects of this vast and important topic. I feel that I am perhaps presenting the canvas on which other Members of your Lordships' House will paint their own pictures. With all due humility, I would say that with two former Ministers of State of the Department of Education participating, a distinguished ex-Minister winding up for the Opposition, a Minister speaking for the Government, as well as a distinguished maiden speaker, it is right for me not to be too long in making the opening statement. I try to be practical and it would be impossible to cover completely this vast subject; so I am tackling the area about which I know best.
My Lords, the word "equality" is an emotive one. Perhaps I had better explain my reference to this word in the text of the Motion. Speaking at the Annual Conference of the Education Committees recently the Minister of Education said:
"Genuine opportunity there must be; but this does not mean that everything must be the same. Indeed, the reverse can he argued. Children's needs and their potential differ. So must our response."
I would quarrel with only one part of that statement: children's basic needs do not differ; they all need love and security if they are to flourish. But I accept that their potential is different. What is our response? I notice by the way that Members in another place were accused of being gloomy when they debated this subject last week. I have the feeling that the same accusation is going to be levelled at me; for I can bring you nought for your comfort. I know that when the Minister comes to speak his brief will contain reference to the splendid building programme of primary schools—for which all credit to the Secretary of State. But we are just not moving fast enough to
474
keep up with a rapidly changing society. I am always saddened and mystified as to why, in my borough, an hotel, or a motorway or a flyover can be built with great rapidity, but an extra sink in a school takes masses of paper, a number of 'phone calls and numerous appeals before it can be installed. Our priorities need eternally to be looked at. I am fortunate enough to be in touch with head teachers, teachers, children and parents, and for the purpose of this debate I have tried to discover what they feel.
May I describe to your Lordships a primary school not very far away from this House? It is in an educational priority area and so it will be rebuilt; not, I hasten to say, this year, and probably not next year. The building is 101 years' old. The lavatories are all outside. There is only one lavatory for 21 members of the staff—shades of the Offices and Shops Act! Seventy per cent. of the children receive free dinners; and 44 per cent. have one parent—they are children of deserted or divorced wives or come from homes where the father is in and out of the home fox different reasons but does not stay very long—and, to use the colourful phrase of the head teacher, 50 per cent. are on "somebody's books" for problems: social problems, educational problems or behavioural problems. The welfare officer, who has to carry the case load and deal with some of these problems, in an. area of this kind covers six schools. In passing, I may say that the method of establishing which children should have school milk is that the head teacher and the nurse consult together. So much for the assertion, made in your Lordships' House, that the school medical officer will determine this question.
My Lords, in many cases these little children begin school without having even the background experience which is the right of any child. How can they even play when they live in high-rise flats? Their vocabulary is limited and their emotional and behavioural problems are enormous. When turning over the subject of this debate in my mind and having talks with teachers, I recalled that when I was a small girl children used to play in city streets. Now even this privilege is denied them because of the dangers that would attend it. What is the plea that comes from

475
this primary school, from the dedicated —they have to be dedicated—overworked head teacher and her staff? What do they ask for? They ask for space; they ask for small classes; they ask for some spare room where a child may be talked to quietly, and they ask for some spare teachers. These folk are remarkable people. Not only are they teachers, but also they are social workers, and in the end they do not always have enough energy and time to do the job for which they are in the school; namely, to teach. What equality of opportunity is there for a child under these conditions? When we seek to deal with violence and crime in our community we must remember that the child is indeed father to the man.
In case an accusation is levelled at me that I have only mentioned a school in an educational priority area—although I assure your Lordships that it is not untypical—I will quote from a letter sent to me by a head teacher in a completely different primary school. It is a provincial school of a suburban kind. She says:
"In this country we have got so many badly disturbed children these days as a result of broken homes that it plays havoc with their emotional development, and many of the children are not in a fit state to be taught."
Now the Education Minister tells us that during the year the number of primary classes of over 40 fell by nearly one third. I would ask the representative of Her Majesty's Government what this sort of statistic really means. The average is still far too high; 35 to 38 children of mixed ability, with many problems, many of them hungry, having come to school without breakfast, and many of them tired and disturbed. My Lords, I am not overpainting the picture; this is what is happening in primary schools to-day. There is one side effect which is not given proper attention: it is the breakdown in health of teachers and head teachers, young and middle-aged, which is going on all the time. If I may again quote the Minister, she said:
"The birth rate seems to be on our side. The number of births have decreased each year since 1964. In 1969 it was the lowest since 1960. From 1973, classes of 40 should be virtually a thing of the past."
Are we waiting on a declining birth rate to bring down the numbers in our classes? This seems to me to be a warning to From the primary school I have to
476
young parents that they had better not upset the statistical average or we shall never get smaller classes. The money which has been saved by not giving the children their milk now seems to be distributed, at any rate in part, to parents of children in direct grant schools. Those children already have a start over the others. To him that hath it shall indeed be given.
My Lords, may I look at the secondary level? There is much joy about raising the school-leaving age in 1972. To quote a staff inspector, this is not an end in itself but a means by which new enterprise may reanimate the schools—a statement with which I am sure all your Lordships would be in full agreement. But let us look at the reality; and again I quote a dedicated head teacher of a secondary modern school. The building I will not attempt to describe to your Lordships, other than to say that about 600 children were on two floors of an old junior school plus huts in the playground. There were no playing fields and no hall.
From the primary school I have described the results produced are tremendous, but at what cost to the staff? This head teacher reminds us that schools are expected to answer the twin demands of modern society; namely, a traditional feeling of security and order and also to see that the individual has liberty and freedom. Since this is frequently difficult for mature adults, how is it to be done with children? Have we cleared our minds about what we want from the secondary stage of education? Are we satisfied with the fact that still there are far too many young people who leave school with a sigh of relief to take their place in what they call the real world? The plea at this level—the cry for help begins again—is for smaller classes. One head teacher said to me, "A lot of the discussion that takes place could be avoided if you dealt with the practical and the basic things like smaller classes." They ask for space; they ask for an opportunity to teach, and not always to have to act as social workers. One teacher said—and this I think is important—" We do not want any gimmickry to prove how useful the extra year can be. The children see through this more quickly than anything else. There is no substitute for a learning situation."
Edwin Mason, in his very imaginative book Collaborative Learning,says:
"If education is to be a process which enables people to give what they have, it must be, in individual terms, an identity building process."
That is true, and part of this is the status which the adolescent demands from the situation in which he finds himself. He must gain from achievement, from a sense of order, as well as contribute to the main student body.
My Lords, I believe that schools at secondary level are having as many systems as we have education authorities, and so, with this and the selective system still remaining, there cannot really be true equality of opportunity. I am not at all happy about the lack of support for those in authority, even from their own education committees. I believe that damage is done by a television programme series like "Please, Sir!", which suggests that there is something amusing and acceptable about baiting a young teacher trying to cope with boys and girls who are often only four or five years younger than she is—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Older.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: No, my Lords, they are younger—I see that here we have a very difficult member of the class.
My Lords, I am not sure that the certificate of secondary education has been given the status it must have if the students are not to see it as a pale imitation of the G.C.E., just as many people saw the secondary modern school as a watered-down version of a grammar school. Our children at the end of the extra year must emerge literate, literary, with a desire to go on learning and learning, and a desire to serve. While on examinations, I should like to put in a plea for a four-term year. At present, examinations are taken in the summer term and the results are not known until August. This means that the young people have to approach employers with the rather vague information that they have probably passed the required number of "0" and "A" levels, but they are not certain. In the case of a potential university candidate, he must approach the universities without even being able to give the final examination results. The present system does not seem
478
to be unalterable, and many teachers would prefer better-spaced holidays. I have done a little research on this subject and I find that the Matriculation Board and the Universities Board are quite happy to have a change; and teachers do not seem to mind. So I am waiting to see who will break through this silence.
I am constantly reminded of the great gap which exists between the young child and the adult teacher. On a slightly lighter note, I think your Lordships might appreciate a story of when I took a group of children round the House last week. I told them about the history, in what I hope was a junior style version I told them about the exciting things that we do here; and finally I said to them: "Have you any questions?" Little children always want to do what adults want them to do, and one little boy said: "Please Miss, are those pearls you are wearing real?"
Eternally, my Lords, we are presented with this great gap that exists, and it is one of the duties of education to recognise the point at which we find it. I have not even touched the fringe of this subject, but my appeal is a fervent one. We are a rich country, and we neglect our heritage at our peril. The Norwood Committee said in 1943—and this is a sentence that is not often quoted:
"Education cannot stop short of recognising the ideals of truth, beauty and goodness as final and binding for all times and all places and as ultimate values."
Eighteen years later, that is as true and as urgent. I beg to move for Papers.
3.53 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to take part in this debate, because it welcomes the maiden speech of my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—or, rather than that, I am his namesake. Long before there was any prospect of my coming into your Lordships' House, I used to think that the one great advantage of it was that one could shorten one's signature considerably. But, owing to the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, or at that time of his mother, I had to change my signature from "Tim Beaumont" to "Beaumont of Whitley", whereas he changes his from Miles "Fitzalan-Howard" to "Beaumont". It is not a fair world. I hope that the noble

479
Lord will take a considerable part in our debates, and I warmly welcome him as I am sure the rest of your Lordships will.
I welcome the terms of this Motion, since it seems to me to be admirably worded, in that it puts education where it belongs, fairly and squarely in the middle of politics. I hope that not many of your Lordships will protest that it does not belong there and that we must take politics out of education: From the number of things that we say from time to time that we want to take out of politics, you would think that we were the Hampstead Debating Society instead of a House of the Legislature of the nation. The type of education that we give to our children depends on the kind of society that we want to see. Therefore, it is firmly in the midst of politics, and always will be. It is not only those who want change who bring politics into education; it is also those who do not want to change, since maintenance of the status quo is in itself a profoundly political act. It is only if you have no interest in education at all that you can keep politics out of it, and then you have no education. In a recent debate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London (I am sorry that he is not taking part in this debate to-day, because we should all have learned from his wisdom in these matters), quoted T. S. Eliot's dictum that the teacher sits on the horns of a dilemma educating children for a society of twenty years hence without much idea of what that society will be like. To a certain extent, what that society will be like will be what we make it. Our view of the kind of education which is fitted for that society will depend upon what we make of that society.
The two Parties which sit on this side of the House believe strongly in equality of opportunity. The Party opposite says officially that it does; but I think people must be judged by their actions, and I become more and more dubious about it. If you believe in equality of opportunity, you have to work to see that people have that opportunity. At the moment there is no equality of opportunity in this country, and enormous changes are needed before there can be. I do not know whether I need in this
480
House to defend the concept of equality of opportunity. I hope not. Let me say briefly that it is the whole basis of any moral behaviour which makes any sense at all that we treat other people as being of equal worth as ourselves: and it is the basis of Christian moral behaviour that we should love our neighbours as ourselves. On another plane, it is the only way in which a modern society can survive when it educates all its members to their highest potential, a step which pays off in terms of civilised behaviour, in terms of economics, in terms of almost any practical measurement that one can imagine.
I repeat that we have no equal opportunity at the moment, and equality of opportunity is not, so far as we can see, increasing. A fairly good yardstick is that the proportion of the university population which comes from the working class has not changed in 25 years. The slum child—and there are still plenty of slums, as we have been reminded by the noble Baroness—starts off deprived in his mother's womb. And that is not a figure of speech. He is deprived in the environment in which he grows up; spite of the best efforts of teachers, he is deprived in the kind of school he goes to; he is deprived in the nourishment that he gets; he is deprived in the kind of home that he comes from, and he does not stand much of a chance against the well-fed child from the intelligent, articulate middle-class home.
We must do our best both in educational and other fields to eliminate these deprivations. There is one thing that we must all realise, which some noble Lords who sit on this side of the House do realise; that is, that you will not get equality of opportunity without positive discrimination. You not only have to see that poorer children get as good an education as richer ones; you have to see that they get a better education, because they need it more. You have to see that the resources are put into the places where they are needed. And still the opposite occurs. Still the number of teachers and the pay of a headmaster are determined by Burnham Scale points, which ensure that the schools of middle-class children from middle-class areas get greater resources than those of poor areas with poor children. We must start to help the

481
deprived: first, the handicapped, whose educational standards and schools are still overall absymally inadequate; secondly, the immigrant children, who need special care and education if we are not to develop them into being second-class citizens; and thirdly, the children from the multi-deprivation areas of this country.
How are we to do this? I will start in this brief review at the top end of the scale, the least influential part. At university and adult levels we must leave open all the loopholes possible; we must see that there are opportunities, like the Open University—and it is splendid to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, will be speaking later in the debate—opportunities such as Sussex University pioneered with its unqualified entrants. We must see that there is plenty of adult education freely available to all at the lowest possible charge. This may pick up some of those who have lost out on the system but who are still capable of retrieving lost ground. Many of those who have lost out are not so capable.
At secondary school level we must press ahead with comprehensive and, I believe, non-streamed education. The battle for comprehensive schools has been more or less won. Even Mrs. Thatcher is more engaged in fighting the educational authorities of her own Party than those of the Opposition. The time for non-streaming will come. In non-selection we have realised that the comprehensive school can produce as good an academic record as a selective system, even for the brightest child, and that it produces a far better social education. And education is not just about academic subjects: it is education for life. I think that we have got to the stage where it would be right to make comprehensive schools compulsory and I, for one, would have gone into the Lobby with the Labour Party to support Mr. Short's ill-fated Education Bill.
The battle for non-streaming will follow, but I do not believe that it has yet reached the stage where there is any point in thinking of it from a legislative point of view. Still a matter for debate among educationalists is the persuasion of teachers, because one thing that we must accept is that while it is true, as I said earlier, that its place is in politics
482
and while it is true that children respond to the expectations of their teachers, it is also true that school systems respond to the belief or otherwise of the teachers in the efficacy of the system in which they are working.
We must see that resources go into the right areas. I have already spoken of the iniquities of the Burnham scale. This must be altered. The concept of educational priority areas must be refined and improved. An educational priority area should not be measured by a school catchment area, easy though this is to do. In fact we must try to get such a social mix in neighbourhood schools that in many cases there will be an educational priority area which cuts right across a school catchment area. I think that more work is needed on this aspect.
We must do as much as we can within the educational system to see that children are properly nourished so that they can take advantage of the education they are being given. Rather than cut back on school milk and meals, I believe that we should extend free school milk and meals to the whole of the school population. It would not be a very complex administrative job to reclaim the money from those who can afford it; it could be offset against children's personal allowances in the income tax system. My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Pardoe, has already outlined in detail the way in which that could be done.
We must experiment in schooling in areas where the present educational system seems to have broken down and truancy is rife. I was up in Liverpool a fortnight ago, looking at the Free School there. Liberal and Labour members of the City Council were responsible for seeing that a recommendation from the school's sub-committee that the Free School should not be helped in any way was turned down. The Free School there is doing a valuable job of work, one which is not only rescuing human beings (which is the most important thing) but is also, for those who think these things matter as much, saving society vast quantities of money in terms of vandalism and future delinquency. It may be that such schools must always work outside the State system, though in a liberal society I doubt whether this is essential. But while they remain outside there are

483
methods of helping them. If Mrs. Thatcher is going, as I suspect she is, to reopen the list for those spoiled darlings, the direct grant schools, perhaps she would consider that such experiments as the free school may be exactly the right kind of school to be added to the list. I doubt that she would, but she might ponder it.
We might, I think, even take a little of the money which is earmarked for the rebuilding of primary schools—much as that is needed—to see that the working conditions in existing schools are improved. I have come across nothing in the educational world recently to make my blood pressure rise as much—and my blood pressure has risen quite a lot recently—as the Secretary of State's refusal to enforce regulations on working conditions in schools. Such working conditions would not be tolerated in offices, shops and factories in this country.
I think, also, that we ought to take a look at the whole problem of the public school system, because I believe that there are resources there which should be more evenly shared. I personally thought that the two Reports of the Public Schools Commission were admirable and it was unfortunate that the Labour Party gave way to their own Left Wing on this matter (which was one of the very first of a considerable number of similar actions) instead of taking the half loaf which was offered by the Commission, which was not only better than no bread but in this case better than the whole loaf itself. The schemes for integration of the independent schools, not for abolition of the private schools, which they put forward seemed to be very worthwhile; If the question was one of money, again Mr. Pardoe and myself put up a scheme which the late Sir John Newsom was kind enough to say was the most intelligent reaction at that time to the Commission's Report. (He also said it was the only intelligent reaction.)
Lastly, I turn to nursery schools. The need is appreciated for nursery schools and play groups wherever we can have them. This is one of the areas in which we can most effectively start making some impact on deprivation. In spite of the views of Mr. Stanbrook, who recently
484
said that we should not encourage nursery schoo!s because this encouraged women to go out to work when they should be looking after their children at home, I believe that we are getting general agreement on this matter. I wonder whether Mr. Stanbrook has ever been in some of the homes where he is suggesting that children would get a better education and a better upbringing than in the nursery school. The fact that he represents a middle-class suburb may be one explanation; but the last Member for Orpington would not have made such a mistake, and I suspect that the next Member for Orpington will not do so. It is much to the credit of the Conservative Party that he was soundly rebuked by one of his own colleagues. As Mr. Miscampbell said on that occasion, "environment can give a 20 per cent. better chance in life"; and it is in the nursery schools that one can have some effect on the environment. The experiments held in Illinois and Pittsburg have shown this, and I welcome the action of the Department of Education and Science in seeing that more resources are available in this area.
This brings me, finally, to the most important point of all. While applauding the Labour Party's initiative to-day in bring this Motion forward, I still find them lacking. It is right that we should put our resources into trying to compensate for the deprivation of underprivileged children; but it is an extremely expensive way of working, and there is an immense use of resources in doing it. For every experiment which has been successful in giving children advantages which they would otherwise have lacked, there is another one that has failed. I hear a murmur behind me of "Not true". But it is true. There are many, many recorded experiments in which this kind of help has not had any effect. Let me take as an example the experiment in New York City in the 1960s. of 400 girls from a delinquent-producing culture who were given every kind of special attention by the educational system and who achieved no better results in the end than their fellows, since they merely reverted to the kind of culture that produced delinquents.
It has been said that the mind of the slum child will show the effect of the slum as long as he lives. I have mentioned before that it is also true that

485
his mind and body will show the signs of physical deprivation caused in his early youth and even within the womb. It is almost impossible to combat the inability to learn caused by housing conditions where a child can do no homework and where he cannot even get to sleep before his parents do because of the over-crowding in that house. It is to the root cause that we must turn our attention. In the words of Jean Jacques Servan Schreiber:
"Since the initial environment is the strategic place from the point of view of human accomplishment, it is there that everything must be done. Only ignorance, routine and timidity would be the explanation, were political leaders to declare themselves powerless in face of the annihilation of the first chance."
It is not enough to give children a second chance; this, in many cases, is almost certainly too late. It is the first chance that we need, and it is this first chance that has been neglected by all Governments since 1950. There has been virtually no increase in equality of wealth. There has been little annihilation of poverty among large families, and the sad thing is that this is not just the responsibility of the Government on one side of the House; it is the responsibility of both Governments that have been in power. I have heard taunts from members of the Labour party in debates in this House when they have chided the Liberals for being able to stand up for what they believe in because they do not have the responsibility of power. It is much more shameful to be in power and not to use it. My Lords, it is absolutely right that we should do everything we can to see that the Government produce, in the words of this admirable Motion:
"… educational policies which pay full regard to the requirements of social equality"
But do not let us kid ourselves that this is going to be anything but a palliative until we have a great deal more social equality, a great deal more social justice and the abolition of poverty. Only then will our educational system, our teachers and schools, be able to perform the function for which they are intended.

E.E.C., E.F.T.A. AND BRITAIN: FISHERIES POLICY
4.12 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to the House if I intervened at this moment to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the meeting of the Ministerial Council of the European Free Trade Association in Geneva, on the 4th and 5th of November; and on my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on the 9th of November.
"In Geneva Ministers unanimously expressed the hope that negotiations between the Communities and the non-candidate members of EFTA would start soon and be pressed forward as rapidly as possible. We reaffirmed our strong interest that the agreements reached should safeguard, in conformity with the GATT, the free trade already established in EFTA.
"For our part we informed our EFTA partners that, in accordance with our obligations under the EFTA Convention, we would be giving notice on the 31st of December, 1971, of our withdrawal from EFTA to take effect from the 31st of December, 1972."
"I will, with permission, circulate the full text of the EFTA Ministerial communique in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"In Brussels, we made encouraging progress on a number of points. First of all, in regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, I am glad to be able to report that in accordance with our requests the Community have agreed to offer the Islands free trade in industrial goods within the Common External Tariff and free trade in agricultural products. In their proposal to us the Community have set out what will apply to the Islands; the rest of the provisions of the Treaty and regulations will not. This safeguards the

487
Islands' fiscal position. Most important of all, the Community's proposals would in no way affect the Islands' constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom. I believe that these proposals offer a fair deal for the Islands, and I shall be prepared to commend them to the Island Authorities when I see them shortly.
"Next we reached agreement on the transition period of two years for which we had asked for the application to our export credit policies of the appropriate Community directive.
"I raised again the position which the enlarged Community should adopt towards Papua and New Guinea, which because of their constitutional position, cannot be associated with the Community. The Community have been examining this, and I am confident that they will be able to respond very soon.
"I now come to the issue which took up most of the time of the meeting, namely the Common Fisheries Policy. As the House knows the Community have fully recognised the need for changes, and have acknowledged that the new policy must establish a satisfactory overall balance of advantage for all member countries, new and old.
"In an attempt to secure this the Community made some new proposals. As regards access they suggested an initial period of five years, during which everyone would be free to reserve access to fishing grounds within six-mile limits; a further period of five years during which this could be continued with the approval of the enlarged Community; and, even after 10 years, provision for exceptional treatment in areas where the local population was mainly dependent upon fishing. The Community suggested for certain strictly limited geographical areas such as the Orkneys and Shetland Isles a special regime to which a 12-mile limit would apply.
"While welcoming this move as a genuine attempt towards a solution I made it clear that it was inadequate both as regards time and access. On time I said that however long the initial period there must be arrangements on a continuing basis subject to
488
review. On access, whilst accepting the case for special treatment for areas where fishing was virtually the only means of livelihood, I explained that this did not go far enough. We had to recognise the needs of all areas where fisheries were of substantial economic and social importance to the stability and development of particular regions and where stocks were already fully exploited by the fishermen traditionally fishing there.
"We also discussed the application of the Community's marketing arrangements for fish. Here I was able to welcome their readiness to examine various adjustments which we have requested, and in particular to consider variations in withdrawal prices, improved arrangements for producer organisations, and provision for the marketing of frozen fish.
"In view of the complexity of the issues and the interests of the other candidate countries, we were not able to reach agreement on this occasion. Nevertheless, the Community, recognising the need for an early settlement, have agreed that we should hold a special Ministerial meeting on the 29th of November. In the meantime the Commission have been asked to consult officials from the candidate countries, and report further.
"Finally we reviewed the progress made in drafting the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities, and agreed that we should aim to sign the Treaty in the week before Christmas."
—My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following is the Communiqué referred to in the Statement:
MINISTERIAL MEETINGS OF E.F.T.A. COUNCILS GENEVA 4TH AND 5TII NOVEMBER 1971
Communiqué
The EFTA Council and the Joint Council of EFTA and Finland met at ministerial level in Geneva on 4th and 5th November, 1971.
In the EFTA Council, with the Finnish Minister taking part in a personal capacity, a full discussion of the present situation and prospects of wider European integration took place. Ministers noted with satisfaction the considerable progress which had been made since their last meeting in the negotiations and discussions of EFTA countries with the European Communities.
The membership negotiations of most of the candidate countries had virtually been completed and it could now be expected that the necessary membership treaty could be signed towards the end of the current year. The prospects for suitable special relations agreements between the Communities and the other EFTA countries had also improved considerably. Ministers hoped that negotiations to this end should start soon and be pressed forward as rapidly as possible.
The concept of the Communities would provide a good basis for the negotiations which were about to begin. The Community's desire that no new barriers to intra-European trade would be erected as a consequence of enlargement is in line with the strong interest which EFTA Ministers have expressed and reaffirm in safeguarding as an important part of an enlarged European Community the free trade already established between EFTA countries. The forthcoming agreements should also he in conformity with the GATE Ministers stressed the importance which they attached to adherrence to these objectives in the elaboration of the agreements. The exchange of information and consultations between the EFTA countries would continue during these negotiations.
Ministers emphasised the desire of all concerned that all the agreements between the Eves countries and the Communities should enter into force at the same time.
Ministers asked the Council at official level to examine the legal and other implications which will arise in the event of some members acceding to the European Communities, and others establishing special relations with the Communities. They were informed of the intention of the United Kingdom to give notice on 31st December, 1971, of their withdrawal from El-TA. to come into effect on 31st December, 1971.
During their discussion of developments affecting World Trade, Ministers expressed concern that recent monetary and trade measures taken for balance-of-payments reasons could seriously undermine the progress which has been made towards the reduction of restrictions on world trade therefore Ministers hoped that quick solutions could be found in the monetary field and that recently introduced trade restrictions could be removed as rapidly as possible, before lasting damage was done, pending the necessary reform of the international monetary system. Ministers stressed the necessity of continued efforts towards freer world trade and underlined the importance which the activities in organisations such as GATT and the O.E.C.D. will have in this connection.
Ministers stressed the importance of further promoting trade and economic relations between Western and Eastern European countries to the mutual benefit of the parties concerned. They attached special importance to improving the trading possibilities of the developing countries.
The Danish Minister gave an account of the recent measures taken by Denmark to deal with the serious balance-of-payments situation of his country. Ministers expressed their understanding of the difficult problems facing
490
Denmark, but noted with regret the recent decision of the Danish Government to introduce an import surcharge, particularly in the context of the present world trade situation. They instructed the councils at official level to examine the matter further.
Ministers agreed that the next regular Ministerial meeting of the councils will take place in Geneva on 4th and 5th May, 1972.
4.18 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. I note what has been proposed about the Channel Islands, and I hope that this will prove acceptable to the islanders. I understand that that is the next stage in dealing with these proposals. We shall look forward to hearing what the Community's reaction is eventually to the question of the association of Papua and New Guinea. To come to what seems to me to be the most important part of the Statement, that on a Common Fisheries Policy, I hope and believe that I speak for most noble Lords on this side of the House when I say that it was right in this case to reject the Community's proposals as inadequate. It is now for the Six to improve upon these proposals if they are not to be unacceptably damaging to our vital fishing interests.
I should like to put three specific questions and one general question to the noble Baroness. I note that it is the aim now to sign the Treaty of Accession in the week before Christmas. Is the Treaty still to be signed at that time if by then no agreement has been reached on the Common Fisheries Policy? Secondly, if so, shall we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will insist upon a guarantee of the status quo in the Common Fisheries Policy, with the possibility of a veto by this country against any changes?
The third question is this. In the light of the position on fisheries expressed by other candidate countries, particularly the Government of Norway, can the noble Baroness now say what is the present position with regard to our co-ordinated negotiating policy with the other candidate countries, as it seems to me there is now some slight difference between our attitude to fisheries and certainly that of the Government of Norway? My final and more general question which I should like to put to the Government is this. Now that we have got into the heart of

491
this matter of fisheries policy, is this not an opportunity to widen the whole subject and to consult our future partners in the E.E.C. with a view to formulating a common Community policy on fisheries and also a common policy that could be advanced and supported at the International Conference on the Law of the Sea which is clue to take place in 1973 and will cover, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, not only the surface of the sea but the sea itself, the seabed and what lies under it?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement that has been read out by the noble Baroness. We are pleased that there seems to be some prospect that the negotiations between EFTA and the Six will start shortly and get off to a good start. We think it satisfactory that an agreement should have apparently been reached on the Channel Islands, and it looks as if it will go through. The other agreements reached are also clearly welcome.
There remains of course the question of fisheries, which is the main outstanding question, and here it looks as if the Six have made a very considerable advance on their previous position—
LORD BOOTHBY: No, my Lords.
LORD GLADWYN: —which we hope will be taken into consideration. We note, as the noble Lord who has just sat down has noted, that the timetable is that the agreement shall be signed before Christmas. We also note that on November 26 the Fisheries Agreement will come up again. If that is so, is it not a fact that, unless the Fisheries Agreement is finally arrived at on November 26, the prospects of getting the Treaty signed before Christmas are not very good? That being so, are we really going to stand out 100 per cent. for all our desiderata,or should we not contemplate making at any rate some slight concession?
I have two specific questions to ask the Minister. The Statement says, as regards access, that during a
"period of five years … everyone would be free to reserve access to fishing grounds within six-mile limits; a further period of five years during which this could be continued with the approval of the enlarged Community …".
492
How exactly would the decision to accord such approval be taken? It is a very material point whether it is taken by a qualified majority or by unanimity.
The second question I have to ask is this. The Statement says:
"The Community suggested for certain strictly limited geographical areas such as the Orkneys and Shetland Isles a special regime to which a 12-mile limit would apply."
Would that apply indefinitely for the future?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend before she replies—
BARONESS TWEEDSMU IR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think it is the wish of the House that I should reply to the first two questioners first, and then there will be plenty of opportunity for more questions to be asked. I would thank both the noble Lords who have spoken for their general welcome of the Statement and of the considerable progress that has been made, notably on the issue of the Channel Islands. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me three specific questions and one general question. On the first question regarding the Treaty of Accession, I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, also asked exactly the same question. In other words, they asked whether, if we had not in fact reached agreement on fisheries at the next meeting on November 26, we should be able to sign the Treaty of Accession. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has said quite clearly that we shall have to reach agreement on fisheries before signing the Treaty of Accession.
The noble Lord then went on to ask the second question: whether, if agreement was not reached on November 29 (I think I said in error the 26th; I of course meant the 29th), the present position would obtain. We have exclusive jurisdiction up to six miles; certain countries which have historic rights can fish between six and 12 miles, and under the 1964 Convention we have the right to have enforcement measures for conservation reasons up to 12 miles. The third question he asked was whether a coordinated effort was being made to try to get all the candidate countries who are concerned with fisheries to come to some agreement together. There is of course constant consultation on the question, but the interests involved—and

493
the noble Lord particularly noted Norway—are not exactly the same. Therefore we are trying to ensure that, while we keep in touch, nevertheless we shall have, as we hope, a final decision and an agreement made between everyone on November 29.
The noble Lord then asked a more general question on a wider subject, as he called it, about the Common Community policy. It would, of course, be perfectly possible, when we are members of the Common Market, to help in ensuring the future Common Fisheries Policy. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referring to the Orkneys and Shetlands, asked what would happen to the special regime and what would be the position there. The position at the moment is that certain proposals that I recounted to the House had been made by the Council of Ministers. We feel that they have tried to make an improvement on the original position, but we have not accepted it, and therefore this question is not at present in issue.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would thank the noble Baroness for her very reassuring Statement to-day, because, as they stand at the moment, the present proposals of the Six for fishery regulations are totally unacceptable to this country and I think the noble Baroness made that perfectly clear. I was delighted to hear her say that we would not sign the Treaty of Accession until a satisfactory solution of the fisheries problem had been achieved. I would ask her whether we are working in close cooperation with Norway and Eire on this matter, and to a lesser extent perhaps with Denmark, because the four applicant countries have vital interests in the fishing industry which the present Six do not possess—they are not exporters of fish. Their fishing grounds are fished out; ours are prolific and doing very well, and the situation is entirely different so far as we are concerned. I would ask the noble Baroness to repeat her assurance that we will not sign the Treaty of Accession until we get fishery terms—which I cannot for any conceivable reason see why we should not—which are satisfactory to us, to the Norwegians and to the other two applicant countries.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for his miniature speech on a subject about which he cares very much. I said quite clearly (I should hardly have thought it needed repetition) that we wish to get satisfactory arrangements before we can sign the Treaty of Accession—arrangements satisfactory to ourselves. But I would also say that I think, as in the terms of the Statement, that the Community have made a genuine attempt to find a solution, because they had a Common Fisheries Policy and they have agreed to alter it and have tried to understand the problems, which vary among the four applicant countries.
4.30 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I say one or two words on this subject? While the noble Baroness said that the six countries had a Common Fisheries Policy, I think she will admit that this policy came about in rather dubious circumstances and only a few days before we were making application. A decision was arrived at in the most doubtful circumstances, as I think the noble Baroness will admit. The noble Baroness said that a special meeting will be held on November 29—not the 26th, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. The noble Baroness then said that we want to sign this the week before Christmas. Noble Lords will agree that this leaves only a fortnight between the date of the meeting and the date of signing. I want to be sure that, when the noble Baroness says that we shall not sign if we do not get agreement, we shall not then be in a further difficulty, because the statement also says that whatever happens we shall withdraw from EFTA on December 31. We might well be in the position that we have not got agreement in regard to the E.E.C. but we shall be out of EFTA, which I think would put us in an impossible position.
May I also ask some further questions about the 10 to 12 mile limit? At the present time we have complete control over our own waters for a distance of up to 6 miles. In the waters between 6 and 12 miles certain countries are at present entitled to fish. The only two people who might come in are the Danes and the Luxembourgers; and I do not mind

495
Luxembourg sending their fishing fleet across into our 6 to 12 mile limit because I do not think it would make much impression. But outside that, I should like to be perfectly clear about the position. The noble Baroness said that in 10 years' time the whole thing will become perfectly free. Does that not mean that for up to five years the 6-mile limit will be preserved, but from then on there will be a whittling away of the rights in our own waters, and that at the end of 10 years we shall have no rights left inside our own fishing grounds? If that is true, the only thing that will remain will be the Orkneys and Shetlands, with the 10-mile limit to safeguard their rights.
In the course of her Statement, the noble Baroness said that we welcome the various adjustments which we have requested. Perhaps she could spell out what these various adjustments were. We will be glad to welcome them if we know what they are, but if we do not know what they are we can hardly welcome them. Secondly, the Statement referred to improved relations for producer organisations. What are the improved relations for producer organisations? These are exceedingly important for the fishing industry.
Thirdly, the noble Baroness said that we had made provisions for the marketing of frozen fish. This is an important section of our industry, and I should like to know what these provisions are, because there is a considerable section, not only of the fishing industry but of the communities that the industry supplies, who are dependent upon this for their livelihood. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would spell out what this means.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his interesting examination of the Statement. Dealing first with the meeting on November 29, he seemed to feel that it was rather a short time if we came to a successful conclusion in regard to the fisheries policy—
LORD HOY: No, my Lords; unsuccessful.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am taking the first point at the moment. If we are successful on November 29 we are to sign
496
the Treaty of Accession in the week before Christmas and the noble Lord asked whether this was not rather a short time. Perhaps it would interest the House to know that a group of jurists representing the applicants, the Council of Ministers and the Commission, are now engaged in the joint drafting of the single composite Treaty of Accession on the basis of decisions made at the negotiating conference. Therefore some preliminary work has already been done. Under our obligations towards EFTA, we agreed when we all joined together that we would give a year's notice of our intention to withdraw. That is in fact a year starting at the end of December of this year, and of course a year later we would withdraw from EFTA.
The noble Lord then asked a question with regard to the period of 10 years mentioned in the Statement. If he will look at the Statement again—I expect there is a copy on the Front Bench opposite—he will see that what it suggests is that there should be a further period of five years after the first five, during which the fishing grounds would be reserved for a six-mile limit with the approval of the enlarged Community, and of course this refers also to the question put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. If we felt that it was one of our vital interests we would need a unanimous approval, but this is not at the moment in question because we have said that we could not accept it.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government have the right of veto?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as the noble Lords knows, if you have to have unanimous approval that means that it is a right of veto.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked me particularly about the adjustments, and he referred to the second part of the Statement, concerning marketing arrangements for fish. So far as we have gone at the moment, all we have said is that we welcome their readiness to examine various adjustments, and if I may give one example particularly on the marketing question, it is that there should not be one fixed price but a variation of prices which would take into account those who are in remote areas.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether, in the course of negotiations which have taken place or are taking place, consideration has been given to placing the Western Hebrides in as advantageous a position as the Orkneys and Shetlands? The noble Baroness may agree that the narrow basis of life there does not really permit of any concessions whatsoever, especially when the benefits of them inure essentially to industrialised areas.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that he will be aware that under the present arrangements, where we have exclusive rights of fishing up to 6 miles and conservation rights up to 12 miles, without discrimination, the 6 miles in fact covers the whole of the Minch, which is of great importance to the Western Hebrides.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this debate too far, but may I put two further brief questions? On the position of Norway, apparently I did not make one thing explicit. If the public position of the Government of Norway means anything at all, it is that they are standing out for some extremely stiff changes in the present position of the Common Market. I should like to be assured that Her Majesty's Government will not accept anything less than that which is granted to the Government of Norway in these negotiations. Finally, I should like to make the point in regard to the 1973 Conference. The noble Baroness referred to a joint policy on fisheries, but I should like to make it plain that I was talking about the joint position of the whole of the law of the sea, including fisheries.
BARONESS TWEEDSMU1R OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I take the last point first. I am glad that the noble Lord made it clear about the whole question of fisheries, and certainly we shall do our best to try to get a common attitude on this question, which is of extreme importance to us. On the question of Norway, as I said earlier, the interests of the candidate countries vary. As the noble Lord will know, the interests of the deep sea fishermen of this country are not quite the same as the inshore interests, and that is why he said that we must get satisfactory arrangements
498
for our fisheries. It does not mean that it has to be exactly the same as Norway.
LORD HOY: My Lords, there is an important point arising out of the last answer made by the noble Baroness. I do not in any way seek to minimise the importance of the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference, but she will know that next year our fishermen in the distant water fleet will be in a difficult position. Indeed, I hope that she will take into consideration the threat of Iceland to extend her fishing limits to 50 miles, which will cause tremendous concern, if not in fact considerable danger, to our distance water fleet.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I say I am very glad that the noble Lord has made that point, because, of course, it is very much in the United Kingdom's interest that whatever arrangements are made on fishing there cannot then be a unilateral extension of fishing rights.

EDUCATION POLICIES AND SOCIAL EQUALITY
4.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before the debate on the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is resumed, I should like, with the permission of the House, to apologise to the House on the matter of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. We were all looking forward to hearing his maiden speech, and when I discovered that he was not in the House I made inquiries and discovered that he never had any intention of speaking in this debate. What I am afraid happened—and the responsibility is firmly mine—is that the name of Lord Beaumont came through as wishing to speak, and as it was only a day or two previously that I had seen Lord Beaumont and heard that he wished to sit on the Cross Benches and was going to take an active part in the House, I assumed that it was that Lord Beaumont and not Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who has already addressed the House. Therefore I am afraid your Lordships will be deprived of the pleasure of listening to Lord Beaumont this afternoon. I do apologise.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am bound to say that the House regards this failure by the Government Chief Whip with the greatest seriousness. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, should not have been in the sackcloth and ashes, too, because the message came from him. However, think we are prepared to overlook it, and we look forward with even greater pleasure to the maiden speech of the real Lord Beaumont in due course.
4.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, your Lordships have listened to two very interesting speeches in this debate, and I will try in my own remarks to follow them, but, with your Lordships' permission, I will answer the debate at the end. My Lords,
"And one man is as good as another and a great deal better, as the Irish philosopher said",
is a warning of a possible state of absurdity which Thackerary once gave. I think this warning the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, avoided in her speech. She showed the House that her interpretation of this Motion is the need to pay particular attention to the education of children who start life with the greatest handicaps, be they mental, physical, social or environmental. A familiar picture which is sometimes painted of education is that of a pyramid, with the broad base of primary population and the tapered summit of further and higher education. I suggest it is natural, when each new Secretary of State takes over, that he or she should take the view that perhaps some parts of the pyramid have been over-strengthened and others dangerously neglected.
What is essential is that the Secretary of State of the day should take a dispassionate view. I am sure that many of your Lordships here this afternoon will understand at first hand what I mean by that, for you will comprehend very well, and often share, the hopes and ideals of the many people who are often totally committed to a particular sector of education. The trouble is that this can never be the part of Government, which has a responsibility to the whole school career of a child, a career which must
500
be a continuing process. Recently Mr. Edward Short declared his belief in secondary education for everyone up to the age of 18 years of age, and about six months ago lie called for nursery education on demand for every child from the age of 3. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the right honourable gentleman will know that these statements are the symptoms of a generous desire to offer to all children everything in education which he would want for his own. The sentiment is entirely admirable, but I suggest that the method is hardly practicable.
The increase in the educational budget in the last decade has surely been one of the most remarkable manifestations which has been seen in any country in modern times of national demand on Government, but always there has had to be an expenditure ceiling. True, the ceiling can be raised sometimes if the Government are prepared to switch resources within a programme—a matter which has caused great opposition, even in your Lordships' House, in the last few months—and the ceiling may be jacked up permanently provided that the gross national product of the country presents an expanding façade into which the educational element may fit. Thus I do not think any of your Lordships would for one moment deny the added educational opportunity which might have been ours as a leading member of the European Economic Community in the 1960s; and we all hope for an increasing educational budget in the decade that lies ahead.
"But are you doing the best with what you have got?" That is a fair question at any time to any Government. We have declared our priority; it is to strengthen the base of the pyramid; it is to do our best for the primary schools. If children cannot mix freely together at the primary school stage they never will, and it is because this vital stage of school, on which a child's subsequent career depends, was crying out for extra help eighteen months ago that my right honourable friend announced her primary school building campaign. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said in her speech. This is surely a policy of social equality—equality of opportunity. Eighteen months ago it was thought that

501
4,500 primary schools were in unsatisfactory buildings which would need an expenditure of £180 million. Then there were further returns from the local education authorities which showed that the total number of these schools was nearer 6,000, and including the 13 per cent. higher cost limits approved last autumn the bill escalated to some £250 to £260 million. May I make it plain that this target is not to replace all pre-1903 primary schools, some of which are still excellent buildings if they have modern facilities through minor projects; the £260 million is needed for all the pre-1903 primary schools for which there is a longterm need and which call for a major rebuilding project.
The total value of all major building work to be started this year and next will run at record levels. We are indeed proud that my right honourable friend has already announced nearly £190 million for her first four building programmes for primary school improvements; because one in every five of our primary school children are in 19th century buildings, compared with only one in twenty of those in the secondary sector. In addition to the major building programme my right honourable friend has asked Her Majesty's Inspectorate for an assessment of the handicaps of bad school buildings in rural areas. She is doing this at a critical moment, just as we are thinking of the next detailed announcement for the 1974–75 building programme. Fresh thought, therefore, can he given to the claims of the rural schools.
We have also recently increased the cost limits for minor works from £30,000 to £40,000 and allocated an extra £5 million to local education authorities in areas of high unemployment for this year and next taken together. If we had the advantage of a chief education officer as a Member of your Lordships' House I think we should hear more frequently than we do the case for increases in minor works by means of which local education authorities and voluntary schools can transform a school. I am glad to be able to tell the House of this extra very large sum which we have been able to send to the areas of greatest need.
When discussing younger children, two points are frequently at issue. The first is the value of the "head-start", as the
502
Americans call it, if it means nursery education taking place in isolation—the point the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made as his main point at the end of his speech and to which I will try to refer later in the debate.
Secondly, surely we must consider closely the cost-effectiveness of nursery schools, where over £200 per annum for each full-time child is really more than the cost of a secondary place for a young person under the sixth form. When the Plowden Committee reported six years ago, their recommendation was that half of our 3-year-olds, and 90 per cent. of our 4-year-olds, should have mainly part-time nursery education. This would entail to-day about £100 million of capital spending, and about £50 million of recurrent spending per annum.Thus it is that subsequent Government policy followed another Plowden concept; that of "positive discrimination" for the most deprived areas.
To their credit the previous Government launched the urban programme to help those areas, and approved about 10,000 extra places in nursery schools and classes. I am glad to be able to report to the House that in eighteen months we shall have achieved almost as much as our predecessors did in six years. By this year's end we shall have approved about 8,000 further nursery places in deprived areas, including about 3,000 which come under the capital programme for areas of high unemployment. In addition, and all over the country, there are to-day over 200,000 children who are to be found in what are called the play groups. This is one of the most striking examples of self-help in the last few years, and the value of these groups to both children and adults should never be underestimated. My right honourable friend has doubled her grant to the Pre-School Play Groups Association itself, and under the Urban Programme help is being given, through local authorities, to play groups in the deprived areas with a 75 per cent. grant from the Exchequer.
Next year an Order will be laid before both Houses (and will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure) for the raising of the school-leaving age to become effective on September 1, 1972. Your Lordships will recall that this move was announced by the noble Lord, Lord

503
Boyle, when he was Minister in 1964, and I think it is worth weighing for a moment the need for a move which is going to cost £125 million in extra school-building alone. A 16-year-old school-leaving age was envisaged in 1938 when the Spens Committee reported, and it was provided for specifically in the Education Act 1944. Those who are worried by the prospect of reluctant 16-year-olds and the problem of truancy (if there may be some of your Lordships among them) still wish, I know, to encourage more voluntary staying on. But in 1959 the Crowther Report, and in 1963 the Newsom Report, examined just this argument, and concluded that the voluntary process was too slow and that as a nation we really could not afford to wait. Since then the percentage has risen: from 1964 to 1970 it has gone up from 36-9 to 54-8 per cent. But still there are significant regional variations. Consider the case of an area where the voluntary rate for staying on is low but where an infusion of life, which perhaps new industry can bring, is needed. In this context I believe that this act really will be a step up to a levelling up of opportunities, which is precisely the objective and almost exactly the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, in another place seven years ago.
In a speech earlier this year my right honourable friend recalled that when the school-leaving age was raised to 15 in 1947 it was described then as "an act of faith". To-day the buildings are going up, the teaching force is increasing, and for a period of seven years the Schools Council has been giving a high priority to preparing the curriculum. I think it is fair to hold the view that the raising of the school-leaving age has been planned not just as an extra year tacked on at the end of the school course, but as part of the secondary course as a whole. In August we asked, in a circular, for all authorities to let us have by December 1 reports on their state of preparedness, and we asked also for indications of any further action which the authorities envisaged before the operative date.
Many of your Lordships may feel that colleges of further education can play an important part in the success of the raising of the age. In recent years the
504
schools have been developing linked courses, as we call them, with further education, and in February, 1969 (this is the latest figure I have), some 13,700 pupils were using further education facilities in exactly this way. Our Circular 8/71, to which I have just referred, drew attention to this significant development, to which the raising of the school-leaving age may be expected to offer new possibilities for further growth. The majority of these linked courses have a vocational element, and I thought that the House would wish for a reassurance that it will be perfectly possible, after September 1 of next year, for the adult world of further education to co-operate with the schools after the raising of the age becomes effective.
My Lords, may I, very briefly, say a word about two groups of children who demand particular attention—the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, certainly referred to both of them. From 1966, the first year for the collection of immigrant statistics, the numbers of children of overseas parentage increased rapidly, by 30,000 or 40,000 a year. In the last three years, however, we have found the increase slackening, and provisional figures show a total of 270,000 children of overseas parentage, and fewer of them under the age of 8 this year than last. But it is the concentration of these children who need special attention, if they are to have an equal opportunity, that presents the real problem. Some of your Lordships may recall an early Schools Council Working Paper which identified the learning of English as a second language as being the central matter in the academic chances of an immigrant child in a British school, and warned that, while loyalty to native culture is a natural impulse, the pupil absolutely must to some extent become involved in the life of this country if he is going to profit from school attendance here. However, that publication pointed out that there is an alternative, and it is the least rewarding path of all—that is, to drift; to make no effort at all to preserve the old or acquire a new way of life. And the consequences, that Paper said, might be called "marginal man", with no culture, no base, and no psychological security.
It is the stark reality of that possibility that draws attention to all that is

505
being done in the field to-day. There are the reception classes, the language centres, the extra equipment—all depending, I know, on local authority initiative. There are the special grants to local authorities for extra staff. There are increases for teacher quotas, and the special teacher's allowance for schools of exceptional difficulty which has recently been increased to £83. The contribution of the Urban Programme to nursery education will, I think, be of special benefit because it is beamed, as I have said, to difficult areas. Four years ago, following the Plowden Report, the last Government commissioned a very large action research project, financed by the Social Science Research Council and the Department, concerned with five deprived areas. This project has been completed, and we await with interest the report of its director, Dr. Halsey, on the success of the measures taken to improve educational opportunities in these areas. Meanwhile, again under the Urban Programme, we are helping the five authorities concerned to continue with the work in those projects which they think to be the most valuable.
The second group about which I want to say a word or two are the handicapped, for whom the educational system assumed full responsibility on April 1 of this year. I know of the vast fund of experience on this subject in this House, but perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if, after the debates we had on the Bill on Transfer and the subsequent debates in this last year, I mention only two things. First, I think your Lordships will wish to know that members of the Inspectorate have been carrying out a survey of the transferred premises to see what improvements will be necessary in their future building programmes. Secondly, the new three-year initial training courses for teachers of the mentally handicapped should increase the overall stock of teachers annually and, in addition, there will be an annual intake of existing teachers through in-service training. Despite the really remarkable work of the Training Council on the running of courses for the diplomas in the past, it is notable that these three-year courses already in operation are producing more qualified teachers for this work than the number of diploma holders previously emerging from the one and two year
506
courses, and I am sure that this is something which all of us will be pleased to know.
Inevitably, in a debate of this sort—and I am afraid that I have been as guilty of it as anybody—one must focus on the resources which are to be provided and the plans which are being made. But I think it would be shortsighted to omit any consideration of our motives for the organisation of secondary education in a child's career. It is my own view that we should never disregard the wisdom of the 1944 Education Act, which left the way open for various forms of organisation, and of course along that way have moved the comprehensive schools. But the open-mindedness of 27 years ago, which opened the way to innovation, surely carries a warning to those who seek to destroy all other forms of secondary education. In a time of still scarce resources, we still have much to gain from many parts of the education system.: and not least from the direct grant and independent schools. We gave an Election pledge to encourage the direct grant system. From next January, we intend to raise the general capitation grant to repair the cut of £20, which was imposed by the previous Government, by an increase of £30, and we intend a considerable upward revision of the income scales for a remission of school fees. These schools already offer an excellent education to a wide variety of pupils, and the increase of about £2 million per annum in public spending will do this, my Lords. It will facilitate a further widening of the intake of these schools for, with the extra capitation grant, we are requiring a matching reduction in tuition fees, and the alterations to the remission scales to reach across a very wide income band.
Equality—that is to say, the pursuit of equality of opportunity—and excellence are, I believe, two strands in the fabric of secondary education. But they must be joined by diversity. Since June of last year, my right honourable friend has received 2,889 proposals for changes in schools, of which she has rejected just 27. More than 1,000 proposals have related to secondary schools and of these, since last April alone, we have approved a wide variety. I would not minimise the difficulties of the varied pattern of schools which stem from differing local

507
circumstances, differing modes of educational thought and different stocks of existing buildings. But, surely, the need of education is evolutionary, and the caution and care which have been required for many years at local level call for matching responsibility at the Department in London. That is why I suggest that we must examine critically the proposals for schools on split sites, and determine whether the drawbacks are outweighed by the educational advantages. There is also the value of smaller schools, where it is interesting to find that voluntary staying-on rates are, for some reason, above the national average.
I believe that the preference for moderately sized schools has been a factor in middle school development. We should always consider, should we not, the suitability of middle schools to stretch the abilities of the brighter child, which is surely relevant in the context of this Motion. But in the context of middle schools, the strange fact is that we have few firm guidelines. We have been approving schools which range considerably in size. There are mixtures of 8-12 or 9-13 schools, and some local education authorities include provision for both. It always surprised me that Circular 10/65 gave, I think it is fair to say, no very firm lead on the desirability of a break at 13 or 14, and it is important that my right honourable friend is reluctant to see the later transfer age year. Linked courses, and gradually sixth-form colleges, are becoming familiar features—
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I have Circular 10/65 here and on page 2, paragraph 3(6), it specifically mentions the age of 13 and the middle school.
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I apologise if I am misleading your Lordships—the noble Baroness has a great deal more experience in this matter than I have. I think that the Circular which I do not have in my hand—mentions the ages of 13 and 14 several times, but my point is that I do not think it gives any very clear lead on which is the age to go for. As I was saying, linked courses and gradually sixth-form colleges are becoming familiar features, but of the five schemes for sixth-form work situated
508
exclusively in further education, only one, Exeter, is fully operative, and only time is going to reveal the pros and cons which none of us at the moment know for sure.
It was Dr. Michael Young, in his book, The Rise of the Meritocracy,who warned of where equality of opportunity could lead. One of the most significant developments of the 1960s has been the concept of school as part of the community, and the much more general concept of the two-way benefits for broad development of the individual which can flow from this idea. In assessing secondary organisation, I am convinced that our eyes should be glued to the telescope which is focused on the finish of the secondary school course. We should be looking for evidence of whether each pupil's ability has been extended to the full, and whether each pupil is aware of the duties within society which his or her ability involves or imposes. In saying that, I think that not so much divides myself from the noble Baroness who spoke first.
May I finish by saying a word about further and higher education? I make little apology for having devoted the major part of this speech to education at the school level. It is our belief that it is both the most effective and appropriate use of resources to concentrate on improving the child's development in his formative years. We do not think that all is determined by the age of seven; there are indeed some among us whose talents may not be awakened until even the age of 17. One of the great strengths of our varied educational system is that we do not leave these late developers simply to be forgotten. The further education sector provides an alternative route for their opportunity. Possibly the greatest virtue of further education is the flexibility with which it caters for the needs of the individual—flexibility which comes from its undoubted diversity. It is a matter of great concern, particularly, perhaps, to many of your Lordships, that this diverse system should be able to meet the pressures of the next decade.
In this connection, I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to a striking article in the first issue of The Times Higher Education Supplement, a new and vigorous younger brother for The Times

509
Educational Supplement. The article was by Sir Eric Ashby, a most distinguished spokesman for the university world, or, as he called it, the academic establish-ment. He conjectured that by 1980 some 800,000 young people will be seeking higher education and he posed the question: how is this to be provided? His answer stems from a quotation which he gave from Dr. Alvin Weinberg:
"Our society is mission-oriented. Its mission is resolution of problems arising from social, technical and psychological conflicts and pressures… In society the non-specialist and synthesiser is king. The university by contrast is discipline-oriented… The problems it deals with are, by and large, the problems generated and solved within the disciplines themselves…In the university the specialist and analyst is king."
Sir Eric went on to examine the likelihood that the universities will be able to make the radical change in their style of teaching that is needed if, in the con-text of further expansion, the demand of the young for "relevance", for what he calls "exercises in mission-oriented thinking", is to be met. Sir Eric judges that this is something which universities are not designed to give, either by tradition, social function or by the qualification and experience of their teaching staffs, and he reaches the final conclu-sion that the academic establishment has no solution whatever to offer.
If I may say so, with great respect, the Government are in a slightly better posture. When we were last in Office, we laid the foundations for a great expansion of the universities, of the further education institutions and of the colleges of education. Our successors followed this up with their most important decision to create 30, and to develop 30, polytechnics. As my right honourable friend announced last Friday in another place, she is giving this policy a new and vigorous thrust by her decision greatly to increase the building programmes for polytechnics and other further education colleges. We are aiming to authorise some £140 million of starts over the three years from 1973-74, and this will represent an increase of about 75 per cent. over the allocations for the previous three years. We attach importance to the enlargement of choice and opportunity that will be provided by the growing diversity of institutions. The needs of the discipline-oriented are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my
510
right honourable friend, being superbly catered for by the universities. But there is a need also for institutions which will take as their paramount task, particularly at the undergraduate stage, education in what A. N. Whitehead once called, "the acquisition of the art of the utilisation of knowledge".
Perhaps I might, finally, take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, who when in office did so much to establish the Open University. We, for our part, have welcomed this institution not only as an extension of the principle of diversity but also as potentially a substantive instrument for the rethinking of the curriculum and methodology of teaching at the tertiary level in general. It would be rash to predict the future growth of so young a child—the Open University is, I think, rather nearer seven months than seven years old—but its impact may well extend far beyond its immediate students. What needs no prediction is that it offers the opportunity of higher education to a variety of people who for many reasons have never had the benefit of a traditional degree course.
My Lords, I apologise for keeping your Lordships, and I must confess that I had misgivings over some ambiguity in the Motion this afternoon. I had half hoped that in Lady Phillips's plea for social equality she would have drawn attention to the fact that while, in connection with the Census, the Registrar General places university teachers, judges and bishops in Social Class I, he relegates Ministers of the Crown to Social Class II, where they are proud to share this status with, among others, occupational therapists, housekeepers, sculptors and self-employed agricultural machinery drivers. In education, every Government will be judged on where the available money has been placed. I hope that I have described the multitude of places in the pyramid which need and are receiving special attention. But our main objectives are to improve the apex of higher and further education, and this I think has been amply demonstrated by my right honourable friend's recent announcement on the further education building programme. We will try to strengthen the upper parts by the raising of the school-leaving age, and we are carrying out urgent work to the broad

511
base of the primary schools—a policy in the fullest sense for everyone, and a policy of which, in years to come, I believe, everyone may be justly proud.
5.12 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I must begin with an apology. I regard it as discourteous to take part in a debate and then to leave before the end of it; but since I have to reach Yorkshire this evening and the debate is running rather late, it may be that I shall have to leave before the debate is over. I think it might have been considered equally discourteous if, as the immediate ex-Minister with responsibility for schools, I had not spoken in this debate, and I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell for making it possible for me to make my speech earlier than otherwise.
The noble Lord who has just spoken has outlined many things which are being done at the present time in the Department of Education and Science, most of which were initiated during our period of Government. We initiated the education priority areas, the nursery school places in the education priority areas, the special education programmes for immigrants and the transfer of the responsibility for the mentally handicapped children from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Department of Education and Science. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Phillips for initiating this debate this afternoon, and for stressing social equality. Over the years, steady progress has been made in education. Even under a Conservative Government, with such a progressive and enlightened Minister as the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, there were considerable achievements, and I hope I am not bringing too much of a partisan attitude into this debate when I feel I have to say that now, with Mrs. Thatcher as the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and with 16 months of her reactionary policy, the clock has been set back several years. Expenditure on education rose from £1,400 million in 1963-64 to £2,300 million in 1968-69, and school building doubled. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has to-day referred to the fact that we have got more teachers. We have got more teachers because the number of teachers in training rose from just over 53,000 in 1963 to 115,000 in 1969;
512
that is why at the present time we are able to look forward to a reduction in the size of classes.
Great play has been made about the primary school building programme, and great publicity has been given to the fact that Mrs. Thatcher is allocating a certain amount of money to improving primary schools. We are all glad to see new primary schools. We built many. New places in primary schools rose from just over 100,000 in 1963-64 to over 230,000 in 1968-69. It has been said by Mrs. Thatcher that the money which she has saved on milk has gone to the primary school building programme. This is complete nonsense. It is completely misleading to give the impression that the money being spent on the improvement of primary schools is an extra expenditure on school building, because it quite clearly is not. The amount spent on major school building programmes, excluding the special allocations for the raising of the school-leaving age. was £132 million in 1969-70; in 1972-71 including the primary improvements, it will be only £125 million; and in 1973-74 it will have gone up to only £140 million.
I know noble Lords might ask the question: where then is the money coming from for the improvements in primary school building? It has been made possible for two reasons. First of all, Mrs. Thatcher has had a windfall in that the amount needed for basic needs—that is roofs overhead for new housing estates, New Towns and so on—is beginning to go down. The basic programme is going down from £43 million on primary schools in 1970-71 to only £20½ million in 1973-74; and it is from here that this money is being obtained in order to improve the primary schools. Now I am very pleased that these improvements are taking place. When I was the Minister dealing with school building I often wished that people would all stay in one place and not so move about the country that we had to provide new schools for new housing estates and New Towns. Now it is beginning to happen, and it is because of that that, with the same amount of money, there is more to spend —and I am pleased about this—on improvements to primary schools.
The other reason why there is more to spend on the improvement of primary schools is that Mrs. Thatcher has decided

513
that there should be no money for improvements, but only for basic need, in secondary schools. These two factors together— the drop in the basic need plus the fact that Mrs. Thatcher is going to abolish completely any money for building new secondary schools—means that there is this money available for primary schools. Every Education Minister has to consider priorities—I know that, and every Minister in every Department knows it—and I know that there is a good deal of support for giving priority to old primary schools. But I think she has been wrong to throw all her eggs into one basket. I think some of this money might have been used for new nursery places, and certainly there are many sub-standard secondary schools as well as primary schools. In the secondary stage, it is not always the school building. Many secondary schools are quite inadequate and ill-equipped for the education of to-day's teenagers. They lack proper science laboratories, and all the other practical rooms that are so necessary. But one of the serious consequences of withholding the money for secondary school improvement is that it will slow down comprehensive reorganisation. Quite clearly it will do that; and it may be that this is the reason it has been done. For three years I went through all the secondary school reorganisation schemes from local authorities and I know what this is going to mean to those schemes. I know that it will mean a postponement for some local authorities.
Not only will it mean the slowing down of building for secondary schools, but Mrs. Thatcher is slowing down the programme of comprehensive reorganisation. She has withdrawn Circular 10/65 and has issued Circular 10/70. I was very surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, criticise Circular 10/65 because, he said, it did not, as it were, say which scheme the Ministry, our Ministry, preferred the local authorities to carry out. I thought that the Conservative Government were opposed to compelling local authorities to go in any particular direction. Indeed, we made a point in Circular 10/65 not of compelling local authorities to go comprehensive—some of my noble friends thought that we ought to have done that—but of requesting them to go comprehensive; and we showed the ways in which they could do
514
so. I would have had no quarrel with Mrs. Thatcher had she said that she did not believe in compelling local authorities to go comprehensive. I would compel the local authority to go comprehensive; but the Conservative Party have always made it clear that they disagreed with this. What Mrs. Thatcher has clearly shown in withdraw-ing Circular 10/65—which, as I say, merely requested local authorities to go comprehensive—and in substituting 10/70 is that not only is she opposed to compelling local authorities to go comprehensive, but she is against encouraging the local authorities to go comprehensive. Indeed, from all the speeches I have heard, she is against the principle of comprehensive education altogether.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. I gave the figures for the number of schemes which my right honourable friend has approved since she went to the Department in June of last year. I think that the noble Baroness would not wish to mislead the House. Someone who has approved, out of nearly 3,000 schemes, all but 27 can hardly be said to be obviously against comprehensive education.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I am quite sure that if we look at some parts of the country (my noble friend has re-minded me of Surrey; and there is even Mrs. Thatcher's own constituency, in Barnet) we can see what has happened. There is all the difference in the world between having a Minister at the Depart-ment of Education and Science who encourages local authorities to go comprehensive and one who shows that she is lukewarm; for in the latter case it means that the schemes do not come forward.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would care to give me any specific instances in Barnet I will seek to give her, when I come to wind up, a reply as to where she feels that the Secretary of State is unfair.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will read the exchanges which occurred in the other place in the debate last Friday he will find all the information he desires. I sat through the whole of the comprehensive education Bill with Mrs. Thatcher, and I must say that the

515
speeches she made throughout the Committee stage led me to believe that she was against the principle of comprehensive education.
My Lords, I turn now to direct grant schools. Here again we can see the same thing happening. There was the announcement last week that there is to be an extra £30 a year and a lowering of the income scales for this help. I have here the Yorkshire Post for Saturday, November 6—and the Yorkshire Post is not given to criticising a Conservative Minister. The leading article begins by saying:
"Plans to increase the capitation grant per pupil at direct grant schools accord oddly with the Government's decision to reduce the school milk service and increase the charges for school meals."
That is taken from what is usually the Conservative Yorkshire Post.But the important thing about this step, is not that money is being used that could have been used better in other places, but that by doing this Mrs. Thatcher has completely thrown overboard the recommendations of the Royal Commission, of the Donnison Report on independent day schools and direct grant grammar schools. The Public Schools Commission which produced this Report considered this question for two and a half years, and at the end concluded that the direct grant schools should either become fully independent or become part of the State scheme. This view is shared by the Association of Education Committees because Dr. Alexander, in the October 1 edition of Education(this was before Mrs. Thatcher made this announcement) reminded us that the Association of Education Committees had gone on record and had given evidence to the Royal Commission that the direct grant schools ought either to be independent or to become part of the State system.
It is argued, as the noble Lord has tried to argue, that the direct grant schools are special schools—and often the Manchester Grammar School is quoted—and therefore ought to remain as they are. In fact, the 178 direct grant schools are no different from other gram-mar schools except that they receive a direct grant from the Government and are not part of the State scheme. In return, they must offer at least 25 per
516
cent. so-called "free" places to local authorities. Incidentally, these free places are not free to the local authorities who pay for them, but only to the children who go to them. But the Donnison Commission (at page 5, paragraph 10) state clearly:
Taking direct grant grammar schools as a whole, their curriculum, teachers, equipment and costs are much the same as those of the maintained grammar schools. The achievements of their pupils appear to be similar to those of pupils … in other grammar schools."
It is sometimes said that there is a greater social mix in direct grant schools than in grammar schools. Again, para-graph 11 of the Donnison Report, says:
"The schools have been praised for their diverse social composition and criticised for their exclusiveness. In fact they educate a broader mixture of social classes than the wholly independent schools, but have few children of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, and are therefore more exclusive than the average maintained school."
These, then, are the direct grant schools; but the serious thing about what Mrs. Thatcher has done is this. I know, through dealing for three years with all the comprehensive reorganisation schemes in the country, that in some towns the direct grant schools are a stumbling block to the adoption of comprehensive education. How can local authorities abolish the eleven-plus and then have some kind of super-selection to determine which children go to the direct grant schools? This is the whole kernel of it. I know that some local authorities have decided not to take up any more places in the direct grant schools. But, some local authorities, where they rely on the places, must, unless more schools are built, take up their places. And this means that they have to have some method of determining which of their children go to the direct grant schools. In Leeds, the city that I used to represent. where they are now planning their comprehensive schools, they have had one idea, which has not a great deal to commend it, of leaving it to the heads of the direct grant schools to choose which children from the City of Leeds shall be paid for by the local authorities at the direct grant schools. I do not want to destroy these direct grant schools. I believe that they could make a valuable contribution in the areas where they are to a comprehensive system of education; and that

517
is what I believe they ought to do. But what Mrs. Thatcher did last week was to give these schools a shot in the arm and throw overboard the whole of the Donnison Commission Report.
I should like to look at some of the things we ought to he thinking about in the future. At the time we left Office, we were preparing to issue a Green Paper which was to form the basis of a new Education Act. The last Education Act was in 1944 and it is surely time that we had a new one. I would be the first to admit that administration in education is probably as important as legislation, but nevertheless I think there are some important problems which ought to be attended to at the present time and this could form the basis of a new Education Act.
There is the whole question—this is particularly apt at a time when we are to have new local authority areas of the relationship between Government and the local authorities. When I was at the Department I found that I had no power in respect of some of the important matters in education, but sometimes I was called on to adjudicate in quite small matters. I will give one example. I believe that comprehensive education should not be left to the whim of a local authority. It is just as important, in my opinion, as the school leaving age and it ought to be dealt with nationally, while leaving a local authority to adopt its own scheme. I believe that a system of maintenance grants for those who stay on at school in later years is something that ought to be on a national scale and not a local scale; but I always found it irk-some when I had to determine, in the case of a dispute between a parent and the education authority, which school a child should attend. I felt that I did not know as much about this as the people in the locality.
There is a further point that I should like to raise, and I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to deal with it when we come to discuss the new Local Government Bill. I am very disturbed about what is happening in the metropolitan areas with regard to education. The Department of Education and Science gave evidence before the Royal Com-mission on Local Government and said
518
that no local education authority ought to have fewer than half a million population. Giving education to the lower tier in metropolitan areas and not to the upper tier means that some education authorities will have a population of 200,000 and fewer and will not be big enough to be a viable education authority and to pro-vide adequate services. I come from the West Riding, my Lords. I have lived there all my life; I was educated there and I taught there. I am greatly disturbed at the way in which the county is split up for education purposes. In the little districts which have been created as local education authorities, poorer areas have been separated from richer areas. The poorer industrial areas of the West Riding, with a low rateable value, will have to stand on their own feet, and I hope that this will be looked at.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have spoken for far too long, and in conclusion I should like to say that I believe that the content and form of education of the young must inevitably influence the social structure of our society and thus privilege and inequality in our education system will create a society of privilege and in-equality. Everything that this Government have done so far in the field of education is, I believe, leading to a greater social inequality.
5.34 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, to me education is a subject of enormous importance, not least because it must have a lasting effect for good or ill on all who receive it. Nowadays, a great deal is talked about the quality of life. Surely, there is no more effective way to improve this than to give to all the nation's children the best education possible. The terms of the Motion this afternoon refer to
"the need for educational policies which pay full regard to the requirements of social equality."
Social equality is a concept which, to me, is difficult to define with any precision at all. What seems to me to be a much more useful exercise is to see what opportunities there are within the educational system for those children who are handicapped by inadequate parents or poor homes. in this context meaning particularly homes in which education is not regarded as important. May I say at the outset that, as someone who has served

519
for 12 years on a local authority education committee, I believe whole-heartedly in what I say and I have, to the best of my ability, worked for those children for whom I have any responsibility whatever.
My Lords, there seem to me to be two major pieces of Government policy which go a very long way towards helping the children I have described. The first is the increased expenditure on primary schools. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has given the figures. Over the four years from 1972-73 until 1975-76 nearly £188 million will be spent on replacements and the improvement of primary schools. I should like to say what effect this will have on my own authority. We are a very small education authority with a population of approximately 110,000. But this process means the replacement of an old primary school, built between the years 1860 and 1870, at least a year earlier than would otherwise have been the case. It means the replacement of a school built in 1902 and a third school which we hope will be included in the Department of Education's design list for 1974–75. For us it will mean the replacement or remodel-ling of every old primary school within the authority. I very much support the increase in minor works which allows education authorities to remodel the old primary schools and bring them up to date.
I should be the first to admit that we are in a very fortunate position; but I would say that if, in an authority with which I am very familiar. we can do as much, surely in Northern boroughs, with their big problems and in London where there are enormous problems, there must be progress with a building programme such as we have been told about. Among other things, inadequate and obsolete buildings mean that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to introduce modern teaching methods and curricula. Even if we do not go all the way with modern educational theories and open plan schools, we would all agree that there are great educational advantages in having the opportunity to provide a curriculum to allow for children to learn painting and take music and movement and drama; let alone having a library attractively designed to entice the young readers. All these activities require space,
520
and frequently special apparatus, none of which may be available in a school built for children in neat rows to be taught the three "Rs".
Far more important for these reasons are, I believe, the advantages to a child from a poor home of coming into a school newly built and experiencing for the first time good physical surroundings and the opportunity to explore and find out about books and music. The early years are the most vital and the most important—a point made by Lady Plowden in the Report on Primary Education. A point borne out by every educational psychologist and a point known very well by all teachers is that it is the young child who is frequently the keenest and the most enthusiastic to learn. The longer the handicap of a bad home is perpetuated the more difficult it is for the educational system to compensate for that situation.
At the last meeting of our schools committee we had a report on reading ability, and in the ensuing discussion on this report one head teacher of an infants' school described some children entering the school at the age of five whose power of communication was so bad that they could not construct a sentence. This was not due to any innate lack of ability on the part of the child but, quite simply, because the parents were either unable or unwilling to talk to the child sufficiently when it was very small. This handicap, of course, soon increases. It means a very limited vocabulary. It means immediately difficulties in reading. It sets a child behind its contemporaries right away; and it seems to me. therefore, of enormous importance and great value to the educational system that money should be spent in primary schools, particularly on those least able to help themselves. The second major point of Government policy is the policy of raising the school-leaving age to six-teen in 1973. This was, of course, one of the aims of the Education Act 1944. It was reaffirmed in the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, in 1959. It was the first principal recommendation of the Report of Sir John Newsom in 1963 entitled Half Our Future.
Many arguments have been adduced in favour of raising the age. but I should like to pick out three. First of all, any grammar school course is based on a

521
five-year course, and local education authorities would put the greatest pres-sure on parents to keep their children, once offered a grammar school place, in the school for the full five-year course. By law, those attending special schools must stay on until they are sixteen. It seems most unfortunate that the same kind of pressure does not apply to those broadly prescribed as "in the middle". Secondly, those who leave at the earliest possible date are often those whose parents want them to leave and earn money; or alternatively do not encourage positively their children to stay on at school when the school may seem far less attractive than the outside world. Thirdly, it is of particular importance to girls, because it still seems that far too many parents take the attitude: "Why bother to stay on at school? You are going to get married within two or three years." I am glad to say that in my own local authority the returns for this September show that 65 per cent. of the children are staying on at school over the school-leaving age. This is a figure which has increased by about 2 to 3 per cent. every year for the last ten years, which to me indicates a real educational advance.
It therefore seems most unfortunate that the previous Labour Government deferred raising the school leaving age from 1971 to 1973. In this context, I should like to comment on the effect that this had in my own authority. We decided in 1967 that we were to go comprehensive, and I should like to say that I wholeheartedly support the scheme that we are proposing to introduce. It is a three-tier scheme—children 5 to 9, 9 to 13 and 13 to 18—but we felt that it depended in the upper schools on the raising of the school-leaving age to 16, because, even given that 25 per cent. only of children would not stay on over the school-leaving age, it might mean that 25 per cent. of the children in the upper schools would be there for only one year and two terms from the ages of 13 plus to 15. This is not long enough to gain the benefit of a satisfactory educational course. We therefore decided—partly of course because we had not the money for the necessary new buildings, but also because the course in upper schools would have been unsatisfactory for quite a proportion of the children—to postpone
522
the system until 1973. I make this point because I believe that comprehensive schools are coming and that they can be very good indeed, but I think it is a fundamental mistake to believe that you will promote the interests of the children, social equality or, in any sense, a better educational system by going into a scheme which is not thoroughly and adequately prepared. It is for that reason that we postponed our scheme.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to make two points. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, talk about nursery schools, because all the arguments that apply to primary schools apply with equal force to nursery schools. In my own authority we have a long-term plan that every one of our first schools for children aged 5 to 9 shall have linked to it a nursery class. I hope that this is the kind of plan that we shall see throughout the country as a whole.
I cannot conclude without saying some-thing about direct grant schools, which have been mentioned this afternoon. It seems to me that if a local education authority ceases to take up places at direct grant schools, then these schools have really the option of either becoming independent and therefore perpetuating —if one looks on it in this way—an even greater social inequality, or of paying for the 25 per cent. free place fees by putting up the fees to the fee payers and thereby creating a greater diversity within the school itself. Therefore, if a local education authority ceases to take up those places, it means, in effect, the end of the direct grant school as we know it. The real difficulty for direct grant schools is that they are usually far too small to become comprehensive schools. Of the two direct grant schools with which I am most familiar—and I am a governor of one—one is a two-form entry school and the other a three-form entry school: and I think all noble Lords would agree that either is far to small to become fully comprehensive or ever to produce a viable sixth form. We have therefore in our scheme linked the two schools to the upper schools. Our choice of selection will rest in three ways. Parents will have the right to indicate that they would like their child to go to a direct grant school. The selection will be done by the schools setting an examination. From the results, the chief education officer will

523
determine which children will go, based on geographical location throughout the city and a spread of I.Q. from 115 or upwards, so that the schools are not just screening off the children. It may sound complicated. It is a compromise; but I believe it is one that will work, and it has been accepted both by the schools and by the teachers in the city.
I am happy to support what the Government have done in education since the Election in 1970. I believe that the money for extra primary schools and the money that is needed for the raising of the school-leaving age help just those children who most require help. I believe, at the same time, that they have maintained the equality of education, which must surely reflect on the lives of all our children.
5.48 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Phillips for introducing this Motion, and I do not quarrel with its terms. My noble friend made her usual short, com-passionate and practical speech, which we all enjoyed. The Motion may contain the seeds of controversy, but it is nevertheless relevant to-day. When any new Government comes into power we expect new policy changes, but in education during the last thirty years we have come to expect a degree of continuity, and not periodic upheavals and reverses every five years. Broadly speaking, we have been lucky in our Labour and Conservative Ministers of Education. The noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Eccles and Lord Boyle, command considerable respect in the Labour Party. and this would not have been possible if they had represented the extreme Right Wing of their Parties. Despite political differences, there has been a steady, if sometimes stormy, evolution of national policies. This is not surprising, since neither politicians nor educationists have said the last word on education, and feelings on the subject run very high.
To-day we have a different picture. I wish I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He is an excellent ambassador for the Secretary of State, and he put a very pretty gloss on the picture that we have to-day. But after hearing my noble friend Lady Bacon, I think she has demolished a good many
524
of his arguments. Mrs. Thatcher, the Secretary of State, seeks to constrain some national policies within the straitjacket of the Conservative Party Election Manifesto. It is as simple as that. She does not believe in equality; nor does she believe—and this is in a way more im-portant—in consultation with teachers, educational experts, trade unions or local authorities. So far, she has not had a very easy ride from the Press and the educational experts. But the Secretary of State's speech in another place on November 5 has dashed all my hopes of any political consensus on education. She has simply not learned anything from the public reaction that occurred when she withdrew Circular 10/65. In fact every measure that Mrs. Thatcher has introduced seems to be shot through with a vindictive attitude to Labour policy on education.
Let us take first the restoration of money for the direct grant schools. Is that really the top priority today, my Lords—100,000 children? Personally, I am not against private education, so long as it is privately financed and does not impoverish any part of public education or obtain relief from the rates. Even those of us who deplore the cut in primary school milk would be mollified if what was saved on milk, together with the money that was to be given to primary school building, were distributed in a fairer way. Here again I must refer to the speech of my noble friend Lady Bacon. She seems to have exploded even the fact that there is more money to be given to this. Secondary school building needs a bit of help; teacher training needs help; and the school-leaving age—this great thing, this window dressing—needs a great deal of help. It is Only window dressing if you do not give the schools the facilities they need to implement it. At present, they have not the facilities. I was for about three years a governor of a small boys' comprehensive school. Both the headmaster and the deputy head were against the raising of the school-leaving age, not because they were not liberal but simply because there were no definite programmes and no facilities. The same thing is happening to-day. Every teacher I meet is against it. They have to provide the places. and the Government have no real sensible programme.

525
There is also one very important area of education—pre-school education—which to-day I believe is the most urgent, and I shall concentrate on this later in my speech. Here I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley: in fact I agreed with most of his speech, except for the rather ungenerous remark he made about the Labour Party. I think it is right that the Liberal Party should have their dreams and that we should hear them: I have no objection to that at all. You may say, my Lords, that all this is a matter of opinion and judgment. I con-cede this; but what I utterly reject is policies which are introduced mainly to thwart national policies that have been threshed out over the years, accepted by the country and supported by teachers and educationists, just at the point when a boost for comprehensive education could have benefited most of our children. And this is the point: it is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. said, "each child", but all our children who must have the education they require.
Mrs. Thatcher has used her powers to override decisions of local education authorities, even Conservative ones, and even in her own constituency of Barnet; and she has used her powers to retain selection for grammar schools in some areas. Every single action she has taken is anti-egalitarian, and by this Motion she stands condemned as one of the most reactionary Ministers of Education we have had in years. Many of us regret this break in what has been a succession of liberal and radical Conservative Ministers, followed also by courageous Labour Ministers.
For long we have known that equal opportunity in schools does not start with getting rid of the 11-plus, though this has been an important landmark and here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that equal opportunity starts with the home. If she thinks this, I wonder that she did not point to the fact that perhaps we ought to do more in housing and not merely build more primary schools, when there are so many things here and there to which we might give a little more. What psychologists and educational experts have come to believe to-day is that equal opportunity must start with pre-school education. Watching my own grandchildren, I
526
have seen a practical demonstration of the benefits that come from their going to school at the age of 21. But I became absolutely convinced after reading a remarkably lucid article on this subject in the June issue of Where?,the journal published by the Advisory Centre for Education. I am struck by the urgency of the necessity for a great extension of education in this field, where there has been a real failure by successive Governments to meet a great social need—ex-cept, that is, during the war years. The war-time Government of 1940-1945, which required mothers to work in the factories, had 72,000 children in day nurseries. To-day the number is 20,000, and only about 15 per cent. of our children attend nursery classes, either private or State-run. To-day, women desire to work both inside and outside the home. Our economy needs women to work, as well as men, and although the pre-school movement, encouraged by the Plowden Report, as has been said, has produced play groups, it is the middle-class children who benefit most. In areas of high educational priority, where more mothers go out to work, there is a great shortage of such groups. A shocking result of this has recently come to light; the rise in the number of illegal child-minders in poorer districts, especially among West Indians. This is a special problem and it needs special thought.
Altogether, my Lords, more than 75 per cent. of our children get no pre-school service; but I agree whole-heartedly with Brian Jackson, the author of the article I mentioned, that the time has come for the Government to establish a coherent policy. Let us remember that it was the 1944 Education Act which proposed nursery education for all. Brian Jackson estimates that to-day it would cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead said, £100 million. However, he puts forward the suggestion that the Government should approach this need in the same way as they have tackled the raising of the school-leaving age, by making a future commitment to be implemented at a definite date. Meanwhile, as Plowden suggested, they should start by providing more nursery schools. I believe that the noble Lord said that the Government were going to do this, and I welcome it greatly. Mr. Brian Jackson says that this would cost only

527
between £7 million and £15 million. if we want growth and prosperity, more women will have to go out to work; so day care is essential and, I believe, has come to stay. A new educational initiative is necessary, and since it will benefit all the children in the country it is likely to be popular. Here is a field of great opportunity for any Secretary of State for Education, a field in which Mrs. Thatcher would become the most popular Minister in the Government—something that I think she would relish. An expansion of pre-school education not only pays full regard to the requirements of social equality; it lays the foundations for achieving it. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke of the case of the pyramid. But so far as I can see, whether we quarrel about what exactly is the base, the pyramid of the Government is in the clouds, so there is nothing really practical in it at the moment. Maybe there will be something in it in the future. Whether one is for elitist or comprehensive education at present, surely the ultimate aim of all education must be to change an elitist-orientated education into an education for all, continuous throughout life.
6.2 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I should have liked very much to follow my noble friend Lady Gaitskell in her concern for the pre-school child, but I am going to the other end of the scale and seize upon the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave us by his reference to the Open University. I have to declare an interest because I am on the Council of the Open University, and I was on its planning committee. The only quarrel that my noble friend Lady Lee and I have ever had was when I dared to call it the "University of the Second Chance". My noble friend said that it had to be first, and always first-class.
The Open University, if we are pre-pared to follow it through and invest in success, can succeed in providing educational policies which pay full regard to the requirements of social equality. This is social equality; this is really a class-less University in both senses of the word. Something very curious happened when we were bringing in our recruits last year and when we went into action at the
528
beginning of this year: the complaint was made that we did not have enough "working class" people in the University. This seemed to be an inversion of the usual complaint. There was a great, dammed-up requirement of people who knew precisely what they were after and, particularly among professional people, there was a situation where their attention had been pretty well extended in their own journals. We now know, partly through the introduction of the technology foundation course for next year, that the proportion—if you want to go into working class, middle class or other class definitions—is such that the "working man" is now being considerably represented.
One of the problems in getting the proper encouragement for tradesmen or artisans to join the University has been the fact that there could be the suggestion that they might be educated out of their class. But I should be jolly glad to have an educated and interested bus driver. This is one of the matters we have discussed previously in this House. Why should the pursuit of a degree be the "end-all" of this? We are offering degrees and insist that these will be as valid, genuine and acceptable as any degree from any other university. My concern is much more than that. The degree is not just a piece of paper; it is not just the fact that you can take that piece of paper and trade it in for a new career, but that in the course of studying at the Open University a person will have access to information which will enable him to deal with one of the most serious problems that I foresee in the next 25 years—the access to leisure. I do not care whether one calls that "unemployment"—the harshest of all leisure—or "shorter hours": a person will have to meet a vast void of interest unless he is given the innate resources to make the most of his time. Then we might hope—and this one may say is the object of the Open University—that beyond the Welfare State we shall have the Fulfilment State. Once we have taken care, as I insist we will, of the basic and desperate needs of the people in terms of survival and existence—and we are not doing this at the moment—I believe, through the Open University, we shall be opening up doors to people to have a second chance.

529
I have a vested interest in that, too, because I left school at 15½ years of age. That was the end of my formal education. I finished up as a Professor at the University of Edinburgh before they noticed that I had not even been to a university. Therefore they gave me the kind of degree which my noble friend Lady Lee has (and she also has an LL.B.), a Master of Arts "as by examination", which I did not sit. When I was capped and gowned, the Vice-Chancellor said, "Now you will tell everyone that you are a genuine M.A. and not an honorary M.A." I said, "Thank you very much; I now know the title of my autobiography, Forty years an Undergraduate".In fact I received my M.A. degree in 1961.
The kind of interest that I developed shows that I must have had quite a good basic education, and we are trying to serve that kind of interest and encourage it through the Open University. We are offering opportunities on a basis of social equality for everyone everywhere. We insisted that even when we could not provide for all the 42,000 students who wanted to come in for 1971, and another 35,000 who are trying to come in for 1972, that the 22,000 that we could cater for there would be a complete cross-section, geographically and in every other way, of the structure of this country. The result for those of us involved is very exciting indeed. It is the most exciting thing that has ever happened to me. This is simply to get involved in something which begins to spark off people who have been thirsting and hungering for this innovation for so long. The average age of the student is 27. That is a very highly motivated student average, I may tell you. As to the demand, in the Open University they push us to give them more work to do. In fact, the complaints to the summer schools this year were that we did not work them hard enough, which was very remarkable.
Anyone who knows anything about the Open University knows that we have now a structure which, as indeed I know, is functioning extremely well. It functioned even during the postal strike. That would have killed anything else which involved a correspondence course which depended on the post. Papers were sent
530
out by enormous dedication of the staff. They got them out to the 300 centres we have throughout the country—the viewing and listening centres and tutorial centres —and students came from all over the backwoods to collect their courses. I do not think anyone dropped out simply because of the postal strike.
This seems to me to be something which relates not merely to terms of method and technique, which I think we are developing in an extraordinarily effective way. I know that anywhere else in the world where I go people get excited by the techniques of this scheme. But, beyond that, the content of what we are doing, the approach to what we are doing, and the end results of what we are doing, will in fact be a fulfilment, in a real sense, of that work; that is to say, to find out how far you can educate people really to discover themselves and to express their own personalities. That is the dedicated purpose of the Open University.
6.12 p.m.
LORD BLAKE: My Lords, I find, I fear, that I have some of the doubts felt by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other noble Lords and Ladies who have spoken this evening, on precisely what is meant by "social equality". I would prefer to concentrate on equality of opportunity, which I think I understand at least to some extent, and it is of course something of which noble Lords on both sides of the House are in favour. It is true that we can never have complete equality of opportunity. Even if there were a sort of compulsory social mix among children; even if there were complete equality of wealth and property; even if fee paying for education were forbidden, there would still he differences which stem from the kind of homes children have been brought up in, whether their parents really talked to them, whether there were books in the house, and so on. We could, I suppose, have complete equality only if children were taken away from school at an age too early for parental influence to have any effect on them at all and brought up in State-controlled, boarding seminaries. This was what Plato recommended, as your Lordships will remember, in The Republic,which is now regarded as the earliest blueprint of a totalitarian State.

531
However, there is no doubt that equality of opportunity can go very much further than it now has gone. I should like to express my own support for, and appreciation of, what the Government have done so far in the direction of a primary school programme and the encouragement of nursery schools. These are important steps in the right direction and it is perfectly true, as many noble Lords have emphasised this evening, that the nursery school and primary school stages are the stages at which differences can be ironed out and chances of equality of opportunity in secondary education can be made.
I want also to commend something else which the Government have done but which I fear does not command assent on both sides of the House, and that is their action over the direct grant schools. I ought, I suppose, to declare a bias. I was educated at one and am a governor of one. Nevertheless, I should like to put in a plea for them. They have contributed very valuably to the English educational system. They provide a means whereby people of very different backgrounds can get a first-class education, and they produce some of the best sixth forms in the country. Of course, they are not all equally good: I am not suggesting that every direct grant school is on the same level as Manchester Grammar School, which is so often quoted. But I would hope that they are allowed to continue, and I personally would much regret it if they either became a part of the comprehensive school system, on the one hand, or were obliged to become independent, on the other. This is where there is a difference in your Lordships' House, for I believe that social equality in the minds of a good many people means something more than equality of opportunity.
Of course, no one is foolish enough to believe that children actually are equal in respect of talents, brain power and ability, or even that they will be at some future date. But there is a feeling that they ought to be; that it is unjust that such differences exist—it is no one's fault that a child is stupid, and not necessarily to a child's credit that he is intelligent. Therefore, so the argument seems to run in some quarters, they should be treated as if they were equal; inequalities
532
and differences should be blurred as much as possible and, so far as possible, they should be shielded from the fact that some are very much brighter than others and some much more stupid.
The lengths to which this desire to shield children from realities has been carried can be rather remarkable. I see there has been a recent recommendation by the Schools Council in favour of a new single examination as a substitute for G.C.E. "O" level and the C.S.E. It would have, we are told, a few very broad grades, and the top one would be some four or five times as wide as the present "O" level Grade I. That in itself seems to me regrettable, and I hope that this disappearance of incentives for intelligent children will be opposed, and strongly opposed, by the academically good schools. Indeed, if some of the G.C.E. boards themselves stick out against it, so much the better.
However, this is not the least odd feature of the new proposals. We are solemnly told that failure will in future be impossible; those who, for example, get nought out of a hundred in every paper will be recorded as "Improperly entered". Reflecting on it, my mind somehow wandered. I thought about the event described by one of Mr. P. G. Wodehouse's characters as "The annual aquatic contest between the universities of Oxford and Cambridge"—in other words, the Boat Race—and I had a vision of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who has so often umpired that great occasion, announcing that Oxford or Cambridge (I rather fear it would be Oxford, all too likely) had been improperly entered by 12 lengths.
Social equality, if it means equality of opportunity, is important. We should pay full, though not I think sole, regard to it as a means of forming our educational policy. But if it means more than that, a vaguely comforting feeling among children that no one is, or ought to be, cleverer than anyone else, I have some doubts. I believe our future as a nation depends as much on the full development of every child's talents as it does on giving every child a sense of social equality. In this context I must express an anxiety which has been widespread in some educational circles, at any rate, ever since secondary school reorganisation has become the dominant issue in educational

533
politics. If the 11 to 18 comprehensive school, all through comprehensive, becomes the normal form of maintained education in the country, however good it may be socially—and I am not disputing that—it could easily render sixth-form teaching of the quality that we have known in the past much more difficult to achieve. This could be the case; it may not be, but the danger is that there are simply not enough good Honours graduates teaching in schools to go round. Hitherto, they have been concentrated in the maintained grammar schools and, of course, in direct grant and independent schools. But if they are to be scattered throughout the comprehensives there may well not be enough of them per school. The situation is worrying for all those concerned, as I am, with university teaching.
The dangers were well set out three or four years ago in a letter to The Times from a number of university vice-chancellors. They pointed out that Britain had the shortest university courses in the world, and that this was made possible only by the very high level of sixth-form teaching. They wrote:
"We are alarmed lest some of the plans for secondary reorganisation, in spite of their admirable social intentions, may lead to a denial of opportunity for the individual pupil of ability, particularly if he comes from a poor or uneducated background, and may have serious results for the universities and hence for the community."
They went on to say that the alternative of a four-year university course, which is the procedure adopted in the countries that have gone furthest in the direction of comprehensive education—that is to say, the United States of America and Sweden—was, not impossible but not likely in Britain in the foreseeable future because of a shortage of money and of manpower. They continued:
"If the needs of the able minority are prejudiced at the school stage by hasty schemes of reorganisation, by the, diffusion of specialist staff, and, we may add, by the loss of morale in some sections of the teaching profession, serious difficulties are bound to arise."
My Lords, I hope, as we must all hope, that this will not eventuate; but it is a danger and the risk is there. And if the particular way chosen to abolish selectivity in the maintained sector does prejudice the teaching of the cleverest children, it will be a tragedy. Moreover, it
534
will mean a major and extremely expensive reorganisation of university education if the high standards of British universities are to be kept up. For these reasons, if no other, anything that weakens the direct grant schools or the independent schools is much to be avoided.
There could be a great deal of argument about social equality in education. I should like to put in a plea for some-thing else; namely, social justice. I believe that social justice not only involves helping those who are handicapped and doing the best we can for the great middle-of-the-road majority, but also means bringing out the full potentialities of those who are cleverer and more talented than the majority. A society which neglects them because of an obsession with social equality will in the long run be a poorer, a less vigorous, a less forward-looking and a less adventurous society. It would be a sad day, my Lords, if Britain became that.
6.24 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I sympathise with the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for guarding carefully the highest levels of excellence in education and particularly looking out for children who need special tuition because they are going to he the "highfliers" in various fields which will fulfil their own personal lives and also be a great enrichment to the nation. But I am really astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, should not be more concerned about the value of ex-tending the gathering ground so that we do not just find those youngsters of high excellence in the small grant-aided schools, or even the public schools, but really look towards all the children of the nation. I can assure him that in all my public life I have never been associated with anything that meant a pulling down. What we stand for on these Benches is to sustain the best, to provide for the great diversity of talent in children and prepare them for the various jobs that they will do in after life. Most certainly it is not to reduce the young of the nation to a drab level of ineffectiveness. I hope the noble Lord will look more carefully (if he will forgive my using that word) at the work that is being done and the progress that is being made—and there is so much still to he done.

535
My fear is that in these Islands we are far too much the prisoners of the past. We are hedging in a bat-and-ball game between Tory and Labour, Government and Opposition. When I refer to a bat-and-ball game "I do not mean that I am treating this matter lightly or denigrating it, because nothing could be more import-ant than education. I read every word of the debate on education in the other place recently and I think I have heard almost every word that has been said in this debate, and the pattern that becomes apparent is that when we have a Labour Government there is a great forward thrust towards more equality of opportunity; when we have a Conservative Government a resistance movement sets in—often a sophisticated resistance movement because there will always be another General Election. Everything that has been said from the Government Benches surely indicates that it is the Labour Party that thrusts forward, concerned about the comprehensive principles—and we have made many converts in all Parties. I think we should all agree that the "11-plus" is a dirty word. That battle has been won. and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and others have made their passionate plea for the extention of the nursery schools. That has all come from the Labour Benches. in other words, every forward thrust, whether it is for more nursery schools or getting rid of the 11-plus or for the comprehensive principle in secondary education, comes in the main from the Benches from which I am speaking.
But I think we are too slow. I hope this forward thrust will come faster. I also hope that we shall look with clear eyes over the whole field of higher education. including university education. I deplore very much that in higher education we are still the victims of the binary system. We can go round this country and find able students and able teachers handicapped by inferior buildings, low pay scales and poor libraries, merely because the historical hangover is such that there were certain jobs that were "gentlemen's" jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has confessed to us that he did not come by his degrees honestly in Edinburgh. I had to work for my LL.B. Of course in my university, as in so many others, one can qualify for
536
certain jobs—to be a doctor, a lawyer or a preacher. Those were the jobs that, for historical reasons, a gentleman's son might engage in. But if you wanted to be an engineer or a chemist or a farmer, or to do a thousand other jobs relating to industry, you were not allowed into our university; you had to go to other institutions, and you were definitely below the salt.
We are beginning to deal with this state of affairs, but we are too slow. We shall have to start re-thinking our educational position right from the nursery school to the highest levels of university education, and while we are thinking of our own problems we must take note of what is happening in many other import-ant parts of the world.
There are those who fear that Peking China is going to be a great menace because its growing economic strength means that it is becoming a great military Power and has great atomic potential. But if we look at the new world that is being created for a quarter of the human race we shall find that the greatest challenge is coming in the field of education. They are doing something which we cannot do in this island. We are an old country; we have a great deal of obsolete social machinery, old habits. I am not for one moment suggesting that even the most enlightened Labour Government could introduce an educational policy on the same lines as that which is now being developed in many other parts of the world, not only in China. But we must observe its philosophy because its philosophy is that of the worker student. From the very youngest age each child is a student but is also being attuned to a future in which it is a worker. This is, of course, emancipation for the child. Children try to reach up right from the nursery school; they want to play nowadays with space machines, aeroplanes, motor cars; they want to build boats; they want to have a doll and to dress it. I have sometimes said that the work of the world ought to be done by children. I have to be careful, because these sentences can be taken out of context. I am sure noble Lords know what I mean; I am thinking of the cruelty and insensitivity of the past, when we educated children in rows behind desks. taught them counting and spelling, and things

537
that were quite apart from anything their fathers and mothers were doing or which they themselves would be doing.
Our Labour movement was deeply rooted in this tradition because there was a great fear in the old Labour movement of occupational education; a fear that anything should be introduced that would be useful in later life. This was very understandable. The parents did not want their children exploited in a capitalist society; they wanted them to have those few years in which they would have some liberal education, some know-ledge of literature, poetry, history and so on. We on the Labour Benches come from a tradition strongly opposed to vocational education in the schools, and we have all to start thinking afresh. All education, however, is vocational. That is why it is so foolish to have the distinctions that we now have between some of our polytechnics and the universities. There is a level of excellence; whether you are studying abstract science or studying to be a doctor or vet, or what-ever it is, there are certain levels of excellence. We have to get rid of this idea that certain studies are socially inferior to other studies. It is really shocking to-day to hear parents pressing for their children to go to a university rather than to a polytechnic. Why is that? It is simply, very often, that the children, as well as the parents, want to be able to boast that they are attending a real university, that they are university students. We still have this crazy notion that they are below the salt if they are training specifically for something which is going to make them specialists in the future in industry, or in farming or what-ever it may be. I should like us to look at the problems of education right from the very bottom.
Then, of course, we are dealing with a situation in which students are getting more freedom. The type of education in our primary schools is changing; we are throwing away the desks, giving the children some notion of movement, of poetry, of drama. Is it not an extraordinary thing that, just at this moment, our poor Mrs. Thatcher has to put her foot in it with the students as well as with everyone else: that the very moment when the students are insisting on having
538
more responsibility for running their own affairs, for budgeting their own finances, has to be the moment that is chosen in order to antagonise them? I hope that she has been given a copy of the circular which has been sent out by the University of London Institute of Education Union Society, and that she will give it careful consideration. She already has enough sins to answer for without adding this to the list piling up against her.
I do not want to take up the time of the House, and I really do not have to after all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, about the Open University. I should like to add this further word about it. It is a complete fallacy to think of the Open University as a working man's university or a middle class man's university or a millionaire's university, although there are a few millionaires who could be improved by a course. It is not a black man's or a white man's university. It is simply something in the flow of our time, simply making the highest level of scholarship, over the arts, science, technology, available to much larger numbers than ever in the past. This would have been impossible before the age of the mass media. But what is absolutely essential is that if we are using new educational methods we should not insult the people of this country by offering them anything except the highest levels of scholarship; and I am very proud and very grateful that from the vice-chancellor, the trustees, from all associated with the Open University, we are getting this great concern for the highest levels of scholarship.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that some of our older universities had better look to their laurels. There are dark corners in some of our universities; they are not a mystery to some of us, and we know quite well that part of the antagonism to the Open University was rooted in a certain amount of fear. I want the correct tensions established between the old and the new universities, and above all I want to get away from this idea that because a man earns his living running a bus or cleaning the sewage, or as a coal miner or agricultural worker, there is any reason why his life and his home should not be enriched by knowledge of literature, by

539
higher levels of education of every kind. To me this is a gross insult, because I come from three generations of worker scholars. The children in my class had no chance against me in the mining village, because I had a father who taught me sums a year ahead of time, and had a rich vocabulary and explained the meaning of words to me; therefore, I had a totally unfair advantage over other children.
One point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blake, is that there can never be total equality. You cannot have total equality in a class society; and even in a classless society the child who has intelligence, and sensitive and concerned parents, has an advantage over the child who does not. But allowing for that. we have got to plod on, to thrust for-ward through every stage in life for more educational opportunity. And when we are building the schools we have got to keep our minds open. We have a rebel priest telling us to scrap some of the schools, but we have to keep our minds open. Some of these ideas, thought to be so outrageous, may not be so out-rageous when thought about, because what in fact is being said is that for the child the school is now the totality of the environment. That is why we cared so much about building up the arts centres, the libraries, and the museums; and that is why it is a scandal that the Government should be contemplating putting on a charge for entering our museums and art galleries, because they are an essential part of the educational environment.
I was very much touched at the beginning of this debate by the idealistic speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, following a speech on the same high note from my noble friend Lady Phillips. We had from some other speakers—notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon—a very detailed account of just how little was being done by Government Ministers to for-ward equality. I hope they will not be too proud, and I hope they will realise that our danger in this country is that we are going too slow, that we are a little bit "pot bound", and we are not looking outward enough to what is happening in the rest of the world. Unless we start to think in terms of all our young ones
540
growing up to be both workers and educated men and women, then our problems. which are difficult enough already, could easily become insoluble.
6.41 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSEN-DALE: My Lords, before my noble friend Lady Phillips began that excellent speech she complained that on the Committee on Procedure there was only one noble Baroness representing the lady Members of the House. My noble friend certainly cannot make that complaint about the debate we have had this after-noon, because we have had a magnificent parade of noble Baronesses. I was disappointed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was not coming because I hoped to see him there among the serried ranks of Baronesses, the only "maiden" in the House, and I felt deprived when the Chief Whip told us the bad news. To-night I want to try to find out from the Government rather more about what their policy is in respect of higher education; what size of university population they are now aiming at; and how they see the universities, the polytechnics and the teacher training colleges working in together. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to lighten our darkness in that respect.
I suppose the basic distinction between the universities and the polytechnics is that the universities are devoted to know-ledge for its own sake—which in the materialistic circumstances in which we live perhaps suggests a purity of spirit which is hardly appropriate—whereas the polytechnics are vocationally orientated. One can argue as to whether that distinction is desirable, but what I think is not open to doubt is that, over the last few years, the distinction between the universities and the polytechnics has tended to become blurred. Although some polytechnics are doing an absolutely first-class job, some of them arc getting the worst of all worlds because the division between the universities and the polytechnics has tended to be blurred. I think that there are two courses which are open to us. First of all, we could make all the polytechnics into universities, which would need a massive injection of public money, or, we could try to maintain the clear distinction of function between the two, but allow much

541
more freedom of movement between them.
My noble friend Lord Royle has asked me to apologise for his absence, because he had hoped to talk about university building. I am sorry that my noble friend cannot do that, because I speak with some embarrassment as a director of a firm which has built a number of university buildings and which is engaged on building three at the moment. However, I think it is quite clear that an expansion of the university and polytechnic building programme is badly needed. Perhaps I could give one ex-ample. It is the example of the polytechnic which has been formed by combining the North-Western and the Northern Polytechnics in London. The two buildings are some distance from each other, it is extremely difficult for students to get from one to the other, and there are no really adequate halls of residence for the students. Indeed, so long as London has a housing problem, and so long as the price of land in London is so high, I do not see those problems being solved here in the metropolis. I should have thought that what we wanted to see was the polytechnics moving out into the Home Counties, with proper halls of residence for the students.
Looking back over the last few years —my noble friend Lady Lee and I must share our measure of responsibility for this—I find it difficult to resist her conclusion that the binary system has not been as successful as it was originally hoped it would be. But the binary system has, to some extent at least, fixed the parameters within which, if we are to be severely practical, we must operate for the time being. That does not mean that we can afford to neglect reviewing our thinking over the whole field of higher education when the James Report appears. May I say, as President of the Socialist Education Association, that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, will study carefully the Paper that the Association has submitted to him. I do not know whether the leaks which have appeared in the Press about the James Report are accurate or not. I think, however, that it would be imprudent in the first place, and discourteous in the second place, to comment on what has been leaked at
542
this stage. Nevertheless, it is right that we should put on record that, in the light of experience, we think that the binary system has grave defects, and that to add a third element, or layer, would be still more wrong.
In the current number of The Times Higher Education Supplement,Dr. Charles Carter, the Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University, has analysed the situation with great clarity. He has really taken the attitude of my noble friend Lady Lee. He puts it like this: that the advice which is given to sixth formers can be summarised as saying to them:
"if you work hard and do well you may get into university; if you don't quite make it, you can go to a polytechnic; and if the worst comes to the worst, there is always a college of education."
I think that is, although perhaps an over-simplification, nevertheless a pretty accurate reflection of what one often meets, and it is a remarkable assertion that teaching does not call for academic ability. I believe, speaking personally, that there is a need for a much more catholic approach when secondary education is becoming more nearly comprehensive. I am very doubtful, I confess, whether the considerations which make me opposed to selection at the age of 11 necessarily apply equally in all circum-stances to selection at 17, but I do agree with Dr. Carter (and I quote him) when he says:
"… the 17-plus selection has all the marks of a thoroughly inefficient and arbitrary process. We need, in fact, a single gate to full time higher education, giving entry to unified student communities."
I am sure that some students will he happy, as I was, to receive a basically academic education, hoping to benefit from such capacity for clear thinking as it may confer upon them. (If the noble Lords. Lord Morris of Grasmere and Lord Fulton—my old tutors—feel that I let them down in this respect, I certainly acquit them of any responsibility.) But others will want to train for a specific profession. And others will want to receive a general education and, at the same time, to qualify as teachers.
To meet the needs of all those three we need a system of higher education which will mean that all three groups are in one institution, with many common

543
services and amenities, and with the students having the knowledge that, if the need arises, they can move from one group to another within the same institution. Complementary to that we clearly need the Open University and the other provision for mature students, like the provision which has been made in the University of Sussex to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred. I know that the whole House will wish to congratulate my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge on that tremendous achievement of having created the Open University, which is going to bring so much happiness and satisfaction to hundreds of thousands of people for very many years to come.
Before I leave the polytechnics, I think I ought to mention recent developments in the art schools. The resignation of the Chairman and 22 members of the Fine Art Panel of the National Council for Diplomas in Art and Design has highlighted the growing discontent in the art schools. The quality of work in that field in this country has been internationally recognised, and now we seem to have thrown this away. I think that all of us will have read with immense regret the statements by people like Norman Adams, Eric Taylor and Martin Froy in the Press in the last three or four weeks. I should like to know what the Government's policy is, and what they have in mind to remedy what seems to be a deteriorating situation in the art schools.
May I turn quite briefly to unemployment among graduates, because since 1945 the value of education for its own sake has been more widely appreciated? Industry and local government, for example, have turned more and more to the employment of graduates and the university population has grown out of all recognition. But with unemployment nearing a million, demand is falling off and, at the same time, the confidence of undergraduates is being shaken. Nevertheless, it is wrong to get graduate unemployment out of perspective. From each individual's point of view, the tragedy of unemployment, as I remember from my own experience before the war, is just as great if one has no degree as it is if one has, and we have to see graduate unem-
544
ployment as just a part of the wider tragic situation.
But among the graduates who left the universities in the middle of this year, 6 per cent. were unemployed from Oxford and York, 17 per cent. from Manchester and 42 per cent. from Swansea, and it appears that the national rate was twice as high as in 1970. It is surely a little tragic to find Mr. Holloway, the secretary of the careers and appointments ser-vice at Manchester University, saying that mechanical engineers are in severe difficulty and that,
"there is just no point in many scientists and engineers hoping to get jobs within their disciplines."
The tragedy of that is twofold. It is heartbreak for the students, and it is a denial to society of the benefits which the skills that we have bought so expensively could be used to produce.
My noble friend Lady Lee referred to the subject of the unions, and I think that the Government's attitude on this really defies belief. We all have reservations, I suppose, about some of the ways in which students express their views. But I believe that this is a good generation. It is a generation which has no use for complacency; it is a generation which hates intolerance; it is generation which hates prejudice; and it is a generation which hates social injustice. And when you get an active and lively generation of that kind, they are going to do all sorts of things that Mrs. Thatcher and I from time to time will not wholly approve of.
But the Consultative Paper is really a terribly inept document. It has come just at the time when it looked as if relations between students and academic staff were improving. I appreciate that it is only a consultation paper, but to have produced it at this time and to incur the odium of even the Conservative students is something that I would not have thought possible, even from the Secretary of State for Education. It is interesting to note that last Sunday, for example, the Observer was stating under the heading "Students are adults":
"It is hard to disagree with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals when it describes the Government's new suggestions for the financing of student unions as 'an elaborate piece of paper to deal with a system that has worked rather well in the past'."

545
The discussion paper will create further antipathy, further antagonism, between the vice-chancellors and the students. And to deprive students of the chance to control matters like this will certainly pot encourage them to behave more responsibly in the future. This really is another action of a Government which talks so much about freedom, but which ideologically, in practice, is terribly restrictive; a Government which I suspect —and I speak with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Blake—have long for-forgotten Disraeli's view that,
"A university should be a place of light, of liberty and of learning."
I was shocked, too, by the extraordinary statement of the Secretary of State in another place last Friday, when she said:
…it is open to question whether the general public, which has to foot the bill, would accept that all, or almost all, students have a right to accommodation in a distant university even though there is one offering similar courses within travelling distance of their homes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/11/71; col. 507.]
Really, that is an almost unbelievable statement. I realise that the Government's anxieties are not wholly without foundation; I realise that they have the problem of escalating costs; and I realise, too, that if unemployment continues at its present level, or gets even worse, fewer people will want to take in students as boarders. There is the added difficulty that, generally speaking, universities are in the same towns as rapidly expanding polytechnics. The answer is not to say that they must find a place in a university near their home, but to provide the halls of residence and more common ser-vices in the universities and the polytechnics.
I believe very strongly that students should be away from home. I suspect that the savings from what Mrs. Thatcher has proposed will be largely illusory, and I believe that children from overcrowded homes without an academic background will be still further handicapped than they are at present. I shall look forward to the report of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, which is being chaired by Professor Robson, the Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield University. But, in the meantime, I certainly agree with Sir Fraser
546
Noble, the Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University, who said:
"…there is a worry in my own mind that a major Government move in this direction would tell against pupils from poorer homes which lack the facility for study."
That brings me, my Lords—and this is almost my last point—to the theme which was begun by my noble friend Lady Phillips and continued by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and also my noble friend Baroness Lee, and Baroness Young, whose speech I enjoyed very much. It is about the problems of children who come from homes which are not conducive to study. It is true, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, said—and my noble friend Lady Lee agreed—that you can never get complete equality, but it was a little disturbing, I think, to find in New Society last week that there had been a survey at Durham University of the composition of the student body, and I think I can sum it up best in the words of the article itself:
"As is so with British universities as a whole, the group came predominantly from upper and middle class backgrounds-20 per cent. upper and professional, 55 per cent. lower professional and managerial. Only 12 per cent. were unambiguously manual, including skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled—about half the national average recorded in the Robbins Report as working class, and a some-what smaller proportion than Durham's own admission figures would indicate."
My Lords, that shows the most appalling imbalance in the student population of one of our older universities, and I still do not think that the difficulty of many young people has been sufficiently appreciated. It is not only that they are the victims of bad housing conditions: it is also that they came from a bad home—and I do not necessarily mean that in any disrespectful way of the parents. It may be a house where there are irregular mealtimes, where the child cannot organise his homework. There may be no real understanding on the part of the parents of the circumstances that the scholastic child ought to have. There are none of the books and works of reference about the house with which most of us fill our homes. In a two-up and two-down terrace house, there is no room that can be set aside for homework. There is noise from the neighbours which comes through the walls. Dad is probably watching show-jumping on television in the front room, and mum is listening

547
to "Petticoat Line" in the kitchen; and a brother who is probably resentful at having to stay an extra year at school, which he thinks is wasted, may well be playing cassettes somewhere else. There may even be—and this is a very important point, my Lords—consciously or sub-consciously, a fear on the part of the parents that education will raise a barrier between them and their children. I have no doubt at all that at present, and for very many years to come, the child from a not so good home will be seriously handicapped in the competition to get higher education. And I say at this point how much I agreed with my noble friend Lady Bacon about the need for adequate maintenance grants.
I recently mentioned to your Lordships that I kept a small anthology of Conservative speeches, and perhaps I may end to-night by quoting from a broadcast which Sir Winston Churchill made in March, 1943. He said:
"There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies."
I hope that when they think about that the noble Lord and the Secretary of State will blush just a little. But I would go rather wider than that, my Lords. I would say that there is no better investment of any kind than investment in education—in liberal, tolerant, unbiased education, in education equally available to every child in the country, so that equality of opportunity becomes at last a reality.
7.5 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, your Lordships bore with me in an overlong speech earlier, and with your Lordships' permission I will now simply reply to the points which have been made in the many interesting speeches which we have heard in the debate this afternoon. We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, first of all for the Motion, which has given us the opportunity for this discussion this afternoon; and secondly, personally, for the speech which she made. I was a little surprised that the noble Baroness queried the length of time that it takes to build a school, although I find myself sometimes at the Department drumming my fingers when, in the case of a particular school, I wonder why it must be so long before the bricks and mortar go up. I was
548
surprised because it was, after all, the previous Government who, quite rightly in my opinion, worked out the rolling programme, running three years ahead, with its preliminary design and starts lists, which had got a little behind last year and which my right honourable friend's announcement of building programmes now three or four years' ahead is going to continue to make a practical possibility.
The noble Baroness referred to the pupil-teacher ratio. The noble Baroness indeed referred to many things in connection with a deprived area and a deprived school environment, but particularly I picked up the pupil-teacher ratio because I felt that this was a fact to which I ought to reply. In the last two years, the total supply of teachers has improved, and it has improved rapidly. I entirely agree—the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, made the point—that there can be dual responsibility for this on both sides of the House. Now we have an increase of up to 18,000—it is an incredible number, an 18.000 increase a year—and authorities have in fact allocated most of the additional teachers to primary schools. I am glad to be able to say now that, in consequence, the primary teacher-pupil ratio is improving rapidly, and I entirely agree that it had need to. In January, 1966, there were 29·5 pupils to each qualified teacher; in 1968 there were 29·1; but in January this year there were only 26.9 pupils per teacher—an improvement notably more rapid than that which was occurring in the secondary schools; although of course the pupil-teacher ratio is improving along the line.
The noble Baroness also made the point about the four-term year, and who would take action and when. There is, so far as I know, nothing in legislation to prevent this, and in the past some inquiries, usually of an unofficial nature, have been made between the Department and local education authorities; and I am sure that local education authorities, in their turn, would wish to help the noble Baroness towards her ideal of the four-term year. But the truth of the matter is, so far as I know—and I have not taken official advice on this—that there really is no move at a local level to wish to implement this. I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to what

549
the noble Baroness said in that respect, but I am afraid that this is the best answer that I can give her this evening
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the teacher sitting on the horns of a dilemma in that he is trying to teach society for twenty years ahead, and the teacher does not know what society is going to look like at that time. I must say that as I listened to the noble Lord I felt that this was a point that was very appropriate. It distinguishes the teacher of to-day, I cordially agree, from the teacher of days before, who perhaps could teach of the past in order to prepare the pupil for the future. One of the things which I thought was a little out of con-text this afternoon and which it might be nice to bring in is that I look, and I know that my right honourable friend looks, with great care and concern at the work which is going on at the moment, and at possible plans for the future, for religious education in schools. I will not say any-thing more about that this afternoon. This is entirely a subject in itself, I know, but this I felt I would include in my reply to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord specifically drew attention to the proportion of the university population from—and I quote the noble Lord's words— "the working class". I do not want to give a self-satisfied reply, hut, factually, British universities have for a long time had, by international standards, a relatively high proportion among the student body of young people from manual and working-class homes. Before the Second World War the pro-portion was between a fifth and a quarter, and recently there is some evidence from U.C.C.A. reports, taken with the Robbins Report, to show that it may be creeping slowly upwards. The latest U.C.C.A. figures for entrants to universities for October, 1970, give an estimate of 28 per cent.
The noble Lord also referred to non-streaming. I thought he mentioned it in very broad terms. He is referring to something which I consider to be rather a blunt instrument. I wonder whether it is not more productive to discuss, rather, relative methods of streaming and setting, because we are talking about internal organisation of schools, which is nothing to do with the Department of Education in London. I wonder also whether it is not more productive to dis-
550
cuss the advantages of mixed ability teaching and how far that should go throughout a school. Finally, the noble Lord referred particularly to working conditions in schools. The National Union of Teachers in July, as the noble Lord is aware, had done a survey and produced a memorandum on working conditions in schools which the union, perfectly rightly, said was of concern not only to the pupils but to the teaching profession. My right honourable friend in her reply—she read it carefully, as I did; and grim reading it was—made the point that she felt that a Government survey (which is what the union asked for) was inappropriate. I should like to put it on record that the reason behind her thinking was that she felt the thing to do was to bring to bear whatever resources on which she could lay her hands to become bricks and mortar in new schools quickly. There is nothing between her and the National Union of Teachers on this matter; but there is this slight difference in the way ahead. The union asked for a survey; my right honourable friend felt that she would rather bring resources to bear. I think that her record has shown that she means what she says.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, is not with us; but I will reply to one or two of the points that she raised. In her absence, I must rebut the figures she gave on school building. The 1973–74 school building programme (the second programme for which my right honourable friend is responsible), to which the noble Baroness referred specifically, is for £140 million. That discounts any raising of the school-leaving age allocation and is higher than any other programme, discounting these allocations, that this country has seen.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bacon left with me the publication of the Department of Education and Science from which she quoted, dated August, 1971, which shows the figure of £132 million for 1969–70; £135.5 million for 1971–72; and dropping in 1972–73 to £125 million. As I understood it, that is what my noble friend had in mind. Although the noble Lord has just given the figure of £140 million which excludes special allocation for

551
raising the school-leaving age, that is not what is conveyed by this document, which shows that the three previous figures exclude that amount but the 1973–74 figures do not.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise if we are at cross purposes. I understood the noble Baroness to be speaking of the 1973–74 school building programme. The facts of the 1972–73 school building programme (the first for which my right honourable friend is responsible) are that she inherited from the last Government only £12 million as the improvement element. She raised it, without reducing the figure for basic needs, from El 2 million to £43.5 million. That is remarkable by any standards. She has secured even larger programmes for the three following years. The reason it shows the figure that the noble Lord recorded is that on top of that is not just an element for raising the school-leaving age but the largest element. That brings us to 1973–74.
The noble Baroness also referred to the seriousness of the situation in which, she said, it was not possible for the claims of improvement projects in secondary schools to be considered. Of course, this is extremely serious. This is something which no noble Lord on any side of the House would wish. Could we put this into context? The noble Baroness was speaking as a distinguished ex-Minister in a Department which had managed to allocate in the last two years of Office £2 million and £2.5 million for the improvement of secondary schools. She is now asking for improvements right across the board. This is hardly fair, when noble Lords opposite are talking to a Government who honestly say that for the time being they must exclude secondary schools but they have a primary school building programme the like of which this country has not seen. Then she referred—rightly, and I hoped that she would—to secondary reorganisation schemes. May I say that my right honourable friend emphasised more than once that Circular 10/70 was not in any sense anti-comprehensive. Its terms were not anti-comprehensive. The decisions of my right honourable friend on the statutory proposals submitted by local education authorities clearly demonstrate that she
552
is not acting in a spirit hostile to comprehensive development. I gave the House the figures earlier and I will not give them again, but within the approved proposals were many examples of different types of comprehensive organisation. For instance, since last April we have approved 27 sets of proposals for the establishment of all-through schools, 21 sets of middle schools and 6 sets of sixth-form colleges. I am saying that where well-thought-out proposals for re-organisation are put forward. where the plans are matched by the ability to implement them, they have been sympathetically considered. If any noble Lord takes variance with that, then may I refer him to the figures for the total of bids and the total of approvals since my right honourable friend went to the Department?
Finally, the noble Baroness made an important statement about the Local Government Bill—particularly important because she was a headmistress of a school in the West Riding local authority for several years. In making the metropolitan districts responsible for education the Government are following the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, in contrast to the previous Administration which proposed giving education to the metropolitan counties. Even with the more tightly-drawn boundaries proposed by the Government, the largest metropolitan area will have a population approaching 3 million, while even the smallest will have 1·3 million. As a parent in that sort of local authority, I wonder what sort of personal service one would get. This is well in excess of the 250,000 to one million range recommended by Redclitre-Maud. On the other hand, the six large conurbations sub-divide into units big enough in terms of population and resources to provide an efficient education service and yet at the same time are sufficiently cohesive and compact to be in close touch with local conditions and individual schools and with other educational establishments. Nine of the metropolitan districts, com-pared with 11 as originally proposed in the White Paper, have populations below 250,000. This I freely admit, but the Government agree with the Redcliffe-Maud Commission that regard has to be paid to local circumstances and you cannot lay down an absolutely rigid limit. My Lords, I should be only too pleased

553
to correspond with any of your Lord-ships who would like to take the matter further. I feel that this is only a brief explanation of our thinking behind the educational side of metropolitan district responsibility for education committees; but at this hour I feel that I should move on, unless any noble Lord would wish to take the matter further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, with long experience of working in local authorities, was kind enough to say words which obviously would warm the heart of my right honourable friend. She was talking not as an armchair spokes-man or critic, but she came to your Lordships' House to-day and said what it meant in her own local authority to have a new and expanding primary school programme. I am grateful to her for doing that. I was particularly interested when the noble Baroness went on to develop her theme and reminded us of the advantages within the classroom, and between classroom and home, which good building can engender. I think that a number of noble Lords must have listened to the noble Baroness with interest at that stage of her speech.
The noble Baroness spoke of raising the school-leaving age and made a point which I do not think that any other speaker has made. She pinpointed particularly the importance of the extra year so that there will be time in the school for a proper secondary school course. And it is true that this will give every pupil an opportunity to take examinations if he or she wishes. To the children transferring at the age of 13, as in the plans of Lady Young's own authority, the 16-year-old school-leaving age becomes more and more important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, leaves me in a little difficulty. She attacked my right honourable friend from the moment the gun went off for her speech. She attacked my right honourable friend because she—my right honourable friend—attacks all Labour policies. And a little before the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, had told me, roundly, that our policies are a mere continuation of the acts of the Labour Party. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke of the vindictive and reactionary policy of my right honourable friend.
LORD STRABOLGI: Hear, hear! Quite right.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, is it vindictive to spend four times as much in 1972–73 on dreadful old schools—about which I received shoals of letters after we went to the Department—than the previous Government had in fact planned to spend? Is it vindictive, is it reactionary, to approve in 18 months very nearly as many nursery school places as the previous Government approved in six years? Is it vindictive to press ahead with the raising of the school-leaving age which was postponed by the previous Government—I know in extremely difficult circumstances? But is this vindictive?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I did not say it was vindictive to press on with the school-leaving age. I said there were no facilities, no proper programme. All the teachers I meet are against it on that count. Of course, I did not say that I was against raising the school-leaving age.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always generous at setting the record straight and I am grateful to her. It is of course easy to set the record straight so long as we stick to the facts rather than to fantasies.
The noble Baroness made a remark about the raising of the school leaving age about which, with respect, I should like to make a point. She said there was what she called "no programme". On Tuesday I visited the Schools Council who have their offices here in London, and I think I must—not on behalf of the Schools Council which is an entirely independent body, but speaking, as it were, as someone who has visited the Schools Council—make a protest to the noble Baroness over that assertion. If the noble Baroness went to look round and see what has been done during the last seven years specifically to try to make the curriculum for raising the school-leaving age not just an extra year tacked on—that is an expression that they will not allow there—but as part of the secondary school course, I think that she might re-think that remark. At any rate, I very much hope that she would do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, spoke of the Open University. A great

555
deal of what he said is for the eyes of the university alone in its independent capacity, and if not for the university, then for my right honourable friend and my honourable friend in another place, whose responsibility it is. I assure the noble Lord that I will particularly draw his speech to the attention of my right honourable friend. I feel that I am not equipped to reply to the many interesting points that he made, but I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that assurance at the moment.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to the concentration on equality of opportunity. He drew attention to the impossibility of complete equality and, listening to him, I was reminded once again of the forebodings which are to be found in Dr. Michael Young's book en- titled The Rise of the Meritocracy.I would affirm once against the remark I made in a speech earlier on the great use of the generous concept of the community school. I know that this was not Lord Blake's point, but that was how I saw the matter as I listened to him, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous work which I think is being done in a whole range of secondary schools across the country to broaden the curriculum in this way.
The noble Lord made an important statement on school examinations. Of course the proposals which have been made by the Schools Council have been made public, in order to provide an opportunity for comment from a wide range of interested parties, not least noble Lords and the noble Lord in question. The Secretary of State, when called upon to reach a conclusion, will most certainly take full account of the advice she has received. My Lords, the noble Lord also, I thought, made a most important statement on the 11 to 18 comprehensive school becoming the normal form and the dangers that this could be to sixth form teaching when difficulty arose in finding enough sixth form teachers to go round. I think this is a real danger and that it was something which is recognised on both sides of the House. But it is not lost sight of, I submit, by local education authorities. Their difficulty has been that, contrary to what has been said this afternoon, never has there been money specifically allocated for reorganisation;
556
and the problem of this Government and the previous Government for years has been that it has never been possible to carry this out, and at this moment there is a great bulge of secondary school children passing through the schools. For this reason many of the authorities who would like to build sixth-form colleges or something of that sort have had to place their sixth-form provisions in their schools. I think it fair to say, on behalf of the local education authorities—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, would be able to bear this out—that this is done with the greatest care to see that facilities are not reproduced, and the best use is made where possible of the teaching forms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, ref-erred in strong terms to the binary system. Is it not a little early, my Lords, to judge? After all, polytechnics are new. There are still two to be established, and we are talking of something which has not been completed: none is older than two years. What is remarkable is that already they are attracting more and more students to an ever-widening range of courses. I think it is important that parents and schools should advise young people of this range and these opportunities. I am bound to say that the Government's announcement last Friday of this enormously increased further education building programme for the polytechnics—and, incidentally, the new accommodation standard, which is very relevant to the remarks made by the noble Baroness—will give a great fillip to all this. In this matter we do not see eye to eye with the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, followed the noble Baroness in talking in general and most interesting terms of the courses open to Government in the planning of further and higher education. We could make all polytechnics universities, he suggested, and we could continue the distinction of function; but what was the answer? Would not the Government say? The noble Lord is flying his kite at the very moment when the next quinquennium for universities is about to come under Government review for final decision. He also is flying his kite while the James Committee is actually sitting on the future of the training of the teaching profession.

557
Perhaps I may therefore answer the specific points which the noble Lord made on the polytechnics and arts colleges. To some extent, this was a storm which arose not so much in the proverbial tea-cup but in the columns of the Guardian newspaper. I would draw the noble Lord's attention, if I may, to the excellent reply to the whole outcry which appeared in that newspaper from the Director of the Leeds Polytechnic, himself a most distinguished figure in the artistic world. He gave very good reasons, I think, to suggest that most of the criticisms of the way Art Departments in our Polytechnics are being treated are somewhat wide of the mark.
The noble Lord referred to the James Committee. It would not be appropriate, I think, for me to follow up the noble Lord's remarks about the work of the Commitee of Inquiry into the training of teachers. I would simply say that they have been working very hard; and if the noble Lord, Lord James, had wished to comment on the speculations which appeared in the papers about the conclusions which he is reported to be reaching, he would no doubt have taken the step of coming to your Lordships' House today and delivering a speech. It is obviously impossible, and quite inappropriate, from the Government side, for me to say any more on this, and I hope that now, with time running on quickly towards the end of the year, we can await the outcome of this remarkable inquiry—the first time, I think, that a major inquiry has been completed within a year.
I take most seriously the last two points that the noble Lord made on graduate unemployment and the finance of the unions. On unemployment, your Lordships, I know, will have listened with sympathy to what the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said about the difficulties that face some graduates in finding posts to their liking. But there is of course a wider problem. Everybody must wish graduates to find the fullest use for their qualifications. But, at the same time, it must not be forgotten that a degree is not to be regarded as an automatic ticket to a good job; and the success of a student's education is not to be measured by the prestige of the job that his education enables him to secure. One would have hoped that, admittedly in difficult
558
times, it would have taught a graduate, among other things, to think clearly, to adapt himself to social change, and to move sometimes outside the limits of his specialist discipline.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and I think two other noble Lords, mentioned the finance of student unions. Although I listened with interest, and will certainly report to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord said, I must say that the plans we have put forward as the basis for consultation, as the noble Lord very fairly said, were just that. At present any university can, in consultation with its students, determine unilaterally the level of the union fee which is going to be charged. It then becomes the automatic duty of the local education authority to pay that fee. This has nothing to do with any view that is taken of any member of the student population. This is simply an indefensible situation in society; it would be indefensible whoever was operating it. It is one of the aspects of the present arrangements which we feel must be put right. Time is getting on, and on the final point the noble Lord made on student housing I will, if I may, write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, when he spoke, drew attention to the vital principle of improvement of a child's environment to match educational advance. I said when I first spoke that I took this point seriously, and I think everybody in the House under-stands exactly what the noble Lord means. But my right honourable friend has to act as the Secretary of State within her Department—of course with liaison and co-operation with her colleagues, but basically in her Department. It is for this reason that we in our Department are doing our best to bring resources to bear on as many parts of the educational pyramid as is possible. This we feel is the best we can do. We have made one very important decision; namely, to carry on from the previous Government the raising of the school-leaving age. What, in general, we aim to do is to concentrate on the apex of further education: to see that the upper side, with the raising of the school-leaving age, is kept strong, and then to complete our work on the base of the pyramid, the primary schools, which we believe, and shall continue to

559
believe, are the basis of all good education.
7.35 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I have never at any stage in my life believed that all animals were equal. A catholic education, which places great emphasis on humility as a virtue, has certainly impressed that on my mind. I very early learned that there are cleverer people than I, better looking people than I—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
BARONESS PHILLIPS: That is very kind of your Lordships—and much wittier people than I. But I think this evening we have seen the great quality of contribution in debate. Running through it there has been one notable point; that is, that all noble Lords who have taken part really care about education and children. I am glad that my noble friend referred to the parade of Baronesses. I well recall reading a story by the wife of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, called The Big Switch,in which women were in control.. One of the things she did was to reverse the order of priorities in Government; that is to say, they spent nothing on de-fence, very sensibly, but they put education and health at the top of the list. I am bound to say that the punishment which men dreaded most was to be put in a gaol where they had a moving picture of a woman who nagged them. This was dreaded more than the death sentence. At least the debate has shown that those of your Lordships who have taken part have come forward with practical and philosophical ideas, which I feel sure the Minister will convey to his right honourable friend. I am grateful to him for the trouble that he has taken in his reply. Even if we do not accept what he has said, we certainly appreciate the fact that he has taken great trouble to do research and homework.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, on the question of ratio, that while I was
560
still teaching my husband was busy writing pamphlets for the Labour Party. We had a Labour Government. I read a pamphlet one day which said: "We have reduced the ratio to 29" point something or other of a child. At the time I had 52 children in my class, and I was a little puzzled to know why I had so many more than somebody else. From that day on I have mistrusted averages and ratios. I think it is actually what we see happening that is important.
I agree so much with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell when she says that we want a degree of continuity. Children must not be at the mercy of geography; they must not be appointed because they are born here or living there. I agree with my noble friend Lady Lee and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that we have to thrust forward, otherwise events will overtake us. I again thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  EXPLOSIVES DAMAGE AND THREATS
  EXPLOSIVES DAMAGE AND THREATS