Sitting of 9 August 1972

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday, 17th October, at Seven o'clock.

PETITION

  Food Prices
  Mr. Moate: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a Petition. I do so on behalf of the British Housewives' League, which expresses its opposition to the policy of higher food prices which would result from Britain's entry into the Common Market.
  This humble Petition showeth:
  That it has been the policy of British Governments since 1846 to keep food prices down and the price support scheme was devised to this end. This costs the taxpayer £6·29 a head a year in the United Kingdom. The Common Agricultural Policy is designed to keep prices up, yet the cost to the taxpayer in the European Economic Community · is £16·45 per head a year.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the housewives of our country shall not be subjected to the higher prices and higher taxation consequent on accession to the Treaty of Rome.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    USSR (Telephone Interference)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make representations to the Soviet authorities concerning the continued interference with telephone communications between subscribers in the United Kingdom and Mr. Vladimar Slepak and other Jewish scientists in Moscow.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave on 28th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). The assessment of evidence of interference with the telephone service is a matter for the Post Office, and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman writes to the corporation in the first instance.—[Vol. 839, c. 1422.]
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the interference with communications between this country and Jewish scientists such as Mr. Slepak, which began at the time when President Nixon went to Moscow, is still continuing and is thoroughly scandalous? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the main brunt is borne by his own telephone operators whose patience is constantly and sorely tried, particularly when dealing with the scandalous behaviour of the Moscow telephone operators putting calls through to outside Moscow, to places like Sverdlovsk where the Markman trial is being held today?
    In the circumstances will the right hon. Gentleman, first, convey to his telephone operators the deep appreciation of all those who have to work on this line and who make calls on it and, second, convey to the Soviet authorities his protest at the disgraceful treatment which is causing such harm to telephone operators in this country?
    Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's points will have

    1701
    been noted. However, the detailed evidence which he has available should be directed to the Post Office.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in attempting to speak to Professor Levich, a distinguished scientist who has been offered a fellowship at University College, Oxford, and who has been prevented from so doing and deprived of all his academic qualifications because his family wish to go to Israel, one is constantly told that his number is engaged?
    Sir J. Eden: This again is a matter which the Post Office itself would certainly wish to consider; and it is for the Post Office to determine whether representations should be made to the USSR.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this interference extends to the delivery of registered packets which the Soviet postal authorities appear to be illegally refusing to deliver?
    Sir J. Eden: I have had indications that this may be the case, but one again needs detailed evidence.

    BBC (Education Services)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what communications he has had from the British Broadcasting Corporation about its proposal for a fifth radio network and additional television facilities, separately funded, for educational purposes.
    Sir J. Eden: None, Sir.
    Mr. Whitehead: In that case, is the Minister aware that these interesting and, to some degree, revolutionary proposals which have been trailed by the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation are a valuable contribution to the debate about the future of broadcasting but that that contribution, like all other similar ones, would be better placed in the context of a full national inquiry into broadcasting?
    Sir J. Eden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. On his first point, I read the Director-General's speech with a great deal of interest.

    Television Reception (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a further statement about arrangements to enable the IBA to extend 625-line transmission to Derbyshire by means of booster stations.
    Sir J. Eden: The IBA is hoping to start transmissions from a relay station at Glossop in mid-1973 and then within a few months from Ladder Hill, Buxton and Birch Vale. This will bring Independent Television on UHF to an additional 23,000 households.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is indeed good news, but is my right hon. Friend aware that unfortunately not one of my constituents will be covered by this? Nevertheless the BBC, I understand, is pushing ahead with the erection of its low power transmitter on Stanton Moor, and will my right hon. Friend ensure that if the BBC can get this done in 1973 the IBA will be able to join forces and also broadcast on UHF from the same station?
    Sir J. Eden: They will be able to share facilities, so I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. Both the BBC and the IBA are pressing ahead as far as it is possible to do, given the scale of their resources and the availability of skilled labour forces.
    Mr. Whitehead: After these facilities come into operation, can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of people in Derbyshire will then be unable to receive 625-line transmissions?
    Sir J. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the original Question and my answer to it, it will leave another 22,000 households unserved.

    International Telephone Calls (Delays)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to maintain records of delays in international calls.
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. It is for the Post Office to decide what records it needs to run its business efficiently.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that he keeps telling me that he does not

    1703
    have any record of delays on international calls? How on earth will he be able to find out what delays occur if he will not give the Post Office a simple directive like this? Does he not realise that the impossibility of using ISD facilities is now so intense that many of us have given up direct dialling altogether?
    Sir J. Eden: It is not for me to keep these records or to check on the detailed operation of the service. That is a matter for the Post Office, which attends to it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—dealing with his general observations—that demand in the United Kingdom for international calls has been rising at a rate in excess of 20 per cent. per annum, and this is likely to increase. The Post Office and the industry are doing their level best to tackle this, but it is straining resources to the limit.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is something strange about calls to Portugal, on which there is a four or five hours' delay, whereas if one calls from Portugal one gets through in 10 minutes?
    Sir J. Eden: That may not be altogether to do with equipment in this country. It may have something to do with equipment in Portugal.

    Commercial Radio (Consortia Chairmen)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will seek to amend the Sound Broadcasting Act to exclude consortia, whose chairmen are, or have been, national officers of political parties, from eligibility for the franchise of commercial radio stations.
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a consortium including the Manchester Evening News and business firms, with Baron Hewlett as its chairman, has applied for the Manchester station? While this applies to leaders of all political parties, does the right hon. Gentleman think it proper that a man who for six years has been chairman of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations should be given such an influential position as this?
    Sir J. Eden: I do not follow the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Section 3(1)(e) of the Television Act, which applies to sound broadcasting, imposes a duty on the authority as far as possible to ensure due impartiality in controversial programmes. The hon. Gentleman referred to an application in connection with Manchester. He will know that although the gentleman to whom he referred is to be chairman of the consortium, Alderman Bernard Langton, a former Labour lord mayor, is to be a member of it. I think this is a reasonable balance.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is there no way of protecting people from the smears which are so frequently cast at them by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)?
    Sir J. Eden: Only by discouraging the sort of observation which was made by the hon. Member for Salford, East.
    Mr. Allaun: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair to regard as a smear a remark pointing out that a man holds top office in the Conservative Party.
    Mr. Kaufman: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that all these difficulties, whether smears or worries about political influences, could easily be avoided if he were to withdraw the wretched Act which makes these abominable stations possible?
    Sir J. Eden: I think that is a rather futile question.

    Broadcasting (University of Wales Report)
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he has studied the interim report of the Committee on Broadcasting. established by the Council of the University of Wales, a copy of which is in his possession; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir J. Eden: I have studied the report with interest. Its recommendations will be considered when policy for broadcasting in the post-1976 period is formulated.
    Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this report recommends a Welsh language television channel, but is he aware that this would be

    1705
    welcome to monoglot English people living in Wales as well as to those who speak Welsh? Does he not think that it would be wise to grant gracefully this channel rather than yield to youthful pressures from unwanted guests such as those who visited him at the Post Office yesterday?
    Sir J. Eden: I do not think it necessary to yield to pressures of any kind. This is a matter which needs to be considered carefully in the context of the post-1976 period. I have read the report with a great deal of interest and I note the extent to which it calls for a subsidy. The fact remains that more is spent on broadcasting per head of Welshmen already than is spent per head of Englishmen.

    Broadcasting (Complaints Procedure)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if, as part of his consideration of ways of dealing with complaints, he will have discussions with the chairmen of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of the Independent Broadcasting Association about making the two organisations answerable to the Press Council for complaints made about them.
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. I do not believe that the Press Council would be an appropriate body for considering broadcasting matters.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I press my right hon. Friend to look at the constitution of the Press Council again? Surely he will agree that the BBC and the IBA are essentially members of the Press and that the council, which was set up as a result of a Royal Commission and which can handle complaints procedure in the sort of way that many of us would welcome, could apply at present to the BBC and the IBA, which by their own monitoring of complaints are putting themselves in the position of Satan trying to rebuke sin.
    Sir J. Eden: I will consider the latter observation of my hon. Friend, but the Press Council's job is concerned with the treatment of individuals by journalists and such matters as invasion of privacy and misrepresentation. It has no qualifications for passing judgment on bias.
    1706
    balance, impartiality, taste and so on which are of such importance in broadcasting.

    Post Office Finance
    Mr. Goldingasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will write off past losses in the postal service.
    Sir J. Eden: I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave to a similar question on 28th June.—(Vol. 839. c. 1415–6.]
    Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the view of the Post Office that if past increases are to be avoided the accumulated losses, expected to be £180 million by April, must be written off? Is he further aware that the Union of Post Office workers supports this point of view because of the worsening morale in the postal services? Therefore, will the Minister give us an early reply to representations from the Post Office?
    Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the finances of the Post Office, in the light of the CBI price restraint and other matters, are under consideration. The UPW saw me the other day and made representations to me on this point, and I will undertake to make my position clear as soon as I am able to do so.
    Mr. Goldingasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will state the financial results of posts and telecommunications, respectively, in 1971–72; what rate of return on telecommunication capital was achieved; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Member will have seen from the Post Office's recent report, the telecommunications business made a profit of £58 million and its rate of return on capital was 8·6 per cent., whereas the postal business incurred a £12·6 million loss.
    Mr. Golding: Will the Minister tell us what was the increase in productivity in telecommunications last year and, despite that good performance, by how much prices would have had to be increased last year for the telecommunications service to reach the target of 10 per cent.? Further, will he tell us for the current year whether he will be

    1707
    revising the target or whether he will be driving price increases high enough to make it possible for the service to reach the 10 per cent. target?
    Sir J. Eden: I have no price increase proposals before me at the moment. I believe the figures for which the hon. Gentleman has asked are available in the Post Office Report and he will also find them in the speech which was made by the Chairman of the Post Office at the time the report was presented. In considering this report, one has to face the fact that a higher level of pay and prices has added something like £65 million in costs, whereas higher charges to customers have brought in an extra £23 million. This has contributed very much to the adverse situation.
    Mr. Speaker, may I say how much one shares in the sense of loss at the untimely death of Lord Delacourt-Smith who made such a great contribution towards the work of the Post Office engineers?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Post Office always has the difficulty that its more modern side, in telecommunications equipment, does a large amount of the work, whereas on the other side, which is labour-intensive, there cannot be any change because of the nature of the postal services, and that with rising wages—whether they are too high or not, they are inevitable—it is more difficult to make a profit?
    Sir J. Eden: That is absolutely correct. Not only is the postal business labour-intensive and, therefore, very much affected directly by inflation but it has also been experiencing a decline in its business of about 9 per cent. on a working day basis.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Foreign Commercial Vehicles (Standards)
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what checks are made to ensure that commercial vehicles entering Great Britain, particularly from the Republic of Ireland, are in all respects roadworthy and to a stan-
    1708
    dard which is compatible with the Ministry of Transport test certificates issued in this country.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act, 1972, gives enforcement officers the necessary powers to carry out such checks.
    Mr. Redmond: Are these checks being carried out? Does my hon. Friend realise that a number of vehicles of commercial types, usually landing at Preston, I believe, having come through Larne from the Republic of Ireland, are arriving in the hands of itinerant tinkers or gipsies but are simply not fit to be on the road, being a menace to the drivers and to the public as a whole, whereas commercial vehicle operators in this country would be jumped on from a great height if their vehicles did not undergo the Ministry of Transport test regularly?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Act in question came into force only last week. However, I note what my hon. Friend says and I shall ask my Department's examiners to look into the problem which he mentions.

    Long Eaton
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange to make an official visit to Long Eaton.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Rost: Has my right hon. Friend noted that, egged on by Labour Members of Parliament, the Long Eaton council has misguidedly decided not to-implement the Housing Finance Act and, as a result, many hundreds of the least well off of my constituents living in rented accommodation, both private and council, will not be getting their rebates? If my right hon. Friend cannot come to Long Eaton, will he at least give me some guidance on how I may protect the least well off of my constituents, since the Labour Party obviously does not care?
    Mr. Walker: I suggest that my hon. Friend advises the Long Eaton council to get in touch with some of the many authorities which brought in the national

    1709
    rebate scheme last April and can explain how successful it has been.

    Council Housing Subsidies
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Government's declared intention of reducing by up to £200 million a year the council housing subsidies which would have otherwise been paid by 1975 under the present system.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The Government never declared an intention to reduce housing subsidies by any specific amount. We have estimated that the effect of the provisions of the Housing Finance Act, 1972, will be to maintain subsidies at about their present level, or, in my latest judgment, somewhat above.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that on two occasions in the Chamber the Government stated precisely what I have set out in the Question? Is it not unjust to reduce such potential subsidies by a single penny when the Government, quite rightly, last year raised the relief to owner-occupiers from £300 million to £340 million a year?
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. All I was trying to explain on previous occasions was that the reorganisation of the subsidy system, which will concentrate subsidies on people and areas in need, will leave subsidies maintained at about or somewhat above their present level.
    Mr. Crosland: May we clear this matter up? Is it not within the recollection of the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the mini-Budget of October, 1970, stated that he expected a saving of £200 million in 1975–76 compared with what would otherwise have been the case? Is it not within the recollection also of all members of Standing Committee E that similar figures were given by the Minister himself more than once in those proceedings? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give his present estimate as compared with those estimates of the likely savings in 1975–76?
    Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what I have been at pains to correct is the suggestion
    1710
    that the declared intention was to make this saving. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] It has never been, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had long ago abandoned the idea that the object of the Housing Finance Act was to save money. That has never been its object. The object has been to reconcentrate subsidies where they are needed. As I have said, my estimate is that subsidies will remain at about or somewhat above the present level.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Deliberately or otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. Does he not recall that the White Paper on public spending issued by the Chancellor in October, 1970, stated in terms that the saving would be between £100 million and £200 million a year on housing subsidies as compared with what they would have been if the Labour Government's subsidies had been continued? Will he now say what the current estimate is?
    Mr. Amery: We have merely pointed out that the more rational and equitable subsidy system on which we are embarking happens to result in between £100 million and £200 million less than the old inefficient system would have produced, but this is not the motivating force behind the Act. What we are trying to do is to help people and areas in need.
    Mr. Crosland: If it was not at least the original motivating force behind the Bill, why on earth was the new housing policy declared not by the Secretary of State or the Minister but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the context of a money-saving autumn Budget?
    Mr. Amery: It was set out at great length in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, then Minister of Housing and Local Government, and elaborated in the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing", as the right hon. Gentleman will recollect.

    A38, Derby (Road Marking)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received asking for him to reverse his decision to have the double white lines painted out on the A38 at Pastures Hill, Derby.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Three, Sir.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authority, the Derby Borough Council, applied two years ago for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on this stretch of road and it put down double white lines—illegally, as it turned out—out of sheer desperation because of the number of accidents and the overtaking which seems endemic on this stretch of road? Will the hon. Gentleman now look sympathetically at a further application from the local authority for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit?
    Mr. Griffiths: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is important not to devalue double white lines by putting them in places where they will not be effective. The local authority has been told that we can agree to a 50 m.p.h. limit, and if it will put up a specific proposal in respect of the short section of bend in that stretch my Department will certainly look at it.

    Housing Finance Act
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from local authorities, organisations representing local authorities and other organisations concerned with housing urging him to defer the implementation of the Housing Finance Act.
    Mr. Amery: As I would have expected, very few.
    Mr. Davis: Is it not a fact that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the London Boroughs Association, among many such bodies, have protested about the early implementation of the Act? Is it not a fact also that the Government have done utterly inadequate research into the financial implications of the Act for council tenants? Are not the bogus figures which have been presented by the Prime Minister, representing an increase of 7½ per cent. for council tenants, totally misleading since if one excludes the 1 million council tenants who have already suffered an increase of 50p, the total increase will be likely to be about 13½ per cent.? Why cannot the Minister come clean about it?
    Mr. Amery: As I understand the situation, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a figure covering all tenants
    1712
    in all property, both council and private, and I believe his figure to be perfectly correct.
    Mr. Davis: I am talking about council tenants.
    Mr. Kinsey: Will my right hon. Friend take it that the poorer paid people in my constituency are anxiously looking forward to the implementation of this scheme, which will be of tremendous help to them?
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Any local authority, association or other body which seeks to defer the introduction of the Act is seeking to defer the granting of rebates and allowances to those who need them most and the introduction of the slum clearance and rising cost subsidies to help authorities which have slums and overcrowding.
    Mr. Stallard: When does the Minister expect the Act to be published so that we may read it?
    Mr. Amery: The Bill has been before the House over a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Act."] The Act comes into implementation in a day or two from now.
    Mr. Stallard: When will the Act—not the Bill—be published?
    Mr. Amery: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's question. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does not know."] I shall write to the hon. Member precisely about publication.
    Mr. Freeson: This is a fantastic situation. Presumably the Act will be in operation as from today. It has received Royal Assent, or will do so sometime today at the very latest. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that copies should be available for those who will have to implement it? This is the main point of my query. There are only two or three weeks between enactment and the implementation of all the procedures that local authorities will have to undertake to implement the provisions of the Act—irrespective of rebate schemes which in any event could be operated with or without the Act. It is an impossible situation for hundreds upon hundreds of local authorities. There is complete confusion about what the

    1713
    Government have in mind as the basis of their rental policy.
    Mr. Amery: With his long experience of local government, of which he sometimes reminds us, the hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well that the associations and the local authorities have not only studied the Bill but have studied all the Amendments and know exactly how the Act stands. Implementation, as we discussed when we considered Lords Amendments, is to be a fortnight after 27th July. I have not done the sums to see whether we have reached that date, but the Act will be available in a consolidated form as soon as possible.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many, and which, local authorities in England and Wales have notified him since the Royal Assent was given to the Housing Finance Bill of their intention not to implement the legislation.
    Mr. Amery: One, Sir: Camden London Borough Council.
    Mr. Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend consider telling this authority and any other that may decide to break the law that it is against the interests of its own tenants who may well suffer and against the interests of private tenants who may have rent allowances delayed? Will he also tell it that the housing commissioner, if appointed, might under the Act be given powers to sell council houses to tenants?
    Mr. Amery: I share my hon. Friend's astonishment that Camden of all places should have taken this line. It seems that both tenant and ratepayer stand to benefit very much from the Act. I take my hon. Friend's point that any local authority which follows the line that Camden has so far taken would be extremely unwise. I cannot believe that Camden will persist with this line and there is plenty of time for it to take a more reasonable attitude.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that by an earlier reply he must have caused considerable confusion in the ranks of the Conservative Party about the effects of the Housing Finance Act since it felt that the intention of the Act was to save subsidies and the taxation of millionaires and people getting up to that mark? Does his reply
    1714
    mean that there is no real reason for this anxiety in the Labour-controlled authorities because, as with other policies, the Government are now on an entirely new tack?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Gentleman has not perhaps followed our debate and discussions on the Bill as closely as he might have done. If he had, he would have realised that the emphasis from the beginning has been on the need to provide more subsidy finance for people and areas of need, for rebates and allowances for individuals and for a better slum clearance subsidy and rising costs subsidy to deal with overcrowding.

    Housing Land (Price)
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a directive to all planning authorities that, until further notice, no planning permission to develop land for housing shall be granted unless it contains a condition that the applicant shall sell it at a price which allows him to obtain no more than a reasonable profit on the original cost of land to him.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): No, Sir. The main way of tackling the problem of land prices is to increase land supply.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the suggestion in my Question is intended as a spur to the Government to face up to this modern phenomenon of exorbitant property prices which has become a scandal and an offence to all right-thinking people?
    Mr. Speed: Yes, I certainly accept that that there was much that needed to be done in the situation of land prices in 1969, for example. The package of measures announced by my right hon. Friend last April and the fact that in the private sector housing starts last year were 26 per cent. up on 1970 and are running at record levels this year must be remembered. We are certainly not complacent and we have certainly not closed the door to further measures if they are needed.
    Mr. Crosland: The Government need not a spur but a whip. Are we to take it as a final statement of Government

    1715
    policy that after all the rise in prices over the last few months they still have no policy for land prices other than the minor tinkering policies announced by the Secretary of State in April?
    Mr. Speed: For the right hon. Gentleman to describe the policies and the considerable package announced in April—totalling £80 million—and the other measures as minor policies is a bit much. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have heard me say that we have not closed the door to any further policy if and when it may be needed. The fact remains that in the private sector starts were running last year at a record level of 26 per cent. over the levels of 1970.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to debate the matter later today.

    Corby
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the East Midlands Economic Planning Council has informed him of its view that the expansion of Northampton, Wellingborough, Peterborough and Milton Keynes should be restrained to make sure that Corby has a chance to reach its population target and to become a properly balanced community; and whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to the East Midlands Economic Planning Board.
    Mr. Speed: The East Midlands Economic Planning Council has informed me of its views on the development of Corby compared with the other new and expanding towns in the area. My right hon. Friend met the council on 27th July in Leicester and discussed a variety of topics with it, including the question of industrial diversification and development at Corby.
    Sir G. de Freitas: What will the Minister do to see that valuable public investment in Corby is not wasted? A great deal of public money has been spent on encouraging expansion in towns which do not have the facilities that are readily available in Corby.
    Mr. Speed: I do not think that public investment is being wasted. My informa-
    1716
    tion is that on both the housing and the industrial fronts things in Corby are looking extremely bright. Unemployment there is below the national average and I am convinced that the considerable public investment put into this town will be extremely effective for all the developments taking place there, particularly the new industrial developments.

    Closing Orders (Contravention)
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the effect of inflation on the value of the maximum fine for breaches of a closing order as originally introduced in 1919 and 1923.
    Mr. Amery: The maximum penalty prescribed for letting premises in contravention of a closing order is a fine of £20 and £5 a day for a continuing offence after conviction. For a period of, say, three months the latter fine could amount to £455. The value of the £ today compared with 1919 is 29p and with 1923 23p.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that an Amendment to bring these fines into line with the demands of present-day money values was introduced to the Criminal Justice Bill in the House of Lords by Lord Stow Hill but was rejected purely on the ground that that Bill was a Home Office Bill and not a Department of the Environment Bill? Particularly bearing in mind that the Government accepted an Amendment to increase fines for harassment in that Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman able to explain why, on a purely procedural ground, that sensible Amendment was refused?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. As I understand it, the Amendment was not rejected but was withdrawn by Lord Stow Hill in view of an undertaking given by my noble Friend Lord Colville that the Government would consider the point made in the Amendment.

    Housing (Bromley)
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning permissions for the building of private dwellings were granted by the London Borough of Bromley in each of

    1717
    the years 1969, 1970 and 1971; and how many of these have resulted in the completion of such dwellings.
    Mr. Amery: This information is not available.
    Mr. Hunt: Why is it not available? Similar information for the city of Westminster was given in a Written Answer some time ago. I find this disturbing and not at all understandable.
    Mr. Amery: The statistics available to us do not distinguish between planning permissions for public and private sector development and those for new buildings, extensions and alterations. Moreover, completions cannot be related to the number of planning permissions without detailed examination.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private houses started in January, 1971, were sold for £9,000 and that houses of the same design being built by the same builder in Bromley are now being sold at £15,000?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question relates to planning permissions in Bromley.
    Mr. Freeson: Is not the Minister aware that anyone may go to a local authority and get information from the register of planning applications which is available for public inspection? It should be possible for the Department to obtain that information from a local authority to show the number of private dwelling applications in any year and the number of houses completed.
    How many public sector houses in Bromley were approved and started this year? When may we expect Bromley to co-operate with the London Housing Office set up by the London Boroughs Association in pursuit of the Government's policy to make land available in outer London to deal with the problems of the inner London boroughs?
    Mr. Amery: That last question is a separate matter and I should like notice of it. It is true that Bromley may be able to supply the particulars and my hon. Friend may approach the council if he wishes, but I would not myself ask the council to undertake what would be a sizeable task.
    As for the more general issue, I draw attention to a Written Answer by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the
    1718
    work of the London Action Group whose two interim reports are now available in the Library.

    Rent Assessment Panels (Members' Fees)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what fee for each sitting is paid to members of rent assessment panels in London, apart from presidents and vice-presidents.
    Mr. Amery: The daily fee payable thoughout the country is £27 for chairmen, £25 for professional members and £15 for lay members. Half-day fees are paid as appropriate.
    Mr. Lipton: How many of these people are there? Who appoints them and for how long are they appointed? Is any change in their status or duties contemplated for the near future?
    Mr. Amery: There are 120 members of the London Rent Assessment Panel and 71 of them are qualified to sit as chairmen. Rent assessment committees are appointed from the panel and each committee normally has a lawyer, a valuer and what is called a lay member—that is, someone with general knowledge. Eleven rent tribunals in London are appointed by the president of the panel from this membership. I will supply the hon. Gentleman with details of their lengths of service and so on if he desires.

    Railway Finances
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he took into account, before agreeing to provide British Railways with £50 million to £60 million and to their proposals about their field organisation, the statement made by the Board's Chairman that Great Britain was in danger of losing its present railway system and the need to prevent further contraction in the railway network; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend could not on 27th July take account of something which the Chairman of the Railways Board did not say until 1st August. But the financial and organisational measures referred to in his statement of 27th July should be helpful in reducing the dangers mentioned by the Chairman of the Board.
    Mr. Stoddart: Am I to understand that the Minister is so out of touch with the thinking of the Railways Board that he was not aware of the situation set out by the Chairman on 1st August? Will he say, now that he has heard that statement, what action he intends taking to see that the Chairman's prediction that the present railway system will not exist in 10 years' time does not materialise?
    Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the thinking of the Chairman of the Railways Board—indeed, he has frequent and useful talks with him. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House about what the Chairman said. He did not suggest that the railway system would not exist within 10 years and I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman imagines he said that. He said that it was necessary to rethink the rôle of the railways and that is precisely what my right hon. Friend is now engaged in doing with the Railways Board.
    Mr. Mulley: While we welcome the recent decision to provide funds for the railways to help with their cash flow, as well as the other measures which the hon. Gentleman has announced, may I ask whether he and his colleagues realise that what is wanted is a clear statement by the Government that since, for a number of reasons, the expectations of the 1968 Act have not come about, it is a matter of policy that the railways must be given the finances to remain a viable system? Otherwise, with all the opposition to and difficulties of extending roads, if we do not get as much traffic off the roads as we can by using the railways, we will allow decisions now which we will regret in 10 or 15 years' time.
    Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the points which the right hon. Gentleman very fairly puts. He is currently engaged with the Railways Board in seeking to identify those services which can be run commercially and, in the light of studies, to consider what action needs to be taken about those services which are not strictly commercial.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the railways depends a great deal on the capital investment programme made available to them? Can he say whether this pro-
    1720
    gramme has been increasing or decreasing over the last five years and what he anticipates it will be in future?
    Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice.

    Centre Point
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has sent to the further letter dated 2nd August addressed to him by Mr. Harry Hyams on the subject of Centre Point.
    Mr. Peter Walker: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hunt: While I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to pursue this public correspondence, may I congratulate him on so successfully flushing this elusive millionaire into the open, if only to defend the indefensible? Although Mr. Harry Hyams now appears to be getting the ministerial message, will my right hon. Friend say when he expects to be able to place before the House the details of his proposed legislation to deal with the scandal of the empty office blocks?
    Mr. Walker: I said in my original statement that unless the majority of the office blocks concerned were occupied within a few months, we would introduce legislation. That is still the position.
    Mr. Lipton: When will the right hon. Gentleman do something? So far he has written two or three letters and said that he will do something in a few months' time. We want to know what he will do now.
    Mr. Walker: This is a problem that has been going on for some years, including under the previous Government. When I made my statement I made it perfectly clear that unless this ended within a few months I would introduce legislation. I have only ever written one letter which was in reply to a particular request from this correspondent and as far as I am concerned the position remains quite firmly that I have given notice that unless it is ended within a few months I will introduce legislation. I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) for saying the other day that he would assist such legislation.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend consider writing to one of the shareholders in the company owning

    1721
    Centre Point—namely, one of the organs of the Co-operative Society—to ask it to exercise its influence?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. This legislation does not concern any specific project or building; it concerns the principle involved. I am not interested in any specific shareholder or company. I am just interested in trying to tackle this problem.
    Mr. Freeson: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we would not object to any such correspondence as is mentioned in the Question? If the right hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to present legislation to the House in the autumn, may I ask him not only to cover the question of office blocks being held empty because of questions of capital appreciation but also to pay close attention to the need for applying such legislation to residential property being held empty for similar purposes on an increasing scale? I have been to see some of them recently, within the last two days, and it is appalling.
    Mr. Walker: Local authorities already possess considerable powers in respect of residential property by way of compulsory purchase order when they feel that residential properties are unnecessarily remaining empty. The legislation I have in mind is specifically for office blocks. The problem of empty residential property is something we will continue to examine.

  SCOTLAND

    Selective Schools (Glasgow)
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the position of the selective schools in Glasgow, with particular reference to the intake of primary pupils for the forthcoming session.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend is still considering Glasgow Education Authority's proposals for reorganisation of these schools. He has informed the authority today that, without prejudice to the long-term future of the High School of Glasgow, he is prepared to agree to there being no intake of new pupils to the
    1722
    primary department of the school in session 1972–73.
    Mr. Taylor: Is not my hon. Friend aware of a letter which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the authority on 3rd May in which he said that he would enable Glasgow to continue with the status quo until such time as the plans of the authority to reorganise secondary and primary departments were approved? Why has there been a change of plan?
    Mr. Younger: There is a different situation with the secondary and primary schools and my right hon. Friend has advised that the present proposal of the authority as regards the primary intake does not require his approval. It is not open to him to prevent it.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Civil Servants
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in the two years June, 1970, to June, 1972, in reducing the total number of non-industrial civil servants.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The Civil Service has been reduced by nearly 13,000 between 1st July, 1970, and 1st July, 1972. In this period there has been an increase of about 1,000 non-industrial staff and a reduction of about 14,000 industrial staff.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that that fulfils the Government's election pledge to reduce the number of civil servants? Has he taken into account the fact that the introduction of value added tax, apart from putting up the cost of living very substantially, will add 6,000 or 7,000 civil servants to the list he has given?
    Mr. Baker: I am satisfied that our record in this respect is infinitely better than the record of the Labour Government. In their first two years of office, 1964–66, they increased the size of the Civil Service by 2 per cent. We have reduced it by about 2 per cent. However, I have made it clear to the House on other occasions that increases are in

    1723
    the pipeline, not only because of value added tax but also because of certain social security measures which we have introduced, such as family income supplement and the constant attendance allowance. Part of the increase has been in the Home Office establishment where we have increased the number of prison officers by 1,700 since we have been on iffice.

    Pension Scheme
    Mr. Jesselasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has yet laid before Parliament a copy of the new Civil Service pension scheme.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Yes, Sir, on 15th June. As a result, we have now been able to add to the annual reviews of existing pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act substantial improvements in the pension scheme itself, including coverage of unestablished staff, preservation of pension rights, the basing of pensions and other benefits on the final year's salary, and half-rate widows' pensions.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many retired civil servants living in my constituency, and will he continue to watch their interests carefully in relation to the rising cost of living?
    Mr. Baker: Yes. The improvements made in the Civil Service pension scheme which have been approved by the two sides of the National Whitley Council make it one of the best schemes in the country and, as a country, we have every right to be proud of it.

    Parliamentary Questions (Cost)
    Mr. Jesselasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is now able to announce the results of the analysis of the cost of answering parliamentary Questions.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The costs incurred in Government Departments in preparing answers for 1,385 Questions tabled for Oral Answer and 1,515 Questions tabled for Written Answer during the period 10th April to 5th May, 1972, have now been analysed. The average cost for those for Oral Answer has been calculated as £16 and for those for Written Answer as £10.
    Mr. Jessel: What is the largest number of Questions put by any hon. Member in
    1724
    the present Parliament, and what is the cost to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Baker: The House will probably know who has asked the most Questions—the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He is the last of the big askers. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not present. Normally he does not miss Question Time.
    Mr. Kaufman: He is writing them.
    Mr. Baker: The cost of the hon. Gentleman's Questions in the first half of this Session was £13,296 and probably for a full Session it is between £25,000 and £35,000. That is roughly equivalent to the employment of about 12 clerical officers in my Department.
    Dr. Marshall: Why is the cost of answering Questions tabled for written answer so much less than the cost of answering those for Oral Answer?
    Mr. Baker: Because officials in each Department have to prepare a much fuller brief on Questions for Oral Answer. This practice has continued for some years. This is the real cost. For Questions which are not answered orally less of a brief has to be prepared.
    Mr. Crouch: Will my hon. Friend note that some of us are having difficulty in knowing what Questions were asked and what answers were given on 31st July this year due to the fact that HANSARD for that day has not yet been published?
    Mr. Baker: There was a short industrial dispute in the Stationery Office which led to the failure to produce HANSARD; but the staff are catching up on the publication of HANSARD. In replying to my hon. Friend's Question rather obliquely, may I point out that the full cost of Question Time over a Session is between £350,000 and £400,000. That is a very small price to pay for one of the basic ingredients of the British parliamentary system.
    Mr. Sheldon: While agreeing with the hon. Gentleman's last comment, may I ask him whether he accepts that it is no part of anybody's duty to criticise any hon. Member for tabling Questions which he believes to be necessary in the interests of his constituents and that these matters

    1725
    can be judged only by the Member concerned? The information about cost which the hon. Gentleman has given is very interesting to us, but does he not agree that Questions are a very valuable means of obtaining the kind of information which it has become increasingly difficult to obtain? Despite the Government's protestations about open government, we have had very poor answers this Session. This point should be put on record.
    Mr. Baker: That is a very unfair point to make. I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said. Question Time is one of the greatest safeguards of the liberties we enjoy in this country. The number of Questions tabled has increased enormously since the last survey in 1965. In the sample periods the number of oral Questions has increased by 57 per cent. and the number of Written Questions by 126 per cent. I pay tribute to the Officers of the House in the Table Office who handle all our Questions.

    Civil Servants (Code of Conduct)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the re-examination of the code of conduct relating to civil servants and their receipt of gifts from firms or persons in contractual relations with Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have nothing at present to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member on 20th July, and to my reply to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 19th July.—[Vol. 841, c. 162 and 614–5.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a degree of urgency about this matter? He has just referred to the cost of the Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I think he said that the total cost was about £38,000. One of those Questions was tabled to the Secretary of State for Scotland and asked whether Mr. Pottinger had obtained permission to receive the gift of £11,000 or so from the Poulson firm and the answer was a very short "No". In view of that, is it not monstrous that this civil servant should
    1726
    now be retired on full pay when it was quite clear that he was infringing the existing code of conduct and that if he had been dismissed it would have saved £10,000 of the total cost of £38,000 of the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North? Since more unnamed civil servants have been mentioned in the Poulson affair, will the hon. Gentleman treat this matter with a far greater degree of urgency?
    Mr. Baker: As the hon. Gentleman will know, police inquiries are taking place into the Poulson affair. It would be unfair—and the Government take this view—for the Civil Service to take disciplinary action against any of the people mentioned until those inquiries are completed because it might be held that such disciplinary action would prejudice the people involved. I have already instituted inquiries about the other unnamed civil servants who have recently been mentioned in the case, but I am not in a position to say any more at this time.
    Mr. Whitehead: Whatever the outcome of the Poulson case, is it not abundantly clear that the widespread public concern justifies the establishment of a full and comprehensive register of the interests of civil servants and people in local government?
    Mr. Baker: That raises a much wider question. I am not at all satisfied that a register of the interests of civil servants would be manageable or appropriate.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Civil Service should not take disciplinary action in respect of a clear breach of discipline because perhaps criminal proceedings will be instituted in respect of more serious offences?
    Mr. Baker: What I am saying is that if the Civil Service were to set up a disciplinary committee to examine the case and action followed, it might prejudice particular people concerned in the case, and it is the custom in cases of this sort for the police inquiries to be completed first.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in his consideration

    1727
    of ways of increasing the proportion of registered disabled persons employed by the Civil Service.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Departments have been asked to seek information about the availability of registered disabled persons from the local employment offices and, wherever they can, make it clear in advertisements for staff that registered disabled persons will be considered.
    Mr. Chapman: While I am grateful for that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend how many registered disabled people are employed in the Civil Service Department? If it is true that the number has increased, would he say that it would be a good thing to have a target of at least 3 per cent.? Surely it is important that the Civil Service Department should set an example to commercial and industrial organisations in this very important matter.
    Mr. Baker: Yes, indeed, there is a target of 3 per cent. both in the public and in the private sector to move towards. I have taken specific action in the last fortnight to improve the numbers of registered disabled persons in the Civil Service. We shall be publishing a booklet upon job opportunities for disabled people in the Civil Service and we shall be issuing instructions to relax the qualifications in respect of disabled people for the appointment of clerical assistants.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to Question No. 31. I feel aggrieved that you failed to call me to put a supplementary question when both the Question and the disgraceful reply given by the Minister affect thousands of people living in my constituency in the London Borough of Camden. It is a fact that the Housing Fnance Act—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot raise a point of order on the fact that I did not call him to ask a supplementary question. I am sorry that I did not call him. I had called him earlier. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) rose several times and I
    1728
    wanted to call him. Then we had to get on. No point of order arises.
    Mr. Stallard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That Question specifically applied to my constituency. I was on my feet, and I think I was entitled to be called, especially when the Minister made the most disgraceful attack on that London Borough—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that I am sorry that I did not call the hon. Member, but he cannot raise a point of order about it now. The calling of Members is a matter within the discretion of the Chair. Nobody has an absolute right to be called to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Whitehead: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Stallard) is an alderman of Camden, and, that being so, there was a direct reflection on him and on other members of the council in the Question asked by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go on discussing this matter. Nobody has a right to be called to ask a supplementary question. Whatever may have been said, there is no right to be called. It is a matter for the Chair. I am sorry I did not call the hon. Member, and I have said so.

BANK LENDING POLICY
Mr. Healeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the letter sent yesterday by the Bank of England to the joint stock banks regarding their lending policy.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The Governor of the Bank of England has written to the banks drawing their attention to the need to meet the expanding demand for credit by industry and asking that they should as necessary make credit less readily available to property companies and for financial transactions.
Mr. Healey: The House will note that the Government are celebrating the collapse of another piece of Tory dogma with a familiar somersault, but is this not

1729
bolting the stable door after the horse has gone over the horizon? Is it not the case that over the last 10 months advances to property companies and other speculators have risen by over 70 per cent. whereas advances to manufacturing industry for investment have risen by only 2 per cent. so that it is impossible for the vast majority of young families to get a mortgage for the purchase of a house? In view of the fact that the Government are doing far too little far too late, will they now tell the House when they propose to introduce quantitative controls over bank lending? Secondly, will they, as repeatedly requested by the Opposition, repeal that Clause in the Finance Bill which allows tax-free interest to loans for speculative purposes?
Mr. Jenkin: I, too, have read The Guardian's leading article this morning and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not do better than that. The change which has taken place is most emphatically not a change in the Government's new approach to lending which was introduced last year. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but the Bank of England consultative document entitled "Competition and Credit Control" specifically provided for the issue of guidance of this sort, and this is exactly what the Bank has done.
As for the question of property speculation and so forth, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he regarded some of the activities in this field as distasteful, which was the word he used, and if the new policy has some effect in curbing the activities of property speculators I shall be surprised if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not cheer as loudly as some of my hon. Friends.
As for the question of tax relief, on that I think the right hon. Gentleman was on a very bad point because the law on borrowing for investment in property today is exactly as it was when the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, the argument was deployed by the Minister of State in debates on the Finance Bill that the reallowance of interest has removed the discrimination which probably acted in favour of borrowing by property speculators.
Mr. Healey: Is it not the case, first of all, that advances to companies other than property companies for speculative purposes have risen by 78 per cent. over the last 10 months and that advances to such companies would be restricted if the Government would repeal that Clause of the Finance Bill to which I referred? In view of the hon. Gentleman's astonishing complacency about the situation, and his belief that there is no change in Government policy so far carried out, will he now answer the question I asked him—when will the Government introduce some quantitative control over bank lending?
Mr. Jenkin: The reallowance of interest was very fully debated during the passage of the Finance Bill and I have nothing new to add to what we said then and to the arguments which the House accepted. On the right hon. Gentleman's point arguing that we should return to some sort of physical controls and his support for a loans ceiling, I would say that the letter issued yesterday is in no sense a move back to the policy which we departed from in the new arrangements introduced last year. This is a letter of guidance from the authorities reinforcing action which the banks themselves have already taken to slow down the growth of their lending. One of the main objects of the reforms introduced last year was to institute greater competition in banking, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that any return to physical controls would be completely opposite to that policy.
Sir D. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that interest rates charged to farmers and others carrying out small and medium-sized productive enterprises are now rather more than prohibitively high, and would he apply his mind to this during the coming recess?
Mr. Jenkin: There is certainly no doubt that interest rates could be advantageously affected if we were to get a slowing down in the rate of wage cost inflation, which is one of the major elements which has required interest rates to be raised over the last few months.
Mr. English: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) by

1731
saying that the money supply was increasing at the rate of 23 per cent.? Hon. Members opposite seem to be slightly surprised that there is inflation in such a situation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was proposing marginally to reduce the rate of interest. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how that relates to the present situation?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member's memory is quie right. My right hon. Friend, in the debate on 29th June, made it clear. He was referring to recently published figures and said:
"The most recent published figures for money supply and credit showed that they had been growing faster than appropriate to support the growing economic activity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1972: Vol. 839, c. 1709.]
Since then, under the new arrangements, interest rates have risen, and this will undoubtedly affect the rate of growth of money supply. Rapid growth in bank lending has been a factor in the recent growth of the money supply, and a substantial part of it has gone to property companies and financial transactions. Here the new guidance should certainly help.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: There are two questions I should like to ask my hon. Friend arising out of the questions posed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). First of all, is this a directive to the clearing banks or to the banking system as a whole? My understanding is that it would be the latter, but the right hon. Member for Leeds, East referred specifically to clearing banks. Secondly, could my hon. Friend say what evidence there is, or whether there is, in fact, any evidence, that lending to industry for productive purposes has been curtailed in any way because of rising borrowings?
Mr. Jenkin: On the first question asked by my hon. Friend, the guidance was to the banking system. There are, of course, many other lenders—insurance companies, pension funds and so on—and I have no doubt that these other lending institutions will take note of the guidance issued yesterday by the Bank. On the
1732
second question asked by my hon. Friend, no, there has been no evidence yet of any restriction whatever on lending to industry for investment purposes. Indeed, as I said in an earlier answer, the banks themselves have already been moving in the direction implied by the guidance given by the Bank. We want to make absolutely certain that as the demands for lending from the banking system grow there is no risk whatever of there being any restriction on credit availability to industry.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I am not criticising the restriction of credit for speculative office property companies, but will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no restriction in either the building or the buying of houses and flats? Secondly, since it is expected that the building societies will today raise their mortgage interest rates, will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the option mortgage scheme by raising the margin to help those who will suffer? Does he agree that it would be unfair to restrict building society loans because it would hurt those on lower income levels?
Mr. Jenkin: The second question is not only hypothetical but goes way beyond the scope of the Question asked by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not the Government's intention that there should be any restriction whatever on the development of the housing market to meet the rapidly expanding need. I think the whole House has welcomed the major rise—between 40 and 50 per cent.—in the number of new mortgages granted in the last few months compared with the number granted during the last period of the Labour Government's Administration.
Mr. Rees-Davies: From what my hon. Friend has said, I take it that there is no policy change by the Government on home loans, that neither the banks nor the other institutions will be in any way affected by what has been said this morning, and that the policy which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has adumbrated will be followed both in the letter and in the spirit?
Mr. Jenkin: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for the first week after the Summer Adjournment will be:
TUESDAY, 17TH OCTOBER—Debate on a Motion for the adjournment of the House on a subject of the Opposition's choice.
Consideration of Opposed Private Business which has been named by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH OcToBER—Remaining stages of the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill [Lords].
Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place.
THURSDAY, 19TH OCTOBER—Debate on a Motion inviting the House to approve an experiment in broadcasting the proceedings of the House.
FRIDAY, 20TH OCTOBER—Motions on Orders and Prayers, to be announced.
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that preparations are proceeding on the basis of the new Session being opened on Tuesday, 31st October, 1972.
Mr. Orme: Is the Leader of the House able to say anything about the developments on the dock strike and the continuing negotiations of the Jones-Aldington Committee, about which there is a great deal of Press speculation?
Mr. Carr: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked this question because I was in personal contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment shortly before coming into the House. He asked me to tell the House, if this question was asked, as he expected it would be, that he feels the negotiations are at a delicate stage. As the House will know, the Jones-Aldington Committee was adjourned at ten o'clock last night and reconvened this morning, and my right hon. Friend wishes to be available. He feels that there is nothing he can usefully say at the moment, and he asks me to explain that to the House and to say he is sorry, but he feels that this is the right judgment to make.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a great deal of speculation about a possible statement on investment grants for shipping? Is it likely that a statement will be made soon on this subject, as the delay is causing a hold-up of orders?
Mr. Carr: As I said yesterday in winding up one of the debates, my right hon. Friend is actively involved in this under the Industry Bill when it becomes an Act, and he is answering a question about it today.
Mr. Faulds: Sir, I had hoped that we should be celebrating the happy obsequies of the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill. Since that is not to be so, will the right hon. Gentleman, as a suitable epitaph on the Government's dismal record, arrange to have as a permanent memorial turnstiles designed by Henry Moore?
Mr. Carr: We shall have to make sure that the turnstiles are designed in such a way that we shall be able to get in easily. The hon. Gentleman should look at the total amount of extra support which will be available for the arts, both nationally and regionally. The Government have nothing to be ashamed of.
Mr. McMaster: In view of the alarming events of the last few days in Northern Ireland, the shocking increase in terrorist activity, with the death and injury which has resulted and the political talks which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having in Northern Ireland, is it possible for a statement to be made before the House rises? If not, what provision will be made for the House to be recalled should events in Northern Ireland further deteriorate before the House resumes in October?
Mr. Carr: There will be no statement today. As to the possibility of recalling the House, I made clear yesterday that, as is usual when the House adjourns for the recess, there are provisions for recall should the need arise, and the question of Northern Ireland will be borne in mind. I am a little surprised, after the actions of the last week or so, that my hon. Friend should regard the situation in Northern Ireland as one which is deteriorating. I do not believe that that is the right picture, and I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have

1735
given greater hope and support to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Greville Janner: As the Government have said that nearly 80 per cent. of all applications for compensation for unfair dismissal which have reached the industrial tribunals have failed, and that not one applicant has reached the maximum figure, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be a debate at an early stage upon the shockingly bad way in which this part of the Industrial Relations Act is working in practice?
Mr. Carr: I cannot give an assurance about that at the moment. It is a matter about which I have had no warning. I will, of course, report the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend. I should have thought that we might all have rejoiced in the fact that in a few months the provisions of the Act have given between 2,000 and 3,000 people an opportunity to redress their grievances, an opportunity which they did not have before. Opportunity can always be improved; there was none before but there is now.
Mr. Shore: In view of the anxieties about the docks, Northern Ireland and other matters, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has repeated that the usual arrangements for recalling the House, should it be necessary, will be put into effect.
I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman two points on the business which he has announced for October. First, he will understand that we on this side of the House find no cause to welcome the news that the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill is to reappear on the Floor of the House. Secondly, he has apparently not been able to persuade his colleagues to come forward with a statement on the Government's position on the consultations that have taken place with a view to a European summit meeting. On the assumption that the summit meeting is still to take place in October, will he make certain that we have either a full statement or a full debate before the meeting takes place?
Mr. Carr: I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said and will discuss it personally with my right hon.
1736
and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On the question of the House discussing the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings when we return after the Recess, in view of the need to arrange these matters in advance will he make representations to the authorities so that when the new Session begins we might begin by televising proceedings in another place to celebrate the notable completion of the Government programme and the fact that we are going into Europe?
Mr. Carr: That is an interesting suggestion, but I suspect that it would cause a great deal of controversy. I think we ought first to debate the matter on Thursday, 19th October.
Mr. William Hamilton: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what form the debate on broadcasting our proceedings will take? Will it be on a Government Motion or in some other form? Will he undertake to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement in the first week of our return about British citizens in Uganda since obviously in the intervening period various moves will have taken place on this question?
Mr. Carr: On the first question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that we may wish to have discussions about the matter, but my intention at present is that the Government should table a Motion inviting the House to approve an experiment in broadcasting, but I expect that there will be an entirely free vote on the matter. Presumably I shall be intervening in the debate to explain exactly what is and what is not possible and the form the experiment might take, but I shall in no way seek to impose a Government view on the House. There will undoubtedly and properly be a free vote of the House.
In regard to the Uganda Asians, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary answered a Question on this subject a day or two ago. He is undertaking intense diplomatic activity to try to ward off the threatened inhumane treatment of these many thousands of Asians in Uganda, the majority of whom are perhaps United Kingdom passport holders but some are not. My right hon.

1737
Friend is initiating diplomatic activity on that front, and as a first step the British High Commissioner is seeing President Amin today. In addition, the Government are setting up a standing group of Ministers and officials to watch this matter from day to day to make sure that all action is taken to try to avert the terrible threat that is overhanging these people and to make what contingency plans might be necessary if, alas, President Amin does not yield to reason and our appeal.
Mr. Jennings: Assuming that we enter the Common Market on 1st January next, will it be possible for us to have a debate early in the new Session on the report which has just been issued by the Procedure Committee about the machinery for examining the Common Market legislation in the House, and also in regard to the duties of Members elected to the European Parliament from this House, the process of their selection and whom they will be?
Mr. Carr: What is needed, and what the Government repeatedly have said they would like to see, is a committee to inquire into and report on the parliamentary procedures which we should adopt. I am aware that the Procedure Committee has put forward some preliminary ideas which are useful, but before the House debates the matter—and I will consider it carefully—it might be advisable to have a fuller and more detailed report before us on which we can express our views.
Mr. James Johnson: Last Thursday in business questions the right hon. Gentleman kindly gave me a pledge that he would see the Minister of State for Defence to discuss the Icelandic fishing dispute, particularly on need for contingency plans to be undertaken in the sad event of anything happening after 1st September. Has he seen his right hon. Friend and what action has he taken?
Mr. Carr: I conveyed the hon. Gentleman's concern and made it clear that he was speaking for many other people with a similar concern. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not ready to make a statement before the House rises, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House
1738
that contingency planning is actively taking place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. I must think of the interests of the private Members who have subjects for discussion today. I intend to exercise my discretion and to vary the order of business slightly. I propose to take the two points of order and the Ruling on Privilege before I take the statement on Maplin.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for the short notice I have given of this point of order, but yesterday the Select Committee on Procedure published its Third Special Report on the Procedural Consequences of Entry into the European Communities.
My point of order is that this Select Committee, which apparently took no evidence, did not publish with its report its proceedings. This surely is a considerable breach of the custom of the House. In eight years I cannot remember a situation in which a Select Committee has not published its proceedings and thus revealed whether its report was unanimous, whether any amendments to it were tabled by any Member of the committee and, if so, what they were and whether there was any division of opinion on them.
I say that advisedly in this case because, however expert the Committee might be about procedures on this subject, it will be agreed that it is a rather strange Committee. The Chairman is the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Sir Robin Turton), who does not share the views of the majority of the Conservative Party on the subject of the Common Market, and the members on the Opposition side of the House are my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) and for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who certainly, in my view, do not share the views of the majority of the Labour Party on that subject.

1739
In these circumstances the Committee's proceedings would have been of great interest. I object to the Committee concealing any division of opinion on this matter from the Press and Members of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of this point; I have had time to consider it.
Standing Order No. 80 provides that
"…the minutes of proceedings of a Select Committee shall be laid on the Table of the House."
On a proposal of the Select Committee on the Standing Orders (Revision), the House agreed on 8th March, 1971, to this Standing Order, which altered the former provision that the minutes of proceedings of a Select Committee should be laid on the Table with the report of the committee.
I understand that the practice of Select Committees is in many cases to publish their minutes of proceedings separately from their reports, which under Standing Order No. 80 they are permitted to do. Nothing irregular has taken place.

BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a matter which I submit affects the rights of Members in this House, and of which I have given notice in advance both to the Lord President of the Council and to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) who are both affected by this matter.
In the debate yesterday on the first Motion relating to the Summer Adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said:
"I presume, and one imagines that the Leader of the House will give an assurance at once, that there will not be any statement of Government policy affecting the steel industry generally whilst the House is in recess. I imagine that the Government will make it quite clear that such a statement would have to be made in the House of Commons itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 1562.]
This was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) when he intervened in the reply of the Lord President to ask:
1740
"Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to respond to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the major statement which is expected should not be made during the Summer Recess but should be made in Parliament when Parliament is in session?"
The Leader of the House responded immediately by saying:
"I noted that request, and the House can assume that any major policy statements for which the Government have responsibility will be made to the House. … Any major statement"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) will help me. Nothing that he has said so far is a matter of order for the Chair.
Mr. Kaufman: I am arriving at it almost immediately. However, I felt it necessary, in fairness to everyone, to relate what took place yesterday. Perhaps I might complete my quotation. The Leader of the House said:
"Any major statement of policy by the present Government will certainly be made to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 1563–4.]
We took that as an assurance. However, on today's Order Paper we see Question No. 159 for Written Answer which reads:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has determined a financial objective for the British Steel Corporation; and whether he will now complete the capital reconstruction of the Corporation provided for in the Iron and Steel Act, 1972."
That clearly is a planted Question, put down to obtain a major statement of policy from the Government. I do not in any way accuse the Lord President of having said what he said yesterday in bad faith. I believe that he was completely unaware of this Question—
Mr. Rost: On a point of order—
Mr. William Hamilton: Sit down. My hon. Friend for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is raising a point of order.
Mr. Kaufman: As I was saying, I believe that the Leader of the House was completely unaware that this Question, which was put down yesterday, would go on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, the House has been placed in a difficult position in that, despite the assurance of the Lord President about a major aspect of steel policy, there is a Question on the

1741
Order Paper for Written Answer, the answer to which hon. Members will not see until the House is in recess. What is more, my right hon. and hon. Friends who speak for the Opposition on these matters have not been given notice of the Written Answer so that, whatever transpires today, no one on the Opposition Front Bench will be able to deal with the matter adequately.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter in which the House has been gravely affronted and that recompense should be made to the House so that the pledge given by the Leader of the House may be fulfilled.
Mr. Rost: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek a direction from you that the phrase "planted question" be withdrawn? As you will know, over the time that I have been in this House I have put down numerous questions relating to the steel industry. I have a constituency interest in it. I object to the suggestion that I am able to put down Questions on these pressing matters only if they are planted.
Mr. William Hamilton: Was it planted or not?
Mr. Speaker: Order. As to whether the word "planted" is a reflection on the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), I am not sure. Certainly during my 27 years as a Member of this House very many Questions have been planted by both sides. I do not think that there is any objectionable inference in the word "planted".
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), whatever other comments may be appropriate on the matter, it is nothing whatever to do with the Chair.
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it proper to raise from this side of the House, in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, the question whether an effort has been made by the Government to seek an opportunity to make a statement on this matter? I submit to you that it is one of the gravest importance to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick in that
1742
I am certain that the Leader of the House had no knowledge when he addressed the House yesterday that a statement of this kind was to be made today in a Written Answer or by any other means. Either the reply to the Question raises important matters, which is presumably the reason why the Question was put down originally, or it contains no fresh matter, in which case it is more than likely that the Question would not have been put down.
I suggest that the Question deals with precisely the matter that was put to the Leader of the House yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that a Government statement would be made in this House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have said that had he thought that a Written Reply to a Question covering a matter of such wide-ranging importance as this were to be made the following day.
I ask you as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, whether, in the circumstances, you have received from the Government a request that a statement should be made today, even though that in itself would be an inadequate way of dealing with a matter which should have been dealt with many days ago so that hon. Members representing steel constituencies had a proper opportunity to raise matters affecting their constituencies. It is a matter of supreme importance which is causing great anxiety throughout all the steel constituencies. This is shameful behaviour from the Government, and it is even more shameful if they do not follow it with a statement here and now.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no request to make a statement.
Mr. R. Carr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might be allowed to comment. Last Thursday, in reply to a question on the business statement I said:
"My right hon. Friend is committed as soon as possible—but I do not think that it will be before the rising of the House for the summer—to making a statement about the long-term strategy of the British Steel Corporation's investment plans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 970]
Rightly or wrongly, when I was being pressed about this yesterday I had in

1743
mind this major strategic statement. The words that I used yesterday were:
"…the House can assume that any major policy statements for which the Government have responsibility will be made to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 1564.]
I want it to be quite clear that I was in my heart thinking about what I had said last week. I knew that there was a Question down for Written Answers today. I had noticed it. That is about the financial targets of the capital reconstruction of the steel industry. These are totally different matters and much less important. This is not the major capital investment strategy which, rightly or wrongly, I had in mind. What I had in mind was my answer the previous week. I think that financial targets have been set for the nationalised industries by this Government and by previous Governments on a number of occasions without making statements in the House.
Mr. John Mendelson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is highly irregular. I have ruled that this is not a matter of order. It is a matter for discussion, debate and comment. In the interests of Private Members with business later, I cannot allow it to continue.
Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago several hon. Members representing steel constituencies were referring to the kind of statement to which the Lord President has now referred and they were told, quite apart from the exchanges which took place yesterday—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order.
Mr. Mendelson: I have not reached it yet.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is now discussing what hon. Members representing steel constituencies were told—
Mr. Mendelson: But, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Mendelson: I had had only two sentences in which to try to make my
1744
point of order. I think that I am entitled to make my submission as best I can. My hon. Friends representing steel constituencies made the request some time ago. They were told that these statements on the financial targets and on the Government's responsibility for the future of the steel industry would be made in Parliament. Therefore my point does not rest on the statement of the Lord President and the exchanges which took place yesterday. It rests on the abuse of the power of the executive to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair has no responsibility for the statements or actions of the Government.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: I must now rule on the privilege point.
Yesterday the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) made a complaint of privilege arising out of a letter from the managing director of Messrs. Wiggins Teape Limited of Gateway House, Watling Street, London. The hon. Member submitted that certain words in the letter constituted a breach of the privileges of this House.
I have now had an opportunity of studying the letter and other related documents. My duty is only to rule whether in my view the hon. Member's complaint should be given precedence as a privilege issue over today's business. In my opinion, having taken into account all the circumstances, I do not think that the matter can be given that priority now.
In view of the time that the business has already taken, I shall have to alter the timings of the various debates. I will give the information to hon. Members concerned as soon as possible.

MAPLIN
12.40 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I will, with permission, make a statement about the Maplin project.
My right hon. Friend has already made clear that the nature of this project, its long time scale and the crucial issues of Government policy that it raises require substantial public sector involvement. The Government have therefore decided to seek powers to establish a Development

1745
Authority to undertake the task of land reclamation; secondly, to make land available to the British Airports Authority for the airport and to the Port of London Authority for any seaport development that may be approved; thirdly, to promote, in close co-operation with the private sector, such commercial and industrial development as is consistent with the Government's regional policies; and, fourthly, to act as landlord for the entire complex.
Maplin will create a need for large-scale urban development in South-East Essex. My right hon. Friend intends that this shall be built to the highest environmental standards. The Government propose to designate a substantial area for development by a New Town Development Corporation, working in close collaboration with the local planning authorities. We expect to publish a draft designation order early next year.
On runways, our consultation document identified four possible sites—lettered A, B, C and D—from south-west to north-east. Broadly, the further north one goes the less the noise but the greater the cost. We have carefully considered all the representations made about siting. Many have favoured site D mainly on grounds that reduction of noise, however small, should override all other considerations. But site D is further offshore, in deeper water, and its extension into the Crouch estuary could complicate the hydraulic aspects of reclamation. It also creates major problems over removing the Shoeburyness military establishment, with serious risks of delay, and it would rule out any option for future access to the airport from the north.
Site A is strongly advocated by aviation interests on the grounds that it is the cheapest, quickest and easiest site to develop and causes least difficulty for the military withdrawal. Site A is also the choice of local authorities north of the Crouch.
Having carefully weighed all the evidence, the Government have decided that, within the limits of practicality, environmental considerations must be uppermost. This is why we chose to go to Maplin in the first place. So, notwithstanding the additional cost, the Government have decided to locate the runways at a northerly site—site C. This will have substantially the same environmental
1746
advantages as site D, but without its physical difficulties. I understand this location is acceptable to Essex County Council, and we consider that it will safeguard the interests of Kent. I should add that the overall noise impact of the airport should be much less than envisaged by the Roskill Commission because of the development of quieter aircraft—a development the Government will do their utmost to foster.
Detailed work will be put in hand to reclaim enough land for the first two of the four runways for any seaport development, plus land for industrial and commercial development. Further reclamation will be undertaken when needed.
Mr. Crosland: I think it is quite wrong that a statement of such importance should be made on the day that the House rises when a large number of hon. Members have already gone away.
On the substance of the statement if we are to go ahead at Maplin about which I have grave doubts as the Under-Secretary knows, the proposals for a Development Authority and a New Town Development Corporation are right and imaginative. The choice of site can hardly be called an inspiring blow on behalf of the environment, but at any rate it could have been much worse.
I should like to put three short specific questions to the Under-Secretary. First, what would be the additional cost of site D over site C, taking only the actual money cost and ignoring the imputed cost of additional travelling time, a factor which has messed up all these calculations over the last three or four years?
Secondly, so that we know the full social cost of going to Maplin, what is the approximate number of houses which will be destroyed as a result of the new communications network which will be needed to serve the new airport?
Thirdly, has the hon. Gentleman noticed the irony in the fact that, on the day that he makes a final announcement on an entirely traditional airport, a study group of the United States Government has urged that Government to go ahead with the first of a new type of airport especially for STOL?
Mr. Griffiths: I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman's four points as

1747
follows. First, the right hon. Gentleman complains about the making of this statement on the day that the House rises for the Summer Recess. The right hon. Gentleman should recall that the statement on Stansted was made on the day that the House rose for the Whitsun Recess that year under the Labour Administration.
The additional physical costs of recovering land from the sea for site D would be about £16 million more than for site C, but a number of additional costs would have to be taken into account. To put it in crude terms—in terms of the number of houses which would be relieved from the 35NNI contour—site D would cost approximately £160,000 per house relieved of noise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the number of houses that might or might not be affected by the access corridor to the airport. This depends entirely on where the corridor will be. That is still a matter for our consultants. As soon as my right hon. Friend has the results of the consultants' report he will no doubt inform the House.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of traditional airports. This will be the world's first environmental airport, of which we shall be proud.
Sir Bernard Braine: While recognising that site C is certainly preferable on environmental grounds to site A and is to be welcomed on that score, is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are nevertheless disappointed that site D was not chosen? Will he spell out in more detail the reasons for its rejection?
Secondly, how many homes are saved from intrusive noise as a result of choosing site C over site A?
Thirdly, will my hon. Friend confirm that the decision which he announced makes it virtually certain that the road and rail access routes must now pass north of the urban development in my constituency for which we have been pressing from the outset?
Finally, is my hon. Friend aware that the decision to set up a new town development agency is to be warmly welcomed provided, and only provided, that it is run from the outset with a clear mandate
1748
and all necessary powers to preserve and improve the environment of South-East Essex in conjunction with the elected local authorities?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. The objections to site D, which were very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend, are that it is in deeper water and a good deal more offshore, that it would preclude the option of northern access, which is of great importance, not least on environmental grounds, that it would greatly complicate the problems of military withdrawal and, in addition, that there is very high extra cost.
Concerning the number of houses relieved by the choice of site C, more than 900 houses which would have been caught in the noise shadow at site A have been removed from that noise shadow by my right hon. Friend's decision.
Regarding the routes to the airport, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the results of our consultants' investigations because it is not yet possible to say where the corridor will go.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the new town. This project will be developed in close collaboration with the Essex County Council and other local authorities. We are determined that it shall be done with a large measure of private investment and to the highest possible environmental standards.
Mr. Crouch: I hope that my hon. Friend will not ask us to sympathise with him too much in recognising the disadvantages, as he has tried to describe them, of site D. After all, site D was offered to us as a site being considered by the Secretary of State. However, I recognised that this is the second time the Government have gone against the recommendations of Roskill. Foulness was not recommended by Roskill, but Roskill recommended site A. I am happy this second time to agree with the Government in not choosing site A which, in my opinion, was environmentally almost disastrous.
May I remind my hon. Friend of what the Secretary of State said in his foreword to the consultation document? He said that Maplin had the advantage over inland sites in that most of the sound would be dissipated over the sea. He

1749
reminded those who were studying the problem that residual noise
"remains naturally a matter of public concern"
It certainly does to me and to thousands living in North-East Kent. May we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will not forget his undertaking and that he will continue to remember that residual noise is a problem? Will he take such steps as are necessary to ensure in the planning of the airport that the flight paths and the stacking areas are as far as possible over the sea and that night flying restrictions will be taken into account?
Mr. Griffiths: I can give that assurance. We shall do our best to ensure that the patterns of take-offs and landings from the new airport and the controls on night flying are so exercised as to relieve as far as possible any noise nuisance to the people of North Kent, Essex or anywhere else. This is a case where environmental considerations have been placed uppermost and it is a great success for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he has been able to ensure that environmental considerations prevail over all others.
Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the sooner that Maplin is in operation the sooner it will be possible to give some relief to the people living near Heathrow Airport who are suffering from airport noise? With this in mind will he do all he can to hasten the introduction into service of Maplin?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, my hon. Friend, who so frequently and rightly has sought to put forward the interests of his constituents who live in the neighbourhood of Heathrow Airport, is right. We are endeavouring to develop the project by 1980 and the sooner we get on with it the sooner we can bring relief not only to the people living near Heathrow but to those living near Luton, Stansted and Gatwick.
Mr. Warren: Will my hon. Friend state what limitations will be incurred by the selection of site C and the failure to provide a cross-wind runway on that site for use in all weathers?
Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice, but we shall have regard to the maximum
1750
possible safety considerations at this airport.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Only if the remaining hon. Members will make their questions as short as possible will they all get in.
Mr. Roger White: On the Kent side of the estuary there will be no spin-off from this project. My hon. Friend mentioned that new aircraft would be coming forward. While one appreciates that the TriStar type aircraft and so on will have reduced noise levels, this will not be the case with Concorde. May I remind my hon. Friend that we shall be looking forward to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have asked hon. Members to be as quick as possible. The hon. Member must not remind the Under-Secretary; he must ask—and he must ask quickly.
Mr. White: Will my hon. Friend make a close study of night flights when this project is in operation?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As environmental considerations have led to the selection of this airport, will the site chosen reduce the danger of bird strike? Has my hon. Friend seen the letter from the director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that about 180,000 gulls were seen there on one day in 1968 and that there are always tens of thousands of birds in the area?
Mr. Griffiths: We have taken into account the possible risks not only to the birds but also to the aircraft. My right hon. Friend has asked the Nature Conservancy to study the problems, using substantial funds provided by my Department, and to consider what best to do about the gulls on the one hand and the Brent Geese on the other. We shall do our best not only to minimise the danger to aircraft and people but also to see whether there are ways of relocating the birds where possible.
Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend recognise that my constituency more than any other will suffer from the noise problems created by the airport? The decision he announced will be received

1751
with great disappointment, distress and some anger on the environmental grounds. Does he not agree that the decision means the rejection of the opportunity to put one and a half miles of the noise shadow over the sea and that instead it will now be put over the land and over people's homes? 11 will be seen as a victory for the Treasury which wishes to save £18½ million in real and immediate costs in an exercise that will involve hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money. May we have an assurance that no steps will be taken during the Summer Recess on this matter before the House has had a full opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. We must now proceed as far as we can to planning. Of course we shall need to come to Parliament for the necessary powers to set up the New Town Development Corporation and there will be a full discussion of the draft designation order for the new town. On the point that my hon. Friend makes about environmental considerations being sacrificed to the Treasury, if only he knew the reality of the situation he would accept that precisely the opposite happened.
Mr. McCrindle: As considerable planning blight has been becoming evident
1752
over the whole of South Essex in the last few months, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the necessity of announcing the line of road and rail communications at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, but my hon. Friend will recognise that in order to minimise environmental damage and to ensure that road and rail access is planned properly we must study all of the possibilities. We shall do so as quickly as possible.
Dr. Glyn: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, (Mr. Jessel) the Minister said that the new airport would relieve eventual congestion at London Airport. Is it intended that virtually all the traffic at London Airport should be diverted to Foulness? When are we likely to get considerable relief in the locality of Heathrow? Will it be ten, 12 or 15 years before that happens?
Mr. Griffiths: I cannot say that there will be a massive diversion from London Airport and the other airports to Maplin, but rather that the very large increase in flights will be taken care of by the growth of Maplin rather than those flights being concentrated at the existing airports.

STANDING ORDER No. 9 (APPLICATIONS)
Mr. John Mendelson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman cannot do that because I cannot accept such a Motion. There is no way in which it can be taken. It must either be taken at 7 o'clock this evening or at 3.30 tomorrow afternoon and by then we shall be scattered to the ends of the earth.
Mr. Mendelson: Does that mean that I shall have an opportunity on the day the House returns from the recess of seeking an emergency debate, and if I do so will it be regarded as the first opportunity at which I could move this Motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would not like to give a quick ruling on that, but I can assure the hon. Member that anything he is entitled to will, of course, be granted by the Chair.
Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order. It is, of course, of cardinal importance that a Member who wishes to raise a subject under Standing Order No. 9 should do so at the earliest possible moment. Your original reply was no surprise to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I now seek an assurance from you that any such application made when the House returns will be regarded as an application at the earliest opportunity because that is why I am raising the matter now?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member has logic on his side there, and no doubt the matter will be given proper consideration.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT)
1.0 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a tribunal to secure the compliance by Government departments with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
1754
The object of the Bill is to make recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration binding upon Government Departments. I confess that I was surprised to discover, and so were some of my hon. Friends and some members of the Opposition, that these recommendations are not regarded as binding on Government Departments.
I was motivated to bring in this Bill by the refusal of the Inland Revenue, supported so far, I am sorry to say, by Treasury Ministers, to accept the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. John Hope Beach. This is not the time to go into Mr. Beech's case, which I have already raised, and intend to continue raising until I get satisfaction, but Mr. Beech, no less than I, is concerned with the general principle of the Commissioners powers.
The point of having a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is surely to give people a further means of redress when they are, or when they think they are, unjustly treated by Government Departments, and if the office is seen to fulfil this function it will strengthen people's belief in parliamentary democracy. Thanks to the admirable way in which the two successive holders of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have carried out their task there is now a pretty widely held view that "If a Government Department does you down, the Ombudsman will see you right"
On the other hand, it cannot really be said that the Commissioner has been overhasty in his condemnation of Government Departments, and, as emerges from his report, he has been ready on most occasions to accept a mere apology as a sufficient remedy for the grievance alleged by an individual complainant. It is precisely because he has been so careful to take a realistic view of administrative requirements that his office, at first held in some suspicion by Government Departments, has come to be accepted by them. With very few exceptions Government Departments have hastened to comply with his recommendation.
In this context, the refusal of the Inland Revenue to accept the Commissioner's recommendation in the case of

1755
my constituent, Mr. Beech, marks a most unwelcome move in the wrong direction, the more so as no Treasury Minister has even attempted to produce any justification for this refusal. It is quite true that Ministers have produced some very plausible arguments to refute the Commissioner's recommendations in this case, but that is another matter and is in no way related to the entirely separate question of whether the Commissioner's recommendation, right or wrong, should be accepted by the Department to which it is addressed. If the idea should get around that Government Departments can and will ignore recommendations when they are really awkward, and, furthermore, will give no reason for the refusal, the ordinary man's belief in his democratic institutions will take a knock; and that belief is not so strong that it can take many knocks.
When the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was introduced, the possibility that Government Departments might ignore his recommendations was not taken into consideration. I do not for one moment claim that the number of instances in which Departments have ignored the recommendations of the Commissioner have been either numerous or flagrant, but there have been a handful, and the effect will be cumulative. Each case which is ignored creates a precedent which makes it easier for future cases to be swept aside. If this process is allowed to continue unchecked, the ultimate deterrent, the report by the Select Committee on the Commissioner's annual report which necessarily is made a long time later begins in turn to lose its impact. I believe that the number of unrectified cases may be approaching the point where something needs to be done to reverse the trend. It is therefore necessary to find some way of ensuring that these recommendations get treated with greater seriousness by Government Departments.
By this Bill I suggest that we should set up a tribunal to ensure compliance by Government Departments with the Commissioner's recommendations. The composition and powers of the tribunal are matters for further discussion but
1756
could perhaps be based on the existing Select Committee, or, if it is felt that it is somewhat cumbrous to set up new institutions, maybe a simpler solution could be found. It could, for example, be achieved merely by altering one word in the existing Act so that, whereas at present the Commissioner is permitted by Section 10(3) to make a special report to Parliament, in cases where no remedy has been or is likely to be offered he should instead be required to make such a report. The object would be to get the Select Committee to breathe rather more heavily down the necks of Government Departments. But, whatever solution is adopted, I believe that it is necessary to check any tendency by Government Departments to frustrate the operations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I want briefly to support my hon. Friend, and to say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I cannot take a second speech. This is not an interjection, and in any case interjections are not proper with a Ten-Minute Bill. I cannot take a speech unless it be in opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir A. Meyer, Dr. Glyn, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. Selwyn Gummer, Mr. Knox and Mr. Cormack.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT)
Bill to establish a tribunal to secure the compliance by Government departments with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th October and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

TOURISM
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has made some adjustments to the times for debating the various subjects. The adjustment has been posted in the usual place. This debate which we begin now should end at two o'clock, and the remaining debates will last about 35 minutes each.
1.8 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I am raising today not the problem of too many tourists but the problem of too many tourists in too few places. After all, there are more than 50 million of us in this island and never at any time are there more than half a million tourists. However, those of us who work or live in central London, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, Stratford-on-Avon, and so on—the great resorts—often feel that there are too many tourists. Central London particularly has this feeling, and we know that nine out of ten of the visitors to this country spend some time in London.
I face this problem. I work in central London and my home is in Cambridge. When I find difficulty in crossing the road even to come to the House because of the swarms of tourists I am tempted to feel as the citizens of Florence, for example, feel, that enough is enough, and that this corner of the island is beginning to sink under the weight of the visitors.
In London today, as a result of Government intervention over the last few years, there is enough hotel accommodation for tourists with money. I shall come in a moment to the problem of the young tourists without money. There are at this moment many vacant rooms in the expensive hotels. Just as the problem of accommodation in London was solved by Government intervention, so Government intervention is needed to solve the problem which arises very occasionally—but it does arise—of bad treatment and discourtesy in hotels. I think that I am right in saying that Britain is the only country in Western Europe where the Government stand aside and allow tourists very occasionally—but do allow them from time to time—tobe victimised by hoteliers. Even a year or so ago the head of our
1758
tourist organisation could be heard denouncing a proposal for classifying and registering hotels as "bureaucratic nonsense". That age is over and there are modern minds in charge of the British Tourist Authority.
A year ago it was reported in the Financial Times that a German and his wife went to a hotel in Victoria and were told at the reception desk that they could not stay unless they paid for three nights in advance and that that was the law of England. They paid, but when they went upstairs they found that their accommodation was totally unsatisfactory. They were refused a refund. There is no system at present of hotel registration, and, therefore, there is no way in which we could have a discipline on such hoteliers.
I want the Government to work with the BTA in having a register of all accommodation with classifications. I should like the Government to go further and to have powers of removal of people's names from the register for behaviour such as that I have outlined.
According to a calculation made in The Times, it would cost only £3 per year for each hotelier to compile a register of prices and a voluntary system of classification. I want the Government to work with the BTA in compiling a register of all hotels, guest houses and so on, together with classification on accommodation and such things as facilities for meals, and particular amenities such as outstanding architecture or the fact that the hotel is near good fishing and so on. Above all, I want a central pool of accurate information and the requirement that every visitor is provided with written notification of the cost of his room and services when he checks in.
One of the biggest tasks before the Government is to encourage the BTA to spread the tourists over the country as a whole. I have emphasised that I consider not that we have too many tourists but that we have them in too few places, particularly concentrated in London and the other well known tourist centres. There are welcome signs that the BTA and the national and regional boards are succeeding in this, but more information must be given to visitors about the provinces.
I want to mention one particular city which does not occur to many people as

1759
being the centre of a tourist area. I have no particular connection with the city of Sheffield. It is certainly not every one's idea of a holiday centre. Yet modem clean air regulations make Sheffield a most pleasant city. Because of the shape and size of our island, 26 of the most beautiful large houses in England are within 25 miles of the centre of Sheffield, and the country surrounding Sheffield is as lovely as that anywhere in Britain.
It would not be appropriate to use my time to give a catalogue of unfamiliar tourist centres, so I shall concentrate on a particular area that I know well. My constituency is in the heart of rural England, right in the centre of the country, in Northamptonshire. It is certainly not a tourist area, but in my constituency there are 68 villages, each one with a church which seems to be more beautiful than the church in the preceding village. We have Rockingham Castle, which stands in a lovely position on a hill, and we have countryside as fine as anywhere in England. We have the unusual offer of a garden city, Corby, which is also one of the leading steel towns of Europe.
My constituency falls in the East Midlands, and like the region generally, as a result of Government intervention, accommodation for tourists has increased rapidly there over the last few years. The number of new hotels built in the East Midlands has been twice that of the average number built in relation to the population of the other regions. But there is one figure which leads me to my next point. Between July, 1971, and March, 1972, in most weeks these hotels in the East Midlands region were only half full. My next point, which obviously follows from that, is on the importance of spreading not only the area of tourism but also the season.
Let us remember that people do not come to Britain for sunshine and to lie on beaches sipping cool drinks. If they did they would need their heads examined. They come to see Britain, which is a country in the north-west of Europe. It can be argued that we have already spread our season. For example there were more visitors to Britain in January this year than there were in June ten years ago. In January, February and March of this year half of theatre audiences were from
1760
overseas. But more must be done. After all, so much of Britain is at its best in winter. Our theatres, shops and restaurants are not out of doors. The tourists do not come for the purpose of sitting at out-of-door cafes.
Because of our language and history we have certain unique obligations which we must discharge, whether or not we like it. For example, the United States of America has inherited from us the English common law. What could be more appropriate than that every few years the American Bar Association should wish to hold its annual conference in London? What indeed could be more appropriate than that the authorities of our Palace of Westminster should allow that association's principal ceremony to be held in Westminster Hall, which for centuries has been the home of our courts of law. But the members come in July, 12,000 of them counting wives, children and followers. The Government with their powers over hospitality—and they are hospitable to these visitors—must in future say "No, it must be October or November, or not at all." I am sure that the BTA would welcome such a lead.
I now mention something that is not immediately apparent to the citizens of London. I have had criticism of so many tourists coming here. Apart from the benefits to this country of the export trade, invisible and visible, Londoners owe to the tourists the existence of many theatres, resturants and shops. I am saying only "many" of them. I have seen calculations which would make it correct to say "most" of them, but I do not go as far as that.
I said that I would refer to young tourists. According to the last edition of Time Out, the BTA estimates that nearly 2 million of Britain's visitors between the ages of 16 and 24 will visit London, whether or not we like it. There are practical advantages to Britain in having these young people, of course. There are commercial advantages because in 10, 20 or 30 years they will come with their wives, husbands and children and spend money. But there are even greater advantages. These young people will get a better understanding of our institutions and our language.
It is impossible to over-emphasise the rôle of our language today. We know

1761
about North America, but not many people realise what is happening in Europe. I have presided over many conferences and meetings on the Continent of Europe, where there are only two languages at official functions, English and French. It is striking how many of the young people, if they have to speak one of the two official languages, choose to speak in English rather than in French. For example, if an Italian or a Turk is of the older generation and has grey hair or a bald head, he will probably speak in French. But if he does not have grey hair or a bald head, he will almost certainly speak in English. We have to consider this and the opportunity it gives this country to project its way of life.
Time Out, in the article to which I have referred, also mentions the problem of housing for young people in London and says that the number of beds on the London tourist register costing under £1·50 per night is only 11,000. Voluntary organisations do great work. I saw a picture in The Guardian yesterday of a camp run by Christian Action on Hackney Marches. I know about the Young Men's Christian Association. I also know of the work of the Youth Hostels Association, and, having joined in 1931, am one of its oldest members. The fact remains that more needs to be done, and only the Government can give a lead.
Incidentally, I commend Time Out for printing a list of accommodation suitable and available for young visitors. Many of the young visitors are scruffy, most of them are over-hairy, and they have attracted the most hostile criticism. However, we must accept them. This is what happens today. I am told by the experts that the phrase is that this is a form of international social tourism. It is not a very attractive term, but that is what it is. It is increasing rapidly.
For any of us who can look ahead 50 years—not many of us can—I am told that the calculations of the International Bureau of Social Tourism are that in this period youth travel will increase 10 times as much as ordinary tourism.
What are we to do? I have suggested that the Government can take action. I want to put the matter in perspective. At a travel function not long ago the Duke of Edinburgh used these words:
1762
"It is no good talking about international friendship unless ordinary people are prepared to encourage it … Only travel abroad can break down the mediaeval mentality which fosters vendetta and suspicion."
We have much to offer young people. First, we look out on the world: we are a former imperial power, and we have the habit of looking out. We are a European country. We have an unusual diversity of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. Some countries have greater painters—not many. Some countries have greater musicians—not many. Some countries have great dramatists, but none has any greater. Some countries have great languages, but none has any greater. Some countries have tolerance and a spirit of live and let live, but in none are they more deeply ingrained than here in Britain.
I want people to come here and see us. I want the Government to do what they can to encourage people to come here and travel widely in Britain, and to come at different times of the year. In this decade of this century a friendly greeting to a foreigner in a pub costs less than a battleship and may well be much more effective.
1.23 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I have been very interested in the disjointed but nevertheless attractive speech of the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). At one stage I refrained from intervening though I felt impelled to do so.
I commend to the right hon. Member some points with regard to the different areas of Britain. After all, we have an English tourist board which is an effective board. It has set up a number of area boards. I know a little of the work which is being done in the East Midlands area. One encouragement which the right hon. Gentleman can give there is to ensure that all the local hoteliers and caterers are effective members of the area organisation and play a full part. The Act which set up the Tourist Board was introduced by a Labour Government, although the proposals with which I am concerned were moved by Conservative Members, so that it is very much an all-party concern.
There could be a great deal of promotion of attractive projects in the East Midlands to fill the hotels there in the

1763
off-peak six months if the area board, in association with the British Tourist Authority, which deals with overseas visitors, were to promote projects which would be attractive to overseas visitors out of season. I have in mind the various historic castles, buildings, museums and parks, as well as any attractive modern industrial project. It is that type of thing which will enable us to succeed in attracting many more foreign visitors from the Metropolis into the provinces.
We do not treat British tourists in Britain sufficiently fairly. Our own people should come first. After all, five million of us may go on holiday overseas, but more than six times that number take their holidays at home. I want to see a greatly increased standard of amenity and improved accommodation at home. There should be an immediate major programme to train the staff in this country for the catering which is necessary.
It is too ludicrous for words that British waiters have to take Italian names because in some way it is thought more attractive to be an Italian waiter than a British waiter. This must cease. It is ludicrous that, for example, employees at the Dorchester, Grosvenor House and the Savoy should use false names because they believe that there is something inherently attractive about foreign catering employees.
About six months ago, in response to my question as to what was the best thing which could be done, Max Joseph said to me, "Billy, if you can find 20,000 Italian waiters, that will make our staff position effective in hotels throughout Britain. That is the greatest need, for there is considerable job opportunity in the catering industry". I said, "Max, I am not prepared to do that. What I am prepared to do is to advocate immediately that there should be 20,000 to 30,000 more good English waiters." Those extra waiters need not be English-born. Some of the best waiters are Pakistanis. Some of the best barmen may be West Indians, Welsh, Irish, Scottish or English.
I want to see an immediate use of our training colleges in the expansion of the training programme. The courses at present are part time. Therefore, they are not advanced courses. They can be carried out by technical training colleges
1764
without the Government's authority merely on the decision of the boards of governors. This was confirmed to me today by a Minister at the Department of Education and Science.
This means that we can act quickly to set up courses of about 14 weeks duration for the training of waiters, barmen and others who are necessary to fill the 93,000 vacancies in the catering industry. Then hotels and other establishments in the Provinces would be able to recruit the waiters and other staffs they need and do their recruiting to a large extent from the existing pool of unemployed.
We would also get rid of the absurd notion that there is something infra dig—I must use a foreign phrase for it—about being a waiter. There is nothing infra dig about being a waiter. My own technical training college trains superb catering staff, many of whom spend part of their training at Buckingham Palace. I am sure that none of those young trainees feels that he is entering into the community to do a job which is not worthwhile.
There is a vast increase in the number of hotel places being created in London, the East Midlands and the Midlands generally. However, this is not so in the South-East, nor along that part of the coast represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). The main reason is the one which the right hon. Member for Kettering has just given, namely that we do not feel sure that we can get the accommodation filled all the year round. There is thus not the demand to build because there is not the certainty of being able to meet the demand. But the first essential has already been fulfilled by the English Tourist Board. The Government have accepted the report, and I understand that it is to be introduced shortly. The first essential is to find out the nature and extent of the accommodation which we have in this country, and to classify it. Thereafter we should see how it can best be deployed.
I strike one note of warning. Some accommodation in this country at present is becoming over-priced for what it is worth. Certainly it is true to say that the accommodation, though not the food, is much more highly priced in the United Kingdom than it is in France. The price of food is another matter.

1765
We not only need to ensure that the accommodation is properly classified; we need also to see that the area boards, the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority, with the active co-operation of the hoteliers, the caterers and their associations, ensure that the travel agents have full details of the accommodation available. This will in turn involve setting up suitable places in this country where people can find out what accommodation is available. This has been done effectively at the port of entry at Dover. It is also being well done in Grosvenor Gardens, London, and at Victoria Station. We need to have this facility throughout the country, so that travel agents and visitors who are travelling independently know where to look.
This accommodation will become more widespread and better if it is accompanied by proper staff training as a matter of urgency. I think we can give an impetus to the improvement of our amenities which will serve not only our own tourists within Britain but those who come to our shores.
Sir G. de Freitas: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that my speech was disjointed. May I say that it was disjointed because I left out large sections of it in order to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Rees-Davies: If I may say so, I did not intend my remark as a criticism. I thought the right hon. Gentleman made an attractive speech. What I meant was that it did not follow one particular theme. It was disjointed in the sense that he covered a number of different subjects. I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said.
1.33 p.m.
Miss Joan Hall: I am afraid that my speech, too, will be disjointed because I shall have to throw two-thirds of it away. I prefer to deliver one-third properly rather than three-thirds badly.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) for initiating this debate, which is of great importance. I hope that in the autumn we shall have another opportunity to debate the matter in greater detail.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-
1766
Davies) that training is required for those who wish to work in the catering industry. I am one of the few people in this House who have experience as a waitress, and I can assure my hon. Friend that of prime importance is one's attitude to the job. We can train people until we are blue in the face, but if there is not the right attitude we are wasting our time. It is not part of the British character to desire to serve people. There seems to be a great dislike of saying "Yes, Sir" and "No, Sir", as though one belittled oneself in using those words. I think waiting is a career of great interest, and with a future, if only people will adopt the right attitude of mind towards the persons whom they are serving.
Tourism has built up rapidly. I worked with the old British Travel Holidays Association in 1955. In those days we had the great hope that we would get 1 million tourists in this country. It is believed that in 1972 over 7 million foreign visitors will have come to this country, building up in 1980 to about 18 million overseas visitors. However, approximately 70 per cent. of those visitors come only to London. As the right hon. Member for Kettering said, this upsets the normal living habits, standards and way of life of the people who live in London and particularly in the centre of London.
I think it is important to mention that tourists are abused by a very small section of people, who fleece them in a number of ways. It is said, and I am sure quite accurately, that for visitors to Britain "top of the pops" are the friendly and hospitable people in this country. But there is this abuse of over-charging, particularly in the area of Westminster. This is done by unlicensed street traders. They are vultures of the worst order. I was speaking to a Swiss girl last week who, on coming out of the Tate Gallery, wished to buy an ice-cream and was asked 20p for a small cornet. She had the courage to refuse, but many tourists who argue the toss about the cost are shouted at and abused, and naturally they do not like to be shown up; in addition, they do not have a good command of English, and they usually pay up.
There are many worse cases than this incident. I was talking to the local authority people in Westminster yesterday. They told me of a case of a £5

1767
note which was given for two ice creams and 5p was given in change. It was impossible for the purchaser to persuade the vendor to give any more. There are incredible cases of abuse by unlicensed street traders in the area of Westminster where the vast majority of tourists come to see the Abbey, the Houses of Parliament and so on.
On the question of fining these unlicensed street traders, most of them do not have a fixed address. They usually stay at doss houses, and when they are tracked to a certain doss house they are not known. If it is possible to take one of these traders to court, having ascertained his address, there is no general public statute under which such a person can be charged. He can be charged only under a local LCC statute of 1947, as amended in 1967. The penalty for a first offence is a fine of £20, which is nothing to these people. They are quite prepared to pay the fine, and the next day they are back fleecing the tourists.
I should like the Minister to say whether he has in mind any suggestion whereby offences of this nature can be more heavily penalised. But the true answer does not lie in penalties. I believe that street traders should by law have to display the prices of their products. Notable offenders are to be found in the ice cream and hot dog trade. Most reputable street traders, who are licensed, display their prices—for example, fruit and vegetable stalls. If this could be enforced, the abuse would stop immediately, and so would the ill will that is created for this country among overseas people who will not come here again because of an experience they had years previously when perhaps they were overcharged for an ice cream. If this abuse could be cleared up, we would have a much happier future.
There are two other points which I wanted to mention but I will not deal with them in detail. One concerned the question of getting tourists out of London. People who are connected with the tourist industry are concerned only with hotels in London. They do not want to know about north of Potters Bar. They still seem to think that we are all "wogs" north of Potters Bar. They do not want
1768
to know about the assets which exist out of London. There is very little incentive for the pubs and guest houses to improve their premises. Although people come to my constituency to see where "Wuthering Heights" was written, they do not want "Wuthering Heights" conditions in their bedroom, bathroom or dining room.
1.40 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: No one who has represented a seaside constituency for 13 years, as I have, and attended every meeting on the subject can fail to appreciate the problems here. A number of them have already been raised by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). We are very grateful to him for the interest which he takes in tourism, an interest which, unfortunately, the Labour Party does not seem to share. One has only to think of the small attendance of right hon. and hon. Members opposite at such debates as this to realise that they do not take the interest which they should, and we are the more grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter now and giving us an opportunity to debate it.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) made some telling points about training, and I endorse what he said. It is ironical that in Kent now—particularly in Folkestone, where we have one of the highest unemployment rates for some years—there are a great many vacancies in the hotel and catering trade. This is the pattern throughout the country. It seems an extraordinary facet of the British character that people think that serving in restaurants or hotels is not in keeping with what they feel they ought to do; yet, when all is said and done, we have a reputation throughout the world as good hosts. We are good hosts. We welcome guests. But, for some reason or other, the hotel and catering trade does not attract a sufficient number of people who realise the great prospects for them in it.
I pay a special tribute to what the tourist boards have done in this matter. They have realised that more needs to be done, but I do not believe that it will be done unless the hotel and catering trade itself understands the problem

1769
and takes action on its own account, too. Our hotels and catering establishments have not done enough in the past, and they have not had the great reputation which they should, and can, have.
One has only to see the improvement in the food served now in the ordinary English pub to realise that there is an interest in good cooking and good service. We complain about our weather, but I have always found that a good hotel, well run, with good service and good food will attract people, regardless of the weather. People like the other amenities which we can offer. In our seaside towns now, we are developing many attractive amenities.
The hotel industry must understand that it is old-fashioned. It must realise that better accommodation for staff must be offered. It must offer more attractive hours for staff. Also, there must be better uniforms for staff. The old-fashioned idea that a waiter should wear an uncomfortable stiff shirt and tail coat if he is to be a good waiter is thoroughly out of date. It is often easier to find staff to serve in some of the more modern bars and clubs and on ships because a more attractive uniform is woru. In the same way, with a more attractive uniform, there could be a great improvement in the number of waitresses. In this very building, a more attractive uniform would, I am sure, give far greater encouragement to waitresses. All these things must be taken into account.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will do all it can to encourage the hotel industry to modernise its ideas towards its staff, the accommodation which it provides for staff, and the uniforms which are worn.
1.43 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): This has been a most helpful debate, and the contributions from all hon. Members who have spoken have been extremely useful. Before coming to the main subject, perhaps I may pick up the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who drew attention to the need to encourage the proper training of staff, with particular reference to the work of waiters, who are so important in this business.
1770
Facilities for hotel and catering education in England and Wales are on a fairly substantial scale and are increasing. In November, 1970, there were nearly 25,000 students in attendance at non-advanced courses at grant-aided establishments of further education. I am advised that 4,000 attended courses for barmen and waiters, and that courses for these latter trades are now provided at 135 colleges. The proposal to extend the colleges' normal provision in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet calls for consideration by the principals and governors concerned in the light of such evidence of demand as may be produced. They need to be satisfied that sufficient students—say, 12 or 15—would wish to attend so as to make such a course a viable proposition. I understand, however, that the principal in his own technical college in Thanet, for example, has said that he would be prepared to start a course and that the authorities have no objection. I hope that it will be successful, because I consider that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe were on a powerful point in this respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) described certain deplorable practices which, she said, are occurring, particularly in London, and which, I have no doubt, would be very damaging to the whole concept of tourism and the impression which we give to overseas visitors. I have to tell her that ministerial responsibility for unlicensed street traders rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I assure her that I shall draw to his attention the points which she made, which were of concern to us all.
I have listened to the debate with great interest, and I consider that the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) has done a considerable service in reminding us of the many benefits which tourism in the broadest sense brings to this country. There is a danger that we are beginning to take the economic benefits for granted, and we should not do that. The record figures achieved last year were not achieved without a great deal of effort by many sectors of the industry and by our tourist organisations. Government help in the form of financial support towards both promotional work and the development of facilities, especially accommodation, also

1771
played its part; and these efforts have been successful.
We have been successful in attracting more holidaymakers from other countries—they accounted for about half of the 7 million visits paid to this country last year—and we have been successful in attracting more business and conference visitors, people who play an important part in our economic life, though I entirely take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that one must look carefully at the time at which these people choose to come to this country.
We have been successful in earning more foreign currency from tourism. Earnings from tourism in 1971 fell not far short of £500 million, and this takes no account of fares paid to British carriers, or of the major purchases which may be made by visitors while they are here. We have been successful also in retaining the interest of our own holiday-makers in taking holidays here.
The right hon. Gentleman's reminder of the importance of tourism is most timely. At this time of year, some people are liable to forget the valuable contribution which tourism makes to our export earnings and, instead, to grumble rather about the congestion which sometimes arises. No one—least of all our visitors, I imagine—will deny that there is congestion at certain times of the year. The problem is not unique to this country. People with children—I am one—generally take their holidays when the schools have closed, and most of us want to get away from the office, from the House, or from the kitchen sink when the weather is fine. This, naturally, creates certain problems. But we should not let the matter get out of perspective.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet reminded us, the number of foreign holiday-makers is still relatively small in relation to the 35 million of our own citizens who take their holidays in this country. The problem of congestion affects only a limited number of places—some of our most popular holiday resorts and, of course, specific points in London.
One of these points is precisely here in Westminster, where we have only to see the number of visitors who are attracted
1772
—I hesitate to say by our eloquence—to this place—and I was intrigued to discover in the course of preparing for the debate that no fewer than 650,000 visitors, not all from overseas, visited the Palace of Westminster and no fewer than 196,000 actually came to the Gallery in only 184 sitting days. That is an indication of the sort of thing that attracts visitors, not only from abroad, but from other parts of the country. It is a fact of life, and we have to recognise it and take advantage of it.
I must dispel any idea that there is a shortage of accommodation in London. There is evidence of spare accommodation in all categories. Suggestions have been made particularly of difficulties with accommodation in the medium price brackets. While I am unable to comment on individual cases—and we will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—the London Tourist Board has had no difficulty this year in finding hotel accommodation in the £2 to £4 a night bracket for the increasing number of visitors who apply to the board for that kind of accommodation.
I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about encouraging young visitors. I like young visitors to come to this country and it is a thoroughly satisfactory development for the future. This year there has been an ample supply of very cheap accommodation for young visitors. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned an article on this subject that appeared in one of the Press media. I can only say that the writer did not check his facts, for this year the London Tourist Board has made special arrangements to co-ordinate efforts in the supply of this type of accommodation, and, even more important, visitors have been able to get information at the point of entry, whether coming by sea or air, about the facilities offered by the London Tourist Board for finding accommodation. Great efforts were made in this connection last year and the position this year has been improved and we shall continue to endeavour to improve it. This has been the result of an improvement in the information services sponsored by the English Tourist Board, and it is very conscious of that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the registration and classification of

1773
hotels. We are familiar with this problem, and I commend especially the hard work of the English Tourist Board in this respect. Its proposals raise a number of issues which I hope to discuss with it and other boards, the BTA and organisations representing suppliers and users of tourist accommodation, and I hope that those discussions will take place in the not too distant future.
Reference has been made to the future growth of tourism and what could happen if the number of visitors to the country increased in the next 10 years as rapidly as since 1961. The problems are certainly formidable, but I have no doubt that they can be and are being solved. People enjoy more and longer holidays, and tourists everywhere are prepared to spend at least a part of their holiday entitlement outside the peak summer months.
A great deal of our promotional effort has been directed to this end and with increasing success. Some 50,000 new hotel bedrooms will have been provided by 31st March, 1973, outside the Greater London area under the hotel development incentive scheme. Page 46 of the report of the English Tourist Board for 1971–72, which has just been laid before the House, shows the tremendous spread of the new accommodation now coming on the market in England alone. The Hotel and Catering Economic Development Council is studying the future needs for hotel accommodation, and we hope that it will make its report later in the year and that its results will help to deal with future accommodation.
The Government's policy of assisting the development of tourism in the regions will also make a major contribution to assisting spreading visitors more evenly and so avoiding problems of overcrowding; which must be a major theme for both the Government and tourist boards. Increased promotion and the supply of new accommodation in the regions will attract tourists to the regions, including many of the old resort areas, and this will bring much needed income to some of our less prosperous areas and is, therefore, consistent with the Government's regional policy.
It takes time to develop the tourism infra-structure over a wide area of the country. It takes time to develop the marketing techniques essential to a
1774
properly planned development. But we are making progress and there is already evidence of a better spread of visitors in both time and place. The BTA estimates that there has been a noticeable drop in the proportion of visitors who visit London only. It is now thought to be about a third of all overseas visitors. There is encouraging information from the English Tourist Board about average bed occupancies in May of this year, now 61 per cent. as against 57 per cent. last year, to some extent an indication of the increase in off-peak holidaying by the public.
Let us not forget that London plays a key rôle as a springboard to all parts of the country. London is a tourist centre inextricably linked with the promotion of tourism throughout the country, as it is also an entry point to other parts of the country. It may be said to be a bottleneck, but one does not help the liquid to fill the bottle by putting a cork in the bottle, and I have heard that suggested.
I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties of local populations and the environmental problems that arise when too many people converge on a limited area, and the national tourist boards are conscious of the need to preserve the environment and the way of life of local populations, which, after all, are what make the country worth visiting, and regional boards, through their membership, will also ensure that the interests of those who live in the tourist areas will be taken into account at every stage, not only in London but in other parts of the country.
We must recognise that the problems we are facing are the problems of success and not of failure. Although its contribution to the balance of payments is undoubtedly important, there is far more to tourism than that. As the right hon. Gentleman said so eloquently, it contributes to understanding between nations and peoples. I agree that the best advertisement that this country can make and the best encouragement it can offer to tourism is the friendly welcome of the people of Britain. I believe that we are equipped to deal with the problems that arise from what I emphasise to be success and not failure. We can ensure that tourism plays an increasing rôle not only in the economy, in terms of the balance of payments, but, especially

1775
having regard to our pending entry into the European Economic Community, in increasing understanding among nations.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PUBLIC DIVIDEND CAPITAL)
1.59 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I begin by expressing my thanks to Mr. Speaker for being good enough to select my subject for one of the Adjournment debates. May I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his presence? The bush telegraph has indicated to me that it is at some inconvenience to himself. I appreciate his presence and I will endeavour to put before him a problem which he will be able to resolve, I am sure, if not immediately, certainly at leisure.
I am referring to the provision of what was originally called Exchequer dividend capital and is now known as public dividend capital as a means of financing nationalised industries. In 1967 the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), embarked on a great inquiry into ministerial control of the nationalised industries which was subsequently published as Commons Paper No. 371 in July, 1968. This is a sort of bible for what had gone on in the nationalised industries until then. The interesting thing is that at that time the issue of Exchequer dividend capital had just been made to BOAC. This was discussed in evidence and the Committee did not find it possible to make up its mind in view of the limited nature of the evidence at its disposal.
I say this because the Treasury put in a memorandum dated February, 1967 and I understand that this memorandum affects Treasury thinking to this day. I have reason to suppose this because a Treasury witness quoted that memorandum to the Select Committee as recently as June of this year. What does the memorandum say? It says:
"…BOAC has now been provided with a new capital structure. Part of this takes the normal form of loans from the Consolidated Fund; but about half is Exchequer Dividend Capital on which BOAC will pay
1776
a variable return, like a dividend, to the Exchequer. This will vary from year to year according to the conditions. … The Treasury consider that EDC"—
now known as public dividend capital—
"is only suitable for those nationalised industries which are fully viable but which are especially subject to fluctuating returns as a result of their trading conditions, the nature of their assets, etc. It would not be suitable for nationalised industries which have difficulty in breaking even taking one year with another because it would become little more than an interest-free, non-repayable, advance. If the experiment with BOAC proves successful, EDC may be extended in the future to certain other industries."
That was the view of February, 1967, and is, I think, the Treasury view today. But times have changed. The present position is that not only BOAC but the British Steel Corporation enjoys public dividend capital, and further than that, the new British Airways Board which will incorporate BOAC is also to be in receipt of a substantial sum under this heading.
When BOAC was questioned by the Select Committee on this issue of public dividend capital there was the impression created from the replies—I do not want to waste time by going into these in depth, but I refer particularly to questions 654 and 641—that this was very much in its mind as a way of improving staff morale and also particularly—this was brought out in question 641—as a way of measuring its relative performance with other airlines. All of this was highly intelligible.
How far is this appropriate to the British Steel Corporation? The position of that Corporation is very different. At present the Corporation has a public dividend capital of £500 million, having been reduced from £700 million in the last Act, and a long-term indebtedness of £551 million. In the reply an hour ago which caused a certain amount of discussion, the Minister said that there would be an anticipated loss of £70 million in 1972–73 and to meet this he would deal with it in the same way as last year's loss, that is by a reduction in the public dividend capital, that is in the Corporation's indebtedness to the Treasury. He was also to grant a £150 million reduction in the indebtedness to the National Loans Fund in respect of these assets which it had taken over and which had proved to be over-valued at that time.

1777
I cannot quarrel with that in any way, but it seems that in view of this the likelihood of the cyclical nature of the steel industry's profit has yet to be shown. The Chairman of the Corporation said:
"When the Government imposed price control by halving the Corporation's proposed increase in April 1971 at a time of steep inflation it was known that a substantial loss was inevitable."
The loss was £68 million, and I am not animadverting to that because we know it has been a difficult time for the steel industry not only in this country but throughout Europe. In this connection I can quote the experience of the Italian Steel Corporation known as Finsider in which the Italian Government have a 51 per cent. interest. It, too, failed to make a profit in 1971–72. This is, therefore, no reflection on the British Steel Corporation, but it calls in question the Treasury's idea that this is a cyclical industry, because my strong suspicion is that the British Steel Corporation will be vulnerable in two directions.
First, we have seen how vulnerable it is to Government pressure through anti-inflationary activity when its necessary price rises are restricted. Secondly, we cannot help but be conscious of the fact that if the Corporation begins to show a profit the social pressures upon it to delay the closure of uneconomic works will become irresistible. It is not in the book, but it is my firm impression that the Corporation will show a profit at its own risk, at the risk of increased public pressure on social grounds. I find it unlikely that the Corporation will be enjoying the cyclical upswing as much as it suffers from the cyclical downswing.
If we turn to the British Airways Board and the £200 million of public dividend capital which the Minister for Aerospace announced a month or so ago, we cannot but link this with the undertaking by BOAC, now part of the board to purchase Concorde. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom we all knew so well here as the right hon. Member for Kingston, would, as a business man, be saying to the Government, "You want me to buy Concorde. Well I think you should at least give me my money free of interest until such time as this proves to be a revenue-earning asset."
Reverting to the question of the British Steel Corporation, it seems that, in view of these almost annual reductions in
1778
capital, there must come a time when a profit is earned. I do not think it will be a true profit, but some profit will be earned and it will be wanted for depreciation, which is, in many respects, overdue. Equally, the profitability of the British Airways Board will depend on what subsidy or other form of assistance it can get in connection with its Concorde purchases. The Treasury is unwilling to concede these points. Its witness said:
"It is Treasury policy not to make loans in circumstances where one knows one is in fact making a grant".
That is all very well, but I wonder whether it is a realistic statement.
When the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was reporting—and here I refer to Commons Paper No. 371, page 165—it made a request for a grant of equity capital—by that I mean public dividend capital. It said:
"In the Board's view there is a case for a substantial element of the debt to the Government of Nationalised Industries engaged in trading being treated as equity capital. This is particularly so in the case of a business like the railways where costs change only slowly and profitability can vary very substantially from year to year …"
It can say that again!
I should have thought that there was a case for British Railways being allowed a grant of public dividend capital. We have just had a short discussion on the proposed third London airport at Maplin. A railway link to it will be essential. This is just the sort of investment which the railways should make and, in my opinion, it would be justified in asking for a grant of public dividend capital for this important extension which would not, in the first instance, be revenue-earning. I should have thought, too, that the British Airports Authority might well ask for public dividend capital in connection with the third London airport. The Authority has always paid its way. It is not on the cards for it to finance the costs of the Maplin development out of the revenues of the airports it controls at present. The same argument could be applied to the Gas Corporation in respect of North Sea gas.
The nationalised industries, so far from being the fiasco which the Minister for Transport Industries described, are performing an essential public service and they should have encouragement from the

1779
Government and from the country and they should have help in taking risks. That applies particular to British Railways in connection with the new trains which they seek to introduce. Those, too, could be suitably financed by public dividend capital.
I am emboldened to raise these matters because it is time that Treasury thinking on this subject was overhauled. There is a fresh wind blowing through Whitehall, particularly through Great George Street. We are lucky enough to have a reforming Chancellor of the Exchequer. A paper was published in April this year on the borrowing by the nationalised industries which was a great deal more liberal than anything about which we have heard. There was a statement in c 314–15 of the Written Answers in HANSARD for 7th August about the introduction of trading funds for areas of what was called "quasi-commercial activity in government". I should have thought that the extended use of public dividend capital would have fitted very well into this framework.
It is time that we had a fresh look at this matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues are the people to do it. I commend my views to them.
2.16 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) has raised this question. There is need for urgent consideration of the subject of nationalised industry finance.
Over the last two years, if not previously, we have had a most unusual situation. We have had political intervention to keep down pay levels and the levels of charges. At the same time—and this has been inconsistent with keeping down prices—we have had an insistence on the maintenance of target rates of return set by the Treasury. There has also been insistence that the nationalised industries either finance themselves from internal resources or borrow from the Government at high rates of interest. Therefore, we have had this ambivalence on the part of the Government towards the nationalised industries—high interest charges, on the one hand, and interfer-
1780
ence, on the other, together with the setting of targets which are unrealisable because of Government intervention.
The Government's intervention has made it difficult in two ways for the nationalised industries to achieve their targets. If we insist that price levels are kept artificially low, it is obvious that it will be impossible to achieve commercial targets. The Government must realise that if prices are set at an artificially low level, and if there is an element of subsidisation for private industry, they cannot expect industries such as coal, electricity, gas and the Post Office to reach the targets set for them in other circumstances.
A few words must be said about the Government's interference in pay questions. It has led, certainly in the coal mining industry, the railways and the postal service, to a considerable loss of revenue. Industrial disputes in those industries have been fought by the Government, and they have been fought far more bitterly than private employers would have fought them because private employers would have realised, long before the Government realised, the commercial damage which was being done and the damage being done to morale in those industries. One has been faced with a situation where the finances of nationalised industries have been damaged very much indeed by the way in which the Government have followed their pay policy.
In the case of the Post Office, in 1969 to 1970 interest charges were £110·8 million. By 1971–72 they had become £1612 million. This is a very big drain on the finances of the Post Office, but it is not very well known that a substantial amount of the revenue of the Post Office is going to the Treasury in terms of interest charges. When one considers the postal service, it is an absurdity at a time when the Post Office is having to ask for the writing off of possibly a £180 million loss by April, 1972, that interest charges are being increased by £4 million to £23 million, £21 million of which is going directly to the Exchequer. I think it would be a very good thing indeed, particularly from the point of view of staff morale, if it were possible for the nationalised industries not to ask that accumulated losses be wiped off but for a rather more sound political policy to

1781
be followed by the Government, and also public dividend capital.
2.21 p.m.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) who raised the very important question of public dividend capital in the public sector. I will refer to some of his points in the course of what I have to say, and also to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South is the very distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I understand that that Committee has been studying the British Steel Corporation and the provision of public dividend capital more generally.
I am very glad to have the chance of stating the Government's attitude to this very important element in the financing of nationalised industries. Before I come to the particular questions which have been asked in this short debate, it would perhaps be helpful if I gave a very brief account of the history and the rationale of the PDC concept as we see it.
My hon. Friend reminded the House that PDC was first used in the case of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and was introduced in the Air Corporations Bill by the previous Government in November, 1965. It was, in fact, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who was then Minister of Aviation, who explained that PDC, which at that time—I think my hon. Friend is quite right—was called Exchequer dividend capital, was to deal with the problem which confronted those nationalised industries which, although basically profitable, nevertheless had to endure fluctuating results because of the cyclical nature of their business or for other similar reasons. If one were to finance those industries solely by the provision of loan capital, that would be a heavy burden on the industries which would have to pay fixed interest charges, and in a downswing period they would land themselves with deficits. This would be undesirable because they would have to borrow to
1782
pay the interest, and that would be very bad for managerial morale.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford therefore explained that BOAC was specially suitable for PDC financing, and he gave four reasons—first, the fact that the airline business is of its nature fluctuating; secondly, that the main competitors of BOAC had themselves a substantial proportion of equity capital; thirdly, that it was an industry with few domestic social obligations; and fourthly, that it was operating in an atmosphere of strong international competition.
My right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, speaking from that Dispatch Box as Opposition spokesman on aviation, welcomed the proposal which was made as
"a sensible and valuable arrangement for BOAC, an experiment which … we may well find to be applicable to other Government finance corporations".
He went on:
"I hope that this is an experiment which will prove successful and will be carried through."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1965; Vol 721, c. 51.]
Experience has shown that the BOAC experiment has indeed been reasonably successful. As the House knows—and my hon. Friend reminded us—the Corporation, in common with other airlines, has been going through a bad patch during the last year or two. Nevertheless, it is a fact that dividends on its PDC compare favourably with what the interest would have been if, instead of PDC, the capital had been in the form of National Loan Fund loans. In fact, up to 1970–71 it would have been true even if there had not been a reconstruction of the Corporation's capital in 1965. BOAC's PDC has been taken over by the British Airways Board and, as my hon. Friend indicated, more is to be issued. I shall come to that in a moment.
I turn to the British Steel Corporation, which is so far the only other nationalised industry to have had Public Dividend Capital. Under the Iron and Steel Act, 1969, some £700 million of the Corporation's commencing capital debt of £834 million was converted to PDC. At the time, the Corporation argued that this was desirable, firstly because in comparison with equivalent manufacturing enterprises, both in this country and

1783
abroad, this would be appropriate; and secondly, because the steel industry fell squarely within the description of industries which are basically profitable but which undergo cyclical fluctuations. The Government agreed with this argument, and Parliament accepted it. This was the classic argument for public dividend capital. Accordingly, the 1969 legislation made provision.
What I would say to my hon. Friend is that it in no way detracts from the validity of the argument that, in the case of the British Steel Corporation, the results, for reasons which I think are well known, have been much worse than expected and that, in consequence of the capital reconstruction made this year, part of the public dividend capital was written off.
My hon. Friend went on to argue that the British Steel Corporation should not be regarded as being a cyclical business, and he advanced two arguments, the first being that its prices were bound to come under Government pressure. I would remind him that under the rules of the Coal and Steel Community, to which we shall be a subscriber next January, the opportunities for the Government to influence the pricing policy of the Corporation will be very severely curtailed. As for the argument that social pressures would in any event preclude the Corporation from making a profit in a good year in that it would not be allowed closure of uneconomic plant, only time will tell. My hon. Friend's fears may be justified. But I submit that it would be wrong to plan on the footing that the Steel Corporation has to endure losses in its bad years but must not be allowed to make up those losses and earn reasonable profits in the good years. On the whole I believe that, in spite of what he said, the arguments I have been adducing on the general question so far are widely accepted by those who follow these matters.
There are, however, two lines of comment which have been made. One has not been put in this debate, and therefore I shall deal with it very briefly. It is that PDC is a soft option and that it is a way in which the Government can finance nationalised industries in a form which does not require regular servicing. I
1784
would argue that it is certainly not a soft option and should not be allowed to become a soft option. It should not be used to finance industries which cannot service their capital. It would be more honest, and it is the normal practice, to pay grants in those circumstances, and this is the way in which Parliament in the past has felt it right to deal with this problem.
Obvious examples are British Rail—the Minister for Transport Industries on 27th July last announced financial support for the railways to meet the situation following the strike and wage settlement—and the National Coal Board, which is facing similar circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made an announcement last March about grant-aiding the National Coal Board. In these and similar cases it would be wrong to finance the losses by PDC. There would be no prospect of profitability. The losses are not due to cyclical fluctuations but to long-term considerations, and there is little or no prospect of dividends in later years.
It is right to point out that PDC can in no sense be an alternative to realistic and demanding financial targets, if the Government continue to set targets for these industries. Only today my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in a Written Answer announced a new target for the British Steel Corporation. Therefore, in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I maintain firmly that PDC should not be taken as a soft option, simply as a means of putting interest-free capital into the hands of nationalised industries.
The argument advanced by my hon. Friend, and to some extent by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, was in the contrary direction, that PDC could with advantage be extended much more widely to meet those cases where paying interest on loans would impose a severe burden on the industry. On this view, so the argument goes, the Government are wrong in insisting that only industries with cyclical businesses are suitable for PDC. My hon. Friend suggested the financing of the high-speed rail link to Maplin, the British Airways Board, and the prospecting for North Sea gas by the Gas Council. I see some difficulties in these suggestions. Take, for instance,

1785
British Rail; unless one thought that the enterprise as a whole was basically profitable and that the only reason for its difficulties arose out of the short-term financing of new development, I do not see how it could be a case for PDC. We are awaiting the study on British Rail which we expect to have in the autumn, but British Rail seems to be in a serious long-term financial situation.
The gas industry is a public utility. Although its results differ from year to year, it is not a cyclical industry in the same way as are the airways. The Government certainly do not rule out the extension of PDC to industries other than steel and the British Airways Board. On the lines already indicated a case will always be considered. It is right to proceed cautiously. Our experience so far is limited.
My hon. Friend referred to Concorde and to the statement of 25th May by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace announcing that BOAC is buying five Concordes and that the British Airways Board will have up to £200 million of new PDC over the next few years. My hon. Friend stressed—and I repeat—that this is in no sense a subsidy for operating Concorde. I have already pointed out that the BOAC experience with public dividend capital has been successful and that the dividends it has declared over the years compare favourably with what would have been paid had BOAC been paying loan interest.
My hon. Friend in his announcement of 25th May explained that the grounds for giving more PDC to the British Airways Board were to bring the debt-equity ratio for the Board as a whole to about the level which the Government thought right for BOAC alone. This reflects the fact that the Board as a whole is influenced by the factors which led to the introduction of PDC for British Overseas Airways.
British European Airways has in the past argued that it, too, should have public dividend capital, and the Government are taking the opportunity presented by the formation of the BAB to achieve the right overall ratio for the BAB as a whole. We are confident that the BAB will pay dividends which depend on its overall profitability and prospects for each year.
I hope that my hon. Friend feels that I have answered the questions which he
1786
put to me and that I have made the Government's position clear. As I said, we certainly do not rule out the extension of public dividend capital to industries other than those to which it has already been issued. As I said at the outset, this subject is under consideration by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, as Chairman of that Committee, is perhaps better placed than any of us to know the line of thinking which the Committee is developing. The Government look forward with great interest to reading the results of the Committee's deliberations when they are published, not least those on this interesting and important question of public dividend capital.

GIPSIES (CARAVAN SITES)
2.35 p.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: The issue I wish to raise concerns the crisis in community relations which many of us feel may be brought about by the Government's decision to accept designation orders under Section 10 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968. The Act revolves round Section 6, which requires local authorities to provide sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas, although county boroughs and London boroughs are required to provide up to 15 caravan pitches only. Where, however, the Minister believes either that enough pitches and sites have been provided or that it is not practicable to provide them, he may issue an order prohibiting unauthorised camping by gipsies in that area and sanctioning their forcible removal by the local authority.
It is the decision of the Minister to implement Section 10 at this stage which is in danger of provoking a major wave of discrimination, greater even perhaps than that which preceded the Caravan Sites Act, 1968. Right from the start there has been criticism of the powers of discrimination. One complaint is that power is given to a magistrate to make an order against a gipsy without notice and without the gipsy having the right to be heard in his own defence. The main objection has always been that gipsies can be expelled once sites have been provided to the satisfaction of the Minister.

1787
The reason why this is so serious is that the powers are being brought into use when only one-fifth of the total number of pitches required has so far been provided. There are today between 20,000 and 25,000 gipsies in England and Wales, yet the information that I obtained only two days ago from the Department is that there are only 49 sites with about 700 pitches available.
The 1965 survey, from which all our information comes, which the Government published under the title "Gipsies and Other Travellers" found that there were 3,356 gipsy families in England and Wales, although this was widely regarded as an under-estimate, and the total number is thought to be increasing each year by about 1,000. Today there are probably about 3,500 gipsy families in England and Wales, but local authorities have not even proposed to establish sites and pitches to accommodate them, let alone actually provide them, or anywhere near the number required.
At the time of the October, 1970, survey, local authorities promised to provide 2,330 sites, which is still only two-thirds of the total needed, but they have actually provided less than one-third of those promised.
The extent of the provision in relation to the need varies markedly in different areas. Of the eight county council areas which, according to the 1965 survey, had more than 100 gipsy families residing in them, only one—Buckinghamshire—proposes to provide a greater number of pitches than the number of families found to be residing there.
At the other extreme is the county of Kent, where according to the survey—and this is certainly an underestimate—there are over 300 gipsy families, and yet it is proposed to provide only 108 pitches. In exactly the same way Cornwall, Essex, Gloucestershire, Staffordshire, Surrey and Worcestershire, all of which have substantial numbers of gipsies in their areas, are clearly under-providers of the necessary number of sites and pitches.
The consequence is that in areas where local authorities have applied for designation orders, like Havering, Wolverhampton, West Bromwich and Manchester, there are known to be considerably more
1788
gipsy caravans than there are pitches available.
The reason why designation at this stage is undesirable and dangerous is that it can enable a number of local authorities to foreclose on their responsibilities well below the level of need that remains to be met.
There is another cause for disquiet about the use of designation as now proposed. There is evidence that it is being used for purposes for which the Government in 1968 when the Caravan Sites Act was passed said it was not intended. At that time Mr. Eric Lubbock, now Lord Avebury, the author of the Bill, was assured that the Government would not designate an area until they were quite sure that enough gipsy caravans had been provided in the region.
Circular 38/70 indicates an entirely different outlook, and this is the core of the matter. It says:
"Ministers intend to exercise their powers to designate areas under Section 12 in such a way as to avoid creating a patchwork pattern of relatively small areas where it would be an offence for a gipsy to camp."
Despite the pious wording of that circular, that is the precise danger for which we are now heading. The circular continues:
"Nevertheless, it may prove justifiable in the case of county boroughs, which have been under pressure and have provided 15 pitches, to make designation orders in advance of the adjoining counties being designated."
This puts an entirely different complexion on the use of the power of designation. Since it is now apparently Government policy to designate urban areas before the county areas adjoining them have been obliged to absorb surplus gipsies from these boroughs, the result can only be the forced migration of gipsies and the perpetuation of their persecution.
Moreover, it is clear both from the Act and from the discussions which took place at the time that the main purpose behind designation was to retain a reserve power to oblige gipsies to move on to an approved site if there were free places available. But the use of powers of designation as now proposed, which will legally permit the export of unwanted members of society to other areas under a sort of latter-day parish settlement law, will have the effect of strengthening, because of enforcement, discrimination against gipsies above the quota. As gipsies

1789
are forcibly moved on from urban areas to county council areas, there can be little doubt that restrictive designation now proposed will generate overspill resentment between local authorities and will stigmatise gipsies as the victims of a modern game of municipal shuttlecock—recalling the use of laws in the last two centuries against beggars and vagabonds who were subject to similar treatment.
A third implicit danger where there is evidence that it is materialising concerns harassment arising from the possibility of gaining a grant of exemption under the Act. Clearly local authorities have an incentive to get rid of their gipsies by one means or another to obtain exemption by claiming that they have no gipsies in their neighbourhood.
In May this year the Gipsy Council reported that harassment of this kind was being intensified in many areas. In the last two years evictions have been carried out in Wigan, Bury, Ashton, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall and Cannock, and are undoubtedly still occuring. Only last week it was reported from Cardiff that 250 men, women and children were forcibly moved on from an area which for several generations had enjoyed the status of commonage. This is no new experience for gipsies.
But what is particularly disturbing about the present situation is that even in areas where better than average efforts have been made to provide requisite sites, as in Buckinghamshire, the police are still using powers and other levers open to them under the law to move gipsies on. The legislation which can be used, and which is being used, to harass gipsies makes a formidable list. It includes such choice items as the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, 1964; the Caravan Sites (Control and Development) Act, 1960; the Highways Act, 1959; the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947; and the Public Health Act, 1936. There are also a number of local Acts such as the West Yorkshire (General Powers) Act, 1951, and even bylaws under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882.
There can be few minorities against whom such a wide range of powers has been so regularly applied. The time surely has come to end this unnatural harassment—this insidious yet pervasive action by the authorities which is undermining a whole way of life.
1790
This was the central purpose of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968. That is has not turned out in that way surely is a matter for real concern, and careful examination is necessary to see what has gone wrong and what further action needs to be taken.
In 1967, the report of the Government of the day, "Gipsies and Other Travellers", which is a very good and authoritative report, laid down the fundamental principle unambiguously and clearly. It said:
"Until a wide network of special sites is provided, there should be an end to the present system of perpetually moving the travellers from one unlawful stopping place to another."
It was precisely this situation that the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, was designed to stop, and precisely this prospect which I believe the grossly premature decision of the Government to accept designation orders is likely to open up again.
My fourth major criticism of the way the Act is being implemented concerns the standard of facilities on the sites which have been provided. I refer to facilities for washing, sewage, scrap metal dealing, fire prevention, refuse collection, play space and other essentials which often do not come up to the model standards laid down by the Joint Working Party of Local Authority Associations and the Gipsy Council. Sites are often placed near rubbish tips, canals or sewage beds. Children are often unable to gain access to local schools. Local authorities all too often have failed to liase adequately with the Gipsy Council as they are required to do.
Furthermore, contrary to the general impression, the rents which gipsies are charged are anything but generous. They have been charged up to £3 per week for a single hard standing. I quote one instance reported to me yesterday by Mr. Tom O'Docherty and Mr. George Marriott of the Gipsy Council. It concerns the Cottony Spring site at Leeds 12. This site was made available a few days ago. Some seven families moved on to it and they found that no electricity was available, there was no working area, no storage space, the road surface was bad and crumbling. A rent of £3·50 per week was charged per pitch, which is well above the ceiling laid down of £2·50 per week recommended by the joint working

1791
party. I need hardly add that the families rapidly came to the decision that persecution and the highways, if need be, were better than this mud desert. They quickly left. The moral of the story is that at present there are no powers in the hands of the Minister to enforce higher standards of facilities on sites. This surely is a gross omission.
My fifth criticism concerns another omission. It is the lack of any time limit for local authorities to fulfil their responsibility under the Act. All that has happened is that in a departmental circular local authorities have been asked yet again to give details of the provision of sites that they have made already and the provision which they intend to make in the future. A very similar survey was carried out previously by the Ministry in May, 1970. In the meantime the number of sites has increased from 30 to 49, which, judged against the magnitude of the need, is a pretty dismal failure. At present there is no power to prevent a local authority postponing almost indefinitely its implementation of the Act. Surely this is intolerable.
Finally, a problem has arisen because of the change in some local boundaries under the local Government Bill to which, as yet, the Government have given no satisfactory reply. There is now the anomaly that a county borough designated under the Caravan Sites Act may disappear—
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you give some guidance on this? If the hon. Gentleman encroaches on legislation which at the moment is being discussed in another place, I am put in some difficulty in answering his points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I understand the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I must tell the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that in an Adjournment debate one must not discuss legislation which is pending or ask for legislation. If the hon. Gentleman omits that part of his speech, he will be quite in order.
Mr. Meacher: Do I understand that I am permitted to ask for legislation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.
Mr. Meacher: Then I shall have to leave that point. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows to what I am referring. I hope that account will be taken of the Amendments to it which have been proposed, even though the legislation is being considered in another place.
I end by asking the Government to give much more definite assurances in a number of respects about the future implementation of the Act. The first point that I make is that I regard is as essential that no more applications for designation orders should be accepted by the Government, especially concerning urban areas, until there is clear evidence that county areas have absorbed from the boroughs surplus gipsies who otherwise are in danger of being forced into perpetual mobility and subjected to intensified harassment.
Secondly, I ask the Government to do more to assist financially local authorities which have a large number of gipsies in their areas. This is not a responsibility which should lie entirely on local ratepayers. In the debate in another place on 6th June the Government agreed to consider applications for better allocations from local authorities which intended to provide sites for gipsy caravans this year but were unable to do so from within their normal allocation because of other commitments. That is all very well, but it adds not a penny to local finance. At the very least the Government ought to provide the same subsidy per pitch on an approved site as that given in housing aid to council tenants and owner-occupiers, which at present runs at between £40 and £70 a year. But it is preferable to aim at the target of the Dutch aid programme, which consists of the provision from the central Exchequer of £400 per caravan provided by the local authority plus 50 per cent. of the subsequent running costs.
Above all, the Government should stop the nonsense through the audit system whereby some local authorities spend almost more on evictions and barricades than would be required to provide proper sites. One of the worst instances is Walsall, which was reported recently to have spent £1,600 on evictions in 16 days and an estimated total of £8,000 in its anti-gipsy campaign. One wonders how

1793
many proper pitches could have been provided for that money without all the necessary antagonism that it provoked.
Mr. J. R. Kinsey: Why should local authorities have to contain in their areas nomadic people who do very nicely out of scrap collecting, befoul the areas on which they camp, and then expect to be paid for by the community?
Mr. Meacher: Despite the impressions often put about, they are no better off as a result of subsidies than any other groups. The average cost of a council house is £5,000. At present travellers get less per caravan in subsidy than the tenants of local authorities, let alone owner-occupiers when one takes into account the tax relief on mortgage interest.
The point is that local ratepayers, simply because they happen to be in an area where there are a lot of gipsies, should not be expected to meet the full cost. It is a national responsibility. Someone has to provide decent facilities and ensure that gipsies are obliged to move to them. That is the spirit of the Caravan Sites Act.
Surely the Government should have powers to ensure better standards on sites which have already been provided and should do so as part of a wider programme to ensure that the Act is implemented by all local authorities within a stated and reasonable time scale, which I take to be two to three years. Such a programme should also ensure that a small number of temporary pitches are provided for overnight accommodation for gipsies in transit. That is a clear requirement, and I am glad to see that Bedfordshire has agreed in principle to do this. Lastly, following the good example of Hertfordshire, social workers and teachers especially should be attached to all sites to ensure much better integration with local communities.
If we believe in a civilised and humane society, these are the minimum conditions to be applied to what is still the largest and most discriminated against minority in Britain. I hope very much that the Minister will treat these points constructively, which certainly is the manner in which they have been raised.
2.58 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I thank the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for drawing our attention in this Adjournment debate and in the series of Questions that he has asked over the past 18 months or so to the provisions being made for gipsies. I welcome his interest. The replies to his Questions have made public details of the sites which have already been provided by individual local authorities. What is more, they have shown his concern, and that the Government share that concern.
In May of this year my Department issued a statement which made it clear that it has always been and continues to be the view of my right hon. Friend that proper facilities for gipsy families should be provided as soon as possible. Advice was given to local authorities about the way in which the Act should operate both when the Act was passed, in a circular of 1968, and when Part II came into operation, in a later circular in April, 1970. All those remain unchanged. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman quoted from one in his speech.
This summer local authorities were asked in Circular 59/72 to provide up-to-date information about actual and proposed accommodation for gipsy caravans in their areas. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman said that designation was discrimination, he was using an unfortunate phrase considering the efforts being made by many local authorities to comply with the Act.
In considering designation my Department has worked very closely with the Gipsy Council. I am sure the Council knows the difficulties just as well as we and the local authorities do. To talk about perpetuation of the persecution of or discrimination against gipsies is discouraging to those local authorities which have carried out their obligations under the Act and to other local authorities which are trying to do the same.
The hon. Gentleman gave his views on the size of the problem and the efforts of many local authorities to meet it. I hope to have a lot more information on this matter when I have received and analysed replies to Circular 59/72. The replies were asked for by 30th September,

1795
so I am unable to give the House any reliable forecast of the rate of progress and the future plans of local authorities. I hope that when I have received and analysed these replies we shall see an advance on the rate which has been shown so far. However, the results of this inquiry will have to be carefully considered before any fresh initiatives by the Government can be planned. I do not hide the fact that progress in establishing caravan sites for gipsy families has not been as fast as we all hoped when the 1968 Act was passed or, indeed, as many authorities would have wished since then.
As the hon. Gentleman said, when the Act was passed it was estimated, on the basis of a study carried out in 1965 and 1966 by the Sociological Research Section of the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that we needed 200 sites to accommodate 3,000 gipsy families. That was the ultimate that would be required, according to that research. That was the first attempt to estimate the size of the gipsy population and the need for accommodation for their caravans. It could have been an under-estimate, quite apart from the natural increase which will have taken place since that research was done. At some suitable stage a further census of gipsies will obviously be desirable, and my Department has that in mind.
I cannot guarantee to ask local authorities to provide accommodation for every family which might choose the gipsy way of life in future. We know that we ought to provide more accommodation for those who are enjoying that life at the moment. Therefore, the provision of more sites is of greater importance and priority than counting heads and trying to discover the size of the problem.
After Part II of the Act came into force authorities were asked to provide information about existing sites and what they proposed to do in fulfilling their duties under the Act. The replies we then received, in the autumn of 1970, disclosed that 30 sites were in use and a further 129 were proposed. This represented 433 pitches provided and almost 2,000 proposed. The number has now risen to 49 sites containing 700 pitches.
We are disappointed with the rate, but we must not under-rate the problems and
1796
difficulties of setting aside sites for this purpose. We cannot shut our eyes to the genuine problems with which authorities can be and are faced in seeking to carry out their duties under the Act. In many areas, particularly urbanised areas, suitable land will be difficult to find, whether it has to be appropriated or acquired for the purpose. The difficulties in urban areas are recognised by the limited requirement to provide sites for 15 caravans in both the county and London boroughs. When an authority believes it has identified a suitable location for a site, it often encounters severe resistance from local residents to its proposals.
Mr. Kinsey: Will my right hon. Friend say something in defence of the Walsall Corporation and, indeed, of the West Midlands as a whole, which suffer from this problem? Residents in those areas are strongly against sites that could be used for housing even being considered for use for caravan sites. Also, there is the absolute degradation that the caravan dwellers bring to an area.
Mr. Page: Not if the site is properly set out and equipped. This is what we must sell to the residents and, indeed, to the public in general. Of course there is resentment when it is thought that a site within a residential area is to be used for the sort of settlement which is seen on verges and derelict land. This is not what the Act envisages. The Act envisages a proper site, decently equipped, set aside for that purpose. Gipsies living on properly equipped and managed local authority sites are a different proposition from those on unauthorised encampments. That is a distinction not ordinarily drawn, quite understandably, by residents when they hear that a site is to be laid out in their area.
Sir Gilbert Longden: Has any estimate been made of the total number of these people who will ultimately have to be accommodated? It is very disheartening to a county like Hertfordshire, which is doing its stuff under the Act, that other counties do not and the gipsies simply come pouring into Hertfordshire again.
Mr. Page: Indeed. This is the whole point of the provision for designation. When a county borough has provided a site for 15 caravans, or a county has

1797
provided a sufficient number of sites for those gipsy families who are residing there at that time, it can then ask the Secretary of State for a designation order which will allow it to evict other gipsies. Incidentally, Hertfordshire comes out top of the league in the figures I have here. It has done extraordinarily well in making provision.
This brings me to the point about designation which the hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned. The hon. Gentleman asked me to give an undertaking that we would not issue any designation orders, because he felt that designation was an authority to evict gipsy families from an area. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think of the whole basis of the Act—that if a local authority makes provision for caravans within its area, it is entitled to ask the Secretary of State for a designation. But the Secretary of State has to satisfy himself that the sites provided are sufficient and appropriate, and in this we have again worked very closely with the Gipsy Council in examining sites before even considering requests for designation orders.
Up to the present no designations have been made, but it would be grossly unfair to local authorities who have provided good sites which are well equipped with water and sanitary conveniences which are in accordance with the model rules and standards that they should be refused an order to which they are entitled under the Act. We do not want, in issuing orders, to have a situation like a balloon where one squeezes it in at one point and it bulges out at another. Therefore in the West Midlands, where this might happen, we have held back on designation orders to avoid the risk of merely moving caravan dwellers from one place to another. The whole principle of the Act was that that should not be our policy in future and the Government are determined to stick to that principle.
The hon. Member asked whether we could give any financial assistance to authorities to provide sites. I know that one of the recommendations by the joint working party of the local authority associations and the Gipsy Council—contained in its report, which was published at about this time last year—was for a direct subsidy. I cannot accept that advice. It would be wholly inconsistent with the present policy of the Govern-
1798
ment under which we are moving away from specific grants which involve a degree of central Government intervention in decisions which should be matters for the local authorities. We are therefore not prepared to give a specific grant for that expenditure, but it is taken into account in awarding the rate support grant each year.
My right hon. Friend felt that it would be most unfortunate if any local authority felt that it did not get the cash to get on with these sites. We know, of course, that with the locally determined schemes local authorities have to plan out according to a budget, and it may be that some of them felt they were restricted and unable to get on with the work of providing sites. The Secretary of State therefore recently announced that he would be prepared to give sanction to the borrowing of money outside the locally determined schemes if any local authority felt that it was being held up through lack of money in proceeding with the provision of these sites.
No exemptions have been given on the plea that there was no land in the area on which to locate a site. Some 32 applications were made for exemption on the grounds that gipsies did not resort to the area. Of these, 13 exemptions have been given, and if I detained the House by reading out the list of exemptions it would be quite clear that these were areas which did not have a gipsy problem. We have been careful not to give exemptions for areas where there is a problem or where there is a problem even within the county.
I have covered all the points raised by the hon. Member. He concluded by asking certain specific questions. He asked for an undertaking that there would be no further designation orders, and I cannot give him such an undertaking for two reasons. It would be unfair to local authorities who have provided sites for us definitely to say that there will be no designation order for them even though they had done all that they were required to do under the Act. Second, in considering designation orders we have the great help of the Gipsy Council and we consider these issues closely with them. I know of one particular case in which a designation order was sought but when my officials and the Gipsy Council looked at the site, they refused to give it because

1799
the site was not good enuogh. I believe that we can work it in that way, refusing to give designation orders where they are not deserved.
We must leave the question of temporary sites to the local authority concerned to decide. I would not wish to detract from the position of the permanent sites in favour of temporary sites. If the authority can do them both, all well and good. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this matter—
Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the request for a definite timescale for the full implementation of the Act by all local authorities and on the enforcement of the model standards recommended by the joint working party?
Mr. Page: On the question of enforcement there is sufficient power for the laying down of the model standards. The model rules which apply to all caravan sites apply to these gipsy sites and we would not wish them to be at a lower standard than those provided for residential and holiday caravan sites. The provisions of the Caravan Act as they stand are sufficient for specific enforcement. The enforcement comes when the local authority asks for a designation order and is refused it because the site is not up to standard.
It would be impossible to lay down a time scale. It is for central government to give such encouragement as it can to the local authorities and not to act as a sort of "big brother" to the local authorities, forcing them to carry out the work. We shall use persuasion and announce what our policy is, and I am sure that in co-operation with the local authorities we can speed up the rate of provision now and eventually reach the point which we anticipated would be the ultimate figure when the Act was passed in 1968.

HOUSING AND LAND PRICES
3.17 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: I must declare a small interest in this subject in that I am an unpaid director of a South of England building company which I joined two or three years ago mainly to find out what goes on. What
1800
happens with this company also happens with many others. We no longer tender as we did for public contracts because inflation now renders profit or loss margins precarious. Our main work has become speculative house building. Houses we sold a year ago at £5,500 now fetch £9,000 and up. This is not out of the ordinary. Crawley new town authority, for example, is now asking £10,000 for houses which fetched £8,000 upwards in April and £6,000 at the end of last year. I calculate that for a young couple a mortgage of £9,000 means £65 a month over 35 years.
So, at least in the South-East, where one-third of the population resides, we now have the £5,000 council house without land and the £10,000 house for sale with land. Many councils which apply the Parker Morris standard find the first of these cannot be built within the Department's yardstick without direct labour. The second, in many places, is losing quality because, alas, inflation pares standards as well as raises costs. Building land at £10,000 an acre and up inevitably pushes down the quality of some houses and attracts bad builders. I am deeply troubled by the number of people who are investing £10,000 in such houses even though they will pay in depreciated currency.
Reverting to the company, it would pay us best not to build houses at all. Between the acquisition of land and building, even without undue delay, the value of much land in South-East England and the West Midlands today is rising by more than the prospective profit on houses. So if we can build houses today it very often pays us not to sell them, and if we have land with planning permission it pays even more handsomely not to build on it. This seems to me to be a recipe for social disaster, and, while fully weighing and giving all credit to the Minister's proposals of last April, I do not take the view that those proposals will go to the root of the trouble.
I come to the conclusion that there are a number of factors. One factor is the amount of land with planning permission now being held but not used. The Standing Conference on London and the South-East Regional Planning puts the figure conservatively at 120,000 houses plus another 200,000 houses on land for which permission could be got.

1801
The second factor is longer-range investment by European and British finance houses in certain farmland. I ask, although it is not strictly relevant to the debate, whether the figures published this week by the Institute of Agricultural Economics at Oxford are anywhere near the mark. If so, the soaring prices of some farmland will eventually distort and grievously damage the pattern of agriculture in the South.
The two factors I mention add to the following absurd paradox. On the one hand, we have genuine builders desperately short of land on which to build and paying ludicrous prices for what they can get and, on the other hand, we have a lot of land with outline and detailed planning permission held by land holders, development companies and some local authorities, and simply by sitting on the land these land holders can, and do, make between 10 and 20 times, and even more, on their original investment. To put it quite bluntly, they are in effect profiteering from prospective house purchasers, many of them young couples. I take the view, and I am sorry to say it, that unless we act to remedy this situation we shall not readily be forgiven for it.
What should the Government do? First, they must get the measure of what we are up against. I am not absolutely confident that they have yet done so. I do not dismiss the April measures, some of them excellent. I think that they will work, but will work slowly and inflation will overtake some of them.
The levies and taxes on land that we have tried since the war have failed. It is true, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, that we have a capital gains tax; but what is the objection to the tried Australian or Canadian progressive tax on land with planning permission which is held but not used? On balance, I prefer the fiscal to the compulsory purchase approach. If local authorities are simply invited by the Minister to weigh in with compulsory purchase orders on this land and pass it on to someone who will use it, ratepayers and taxpayers will pay heavily and some injustice may be done to individuals. I want to see the sort of tax which the State of Victoria has used to control development in the greater Melbourne area, and thereby kept down prices.
1802
Why does not the Minister try a tax of, say, x per cent. on land valued by the district valuer which has had outline planning permission for two years? Then let him double that tax on land which has had detail planning for two years. I am sure that we would be surprised by the consequences of doing just that. I am advised by those who know more about the subject than I do that land prices would probably fall.
Again, though this is subsidiary, I set great store by the £80 million made available to local authorities on assembling land, because this costly public servicing has discouraged some from making land available. I also urge the Minister to take a long, hard look at the building industry—I do not mean the big operators—because, frankly, it is in a mess. It is saddled with an obsolete apprentice system and an acute shortage of skilled workers. It was absolutely right, of course, to make sub-contractors pay tax, but that was done too late in the day and it has inflated costs.
The root of our difficulty is the fact that after the credit squeeze of the late 1960s the building industry simply could not meet the pent-up demand of last year and of this. Some of that was to be expected, but some I attribute to weaknesses in the building industry which we must get right.
Again, I refer the Minister to the remarks of the Standing Conference's Technical Panel last month:
"Negotiations among owners, builders, market advisers and financiers, and with public authorities about the provision of public services, can be complex and time-consuming so that some years can pass between initial approval of start and building."
Bluntly, a number of planning authorities need brassing up. They are dilatory and inconsistent. That does not go for all of them, but it certainly goes for some of them. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) were here I am sure he would add "What about money supply?" That is a very relevant question.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, even with his very wide responsibilities, to find the remedies to the evil consequencs of inflation, which basically is what we are talking about—the rise in retail prices since 1962

1803
of 60 per cent. and, even worse in this context, expectation of continued inflation. That, as has been observed in another place, corrupts and distorts the whole basis of the society in which we live, but I venture to say by way of conclusion that a blunter avowal of some of these difficulties would help, We shall not get, nor shall we deserve to get, the concerted and urgent action we need if we wrap around the real evils too thickly with hopefulness.
3.26 p.m.
Mr. James Hill: Listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) it seemed to me that we had gone back to the idea of the speculators' hoarding of land, which is the usual way in which the public blame the Government. Land speculators and land hoarding have been blamed as a major cause of our present shortages. Figures have been mentioned by the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning which show more permits for house building than have been actually taken up and turned into bricks and mortar.
The report says that a pool of about 150,000 planning permissions for houses remain to be acted on in the South-East, excluding Greater London, but this figure has to be qualified. Existing permissions are often owned by persons who are not in a position to develop. Some are very old, some are intended for council housing, and some of the land may be sterilised or blocked in by other land.
A recent survey by the National House-Builders Registration Council in Hertfordshire showed that of some 700 acres of undeveloped land with outline planning permission in only 237 acres was lack of development deliberate. Nearly 200 acres of this land was in the ownership of local authorities, and the largest single private owner was a golf club. I therefore feel that we must not make too much of this idea of land being hoarded by the speculator.
The amount of land built on in the United Kingdom was only 4·3 per cent. in 1970. We have 9·56 per cent. of green belt and 9·02 per cent. devoted to national parks. The rest, over 70 per cent., has still not been built on, provided as green belt or accounted for by national parks.
1804
The recent boom has been almost entirely supported by the easy credit after several difficult years. Government measures to increase house building for home ownership has added to the problem. By the success of our initiative, we have created the problem—by the inflow of funds into the building societies, the option mortgage scheme, which was made more flexible, the abolition of stamp duty on mortgages, the abolition of the money ceiling on local authority lending, the abolition of the betterment levy and the halving of SET.
Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I agree with my hon. Friend about the Government's accomplishments in this respect, but is it not extremely disturbing that in Greater London, not an area in which land lacks sewerage or other facilities, the number of planning permissions given has exceeded the number implemented in every year since 1965, with the exception of the first half of 1971, and that in the City of Westminster we have seen twice as many planning permissions given as have been implemented? Would my hon. Friend agree that this is particularly disturbing in the light of the various other considerations he mentioned?
Mr. Hill: The London problem is one all on its own. As I come from an urban constituency, it is a problem for which I should not like to answer.
However, there are now unmistakeable signs that this escalation is being curtailed. House prices have passed their peak, and this must mean a corresponding flattening out in land prices. I prophesy that certainly by the end of the year the acute problem will be over. But the prices will not thaw and melt away. Consequently, what can we do to solve this problem? The chief problem seems to be that town planners have little understanding of the commercial implications of their decisions. Firstly, they try to balance the demand for all kinds of accommodation. This produces distortions in the market. Therefore, it seems that the best way to tackle this problem, instead of just saying, "More land must be released on to the market", is to make sure that more land is released on to the market.
I should like the Department of the Environment to have about six inspectors

1805
of planning who could be sent to county planning authorities to work with the planning departments for a month at a time to obtain confirmation for the Secretary of State that land releases for both commercial and housing needs are being dealt with at a rate in advance of requirements, and that the price of both houses and land held is not supported at a high level due to the county planning officer's drip-feed method of land release.
Another very good idea, in the long term, is the Domesday Book for the South East. This must eventually be an excellent way of identifying land. These Domesday Books should cover every region and should be open to public scrutiny.
Returning to the immediate short term, today I was disappointed at my right hon. Friend's inability at the Dispatch Box to answer Question No. 23, although this is no reflection upon him.
It was a perfectly straightforward request for information on the number of permissions for private dwellings in Bromley in 1969, 1970 and 1971, and the number built. How can a worthwhile exercise on the ability of a planning office be mounted if the Department of the Environment does not have the initial detailed information? It is essential that the Department gets the detailed information.
I feel that there should be a special grant to local authorities which, by their sheer circumstances, are almost afraid to release land for development. They should receive an acreage grant to enable them to deal with all the services and social requirements of an area, such as schools, roads, welfare services, bus services, and so on, which are demanded by a modern society. If an acreage grant were given to the smaller local authorities that might make them more amenable to releasing land ahead of requirements.
My right hon. Friend will receive much advice this afternoon, but I hope that he will keep in mind the two suggestions of an acreage grant and the need for an inspectorate to check on county planning officers.
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: This is a short debate and I shall not enter into all the points of argument which could be more usefully de-
1806
ployed against the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) if it were a long debate.
We ought to welcome the Minister this afternoon. I have been chasing him for six months trying to get him to come to the House to talk about his proposals on land prices and housing costs. I am indebted to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for initiating the debate.
The Government's record on land and house prices is appalling. In the last 12 months the Opposition have presented proposals of such a concrete nature that they might have dealt with some of the problems arising, and the Minister has been considering them ever since. After the last debate on this subject, his right hon. Friend said that I had made a constructive speech and that he would consider my proposals. But he has not written me one line since then.
The Government have shown a far greater consideration and sympathy for land speculators and profiteers in housing than they have for looking after the interests of ordinary people. To say that the answer is to build more houses, which is what the right hon. Gentleman has been repeating over the last 12 months, is a nonsense. Before the houses are built in the requisite numbers to deal with the situation, the sharks and crooks in land and building will have gone home with the loot anyway. I do not wish to quote examples of profiteering. There are too many such examples, and they have been quoted time and again in the House and in the Press.
But let us not believe for a moment that this problem is restricted to London and the South-East. The Bristol and South-West Building Society issued a report last week relating to the whole of the South-West. The problem applies equally to areas I represent as it does to London and the South-East. I give one example which is illustrative of the point I want to make. I refer to a case in Mitcheldean in my constituency, where a builder, on the basis of land bought years ago, has increased his profits by thousands of £s per house at the expense of the workers of Rank Xerox, by progressive increases in each phase of the development of the site. This is one of the rackets that have been occurring all over the country.

1807
Today land speculators and builders in many instances who have had land banks in their possession for long periods are literally robbing people of thousands of £s, and these people cannot afford to be robbed. If we had anything of a moral society, we would not be talking today in terms of simply finding methods by which we could stop this racket; we would be prosecuting these people for obtaining money under false pretences in the way that they do.
There is only one way to deal with this stituation, and that is to impose the kind of progressive tax to which the right hon. Member for Ashford referred, a tax based upon the number of years, becoming progressively more swingeing from the time at which permission to build was granted by the local authority. I would fix that tax, after two or three years, perhaps, at such a level that land holders would pay an amount in excess of any profits that they made consequent upon apportioning the cost per house on the piece of land and over and above that which they purchased it for.
Sir Gilbert Longden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughlin: No. I want to give an opportunity for other hon. Members to make their speeches. All right, I will give way.
Sir Gilbert Longden: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says, but how would he prevent the purchaser from paying the tax?
Mr. Loughlin: It is always difficult to stop the purchaser from paying a tax. We must devise ways and means of doing that. I am sorry about this, but I did it only because of the grin on the face of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), who assumed that I did not want to give way. The difficulty is that as soon as a tax is imposed the whole of an industry engages in devious ways of avoiding it. The Treasury should have people to ensure that the tax is not avoided. This is the only progressive way. Other countries do it. I would seek to ensure that profiteers would not make any profit in this respect.
1808
Local authorities should have compulsory purchase powers to acquire land where planning permission has not been taken up within a reasonable period so that they can build houses, in conjunction with the building industry, for persons who are active or long resident in the area of the housing authority. In such cases there should be conditions of sale to ensure that no killing will take place as the result of any reduction in price arising from such a policy, so that the local authority would lay down conditions whereby, if there was a reduction in the total cost of the house consequent upon the compulsory purchase of the land, the purchaser would be restricted as to the period in which he could sell the house, or he would sell back to the local authority, as some progressive local authorities are doing at present.
I, like many hon. Members, have seen how speculative builders have been able to get away with murder by the use of discretionary grants from local authorities. It is time that the Minister for Housing and Construction or the Minister for Local Government and Development told local authorities that discretionary grants, although it is desirable to maintain the housing stock, should be used to help people who want to build or improve houses for themselves to live in and not to sell at a speculative price or to have as a second home. Local authorities must be told that their job is to give discretionary grants to people who really want homes and not to those who want to make profits, nor to those who want second homes.
Finally, to some extent I agree that the planning procedures should be examined. I am sick and tired of the Gloucestershire planning authority refusing planning permission for people who have a little land in their own area which has been in the family for a long time and who want to build a house for members of their family on that piece of land but whose application is turned down by the local planning authority and by the county planning authority only for it to be found later that the area is developed by a speculative builder who has been granted planning permission.
One of the consequences of the present policies followed by many planning authorities is that they are destroying

1809
villages and communities and are trying to apply urban planning principles to rural development. It is time that the Government faced this situation and told planning authorities that, given certain safeguards, a man who has a piece of land of his own and wishes to develop it and build a house of his own should not be refused planning permission and exposed to the activities of speculative builders, as is happening in Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire.
The Minister has a responsibility in this matter, because it is not something that can be resolved in the sweet by and by. People are trying to get houses and they are fastening albatrosses round their necks for 25 to 30 years because of the Government's neglect to stop speculative builders from making these killings.
3.46 p.m.
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has done a service by raising a matter which can justifiably be described as of national concern, although there are wide sections of the population which are not directly affected. The rented section is not directly affected, though it might be indirectly affected if building costs were to rise too fast. Owner-occupiers are not adversely affected except in the purely economic sense of having the satisfaction of seeing an important capital asset appreciate considerably in value.
The problem to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention is a very real problem for young married couples, for those on lower incomes who aspire to own their own homes, and for the parents of both categories. Homes are inevitably, naturally and rightly an emotional subject. So is the thought of profiteering in the matter of homes.
If light is to be thrown on this problem, we must look at it dispassionately, almost clinically. The first question to be asked is: how much have house prices risen in comparison with earnings and other prices? An interesting article which appeared in the Financial Times the other day showed that over the period since devaluation in 1967 there has been for much of the country—for the North and even for the Midlands—a close correla-
1810
tion between the rate of increase in house prices and rising earnings. Although this is true of much of the country, it is manifestly not true of the South and the South-East, where the increase is much more marked and much more dramatic, and where one-third of the population live.
The next question is: what has caused this increase? On the one side, there is the increase in money available for purchasing in real wages and salaries. There is the increased availability of credit and the underlying trend, possibly stimulated by the return to office of the Conservative Government but it has been true all along, from tenanted occupation to home ownership.
The one great change which has taken place since 1970 is that hundreds of thousands of people who never dared to think that home ownership would be within their reach now want their own homes and have the means to buy them. Unless we understand this deep social change we shall not understand or be able to grapple with the problem. It is not a case of people who always expected to buy a house being shut out of the market by rising prices. It is a case of many more people who never thought of buying their own homes now banging on the market door and bidding up the price.
In so putting the matter I am presenting it as an economic problem, for that is what it is in part. It is also a social and human problem. It is about people who want to buy homes.
It would be quite attractive to Ministers to go about the country saying "We have stabilised home prices". But it would not help people to get homes. Of course, the better-off people will always be able to afford the deposit and the repayment even if we run into another mortgage famine. But the people whom we are trying to help, whom both sides of the House are concerned about, are the young married couples buying a home for the first time, the lower-paid people who want to become home owners and those who want to move to a better house than the one they have today. These are the people whom we want to help. If we were to ration mortgage finance we would be excluding precisely these people from any chance of getting their own homes.

1811
The alternative approach, the alternative to cutting off demand, is to increase supply until it catches up with effective demand. This is the yardstick by which I hope the House will judge the Government's performance. We have tried to do two things—to ensure that the potential buyers have the necessary finance to buy, and to give confidence to the builders and those who produce the raw materials to get on with the job of building.
Mr. Kevin McNamara rose
Mr. Amery: I am sorry; I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I rose to speak later than I had expected.
It is a question of giving confidence to builders and those who supply them with their essential raw materials. A basic raw material of building is land. My right hon. Friend was completely right to devote as much of his speech as he did to the subject of land. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) talked about hoarding land. I doubt whether there is a great deal of serviced land hoarded at present. Prices are very high—I would think probably near the top—and I would think that very few people are holding on to land in the expectation of a greater increase in price. The problem is not so much about land being hoarded and how to get it into circulation. The problem is to look ahead and make sure that in two or three years from now builders can look at least that far ahead and be sure that developers and local authorities can make sure that land is available to them.
I should like to join with my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government and Development for what they have done—it has been of critical help to me—in making more land available. As the House knows, we are making £80 million available to local authorities mainly for the assembling of land for private home development. We are asking local authorities, particularly those in the pressure areas, to compile "Domesday Books" of suitable land which could be made available within the next five years. We are giving loan sanction for sewerage works connected with land assembly schemes in advance of
1812
need. The new towns will make a major contribution of 5,000 acres by 1975.
I can make one new announcement this afternoon. Local authorities will be allowed to use part of the £80 million of additional loan sanction to cover expenditure on infrastructure on sites acquired under the loan sanction itself.
There has been a good deal of anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend and others about planning appeals. I dare say that the machinery does work too slowly, but we are increasing the number of inspectors from 143 to 200, and the processing of appeals has already been speeded up. I have encouraged developers to put in appeals if they are not satisfied with the answers that they have been getting. For the first six months of 1970 there were 2,267 appeals received by the central Government relating to the South-East. For the first six months of this year the number was 3,479, and that shows progress. [Laughter.] I think it shows very considerable progress. These are appeals received for decision by the Secretary of State.
The most acute land problem concerns London, but, as the Under-Secretary announced this morning, the reports of the London Housing Action Group, on which both parties are represented, which were issued today—they are in the Library—give grounds for some confidence that the overall shortage in London can be overcome within the 1970s.
My right hon. Friend has asked us to look at a land tax on the Canadian and Australian model. He expounded the idea in an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph some time ago. We have studied this and similar suggestions in the Department. There are advantages in my right hon. Friend's proposal, but he will be the first to recognise that there are also difficulties. There are advantages in the sense that if there is a tax on land already zoned for housing it will ensure that it is developed. On the other hand, there is the danger that it might stop people applying for permission until they are absolutely sure that they are going ahead and they might get the obverse side of the medal. On the whole, at this stage we have concluded that the way ahead lies rather in co-operation with other interested bodies. That is why we

1813
have been discussing land availability with house builders, land owners and local authorities and have tried to get the nationalised industries and other Government Departments, with some success, to unload as much land as possible.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that question, may I put this point to him? If he is rejecting the suggestion which has been put to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), would he consider the point raised this morning at Question Time by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) for taking measures to ensure that there is a reasonable return on the cost of land only when it is made available for owners or bought by owners for development for housing purposes?
Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said, I think. I am not rejecting my right hon. Friend's proposal. I merely say that we are considering this and similar proposals which have been put to us, and we propose at this stage to proceed on a voluntary basis through discussions which are taking place and which we believe may have the effect of producing more stable land prices. If we were to succeed in this, my right hon. Friend would he the last to push this suggestion. It is only if the trend were to continue, I imagine, that he would wish to insist upon it.
Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Would the Minister consider the suggestion put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West?
Mr. Amery: I thought I made it clear. We propose at this stage to proceed on a voluntary basis, and not attempt by fiscal or other measures to introduce compulsion.
There are other raw materials apart from land. There are bricks. I think the brick industry is bringing into production sufficient new kilns to meet the demand of the industry.
There is also the vital problem of labour. The industry has shown a great increase in productivity, but there is a great shortage of skills, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have been co-operating closely to see whether we could establish
1814
a better understanding between industry and the employment service, and to see whether we could improve training facilities. We welcome the decision of the National Joint Council to reduce the number of training years for trainees from four to three.
I come now to the crux of the problem: what is being done to increase not just the supply of raw materials but the overall supply of houses? My right hon. Friend said that the company with which he was associated was no longer interested in the public sector. I hope that it will revise its view about that. In the past, local authorities have sometimes been inhibited from building by the cost implications. Under the Housing Finance Act, the Government are committed to finance 75 per cent. of any deficit incurred, whatever the cost of building, so there is no longer any financial bar in that sense; house prices no longer represent a bar to local authority building.
Over the last two years, 279,000 public sector houses have been built, and with the new slum clearance subsidy and rising cost subsidy I imagine that this process will accelerate substantially.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West referred to improvement grants. I understand his anxiety about speculation, but I am even more concerned that there should still be over 2 million people living in substandard houses, and I am glad to see the dramatic increase in improvement grants. There has been an increase of 112 per cent. in London alone in the first six months of this year over the first six months of 1970, under the Labour Government, and in the North, again taking the last six months of the Labour Government compared with the last six months under this Government, there has been an increase in improvement grants approved of 279 per cent. In fact, the total number of approvals in the last six months was greater than that for the whole of 1969 and 1970.
My right hon. Friend was mainly concerned with private house building, but public sector work and improvements contribute just as much to the load on the building industry and so to the level of prices.
A word now about building in the private sector. In the 12 months to June, 1970, 156,000 private sector houses

1815
were built. There were bankruptcies, there was heavier unemployment, and there was a deeper depression, perhaps, than ever before. We set out to revive demand, as I said, by lifting the ceiling on local authority mortgage advances and by encouraging the building societies to make credit more readily available on easier terms. The results have been that in 1971 207,000 houses were built, compared with 165,000 in 1970, and in the first half of 1972 111,000 were built, which is an annual rate of 220,000. I do not have the official July figures but the National House-Builders Registration Council—builders have to pay it a fee when applying to register a development—records starts of 23,000 houses in July, which represents an annual rate of about 270,000.
One swallow does not make a summer, July is usually an exceptional month, and I am not going in for crystal-gazing; but there are plenty of people well versed in these matters who believe that next year we shall achieve a target of 250,000, and in 1974 as well.
On any estimate, therefore, at least 900,000 houses—and probably more overall—should have been built in the lifetime of this Parliament, assuming that it runs the normal course. To these 900,000 houses must be added those houses converted, either in the public sector or in the private sector, from rented accommodation to owner-occupation.
Council house sales are going at the rate of about 30,000 a year this year, and I think that private sector conversions are considerably more. It could be, therefore, that over the lifetime of this Parlia-
1816
ment between 300,000 and 500,000 houses will have been converted from rented accommodation to owner-occupation.
Thus, in the lifetime of this Parliament well over 1 million families should have become owner-occupiers who were not so before. This is a record. But what is more encouraging to me even than that record total is the breakdown in the figures.
It would have been only natural to expect that, with soaring house prices, young people and people on lower incomes would be priced out of the market. In fact, such figures as we have—I believe them to be reliable—show that the contrary is the case: 22 per cent. of all mortgages in the first quarter of this year, when prices have been rising faster than ever before, went to people 25 years of age or under, and in the same period 24 per cent. of mortgages went to people earning £30 a week or less.
I submit to my right hon. Friend and the House that we have achieved a good deal in these two years. There is much more to be done. Of course there is. We have to increase our efforts, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for stimulating us to do better than we have. We must increase our efforts. So must industry. So must the building societies. But nothing would be worse at this stage, when we are really getting results, than to falter and cut back on the financial arrangements which make it possible for people who want to own their own homes to buy them. Prices will stabilise only when supply meets demand, and we are determined that it shall.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

1. Appropriation Act, 1972.

2. National Insurance Act, 1972.

3. National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1972.

4. Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1972.

5. Gas Act, 1972.

6. Land Charges Act, 1972.

7. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1972.

8. Industry Act, 1972.

9. Harbours Development (Scotland) Act, 1972.

10. National Debt Act, 1972.

11. Poisons Act, 1972.

12. Bath Side Bay Development Act, 1972.

13. British Transport Docks Act, 1972.

14. Devon River Authority (General Powers) Act, 1972.

15. Essex River Authority Act, 1972.

16. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1972.

17. Liverpool Corporation Act, 1972.

18. London Transport Act, 1972.

19. Milford Docks Act, 1972.

20. Selnec (Manchester Central Area Railway, &c.) Act, 1972.

21. Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Act, 1972.

22. Thames Conservancy Act, 1972.

23. Hampshire County Council Act, 1972.

24. Deaconesses and Lay Ministry Measure, 1972.

25. Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, 1972.

BIRCHLEY STEEL MILLS, WARLEY
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Peter Archer: The last minutes of today's sitting are ticking away and there are still a number of hon. Members anxious to speak, and so I hope that the House will forgive me if I deliver this speech at a faster than usual rate of delivery.
This is a matter which affects a modestly sized factory in one area, but it is of great importance to the Black Country because it is an area which has seen its prosperity evaporate over the last few years, until short time and unemployment are spectres breathing down the necks of many families and those who lose their livelihoods face the prospect of long-term unemployment. It is of great importance for the country because it raises issues of responsibility extending far beyond the present instance. In view of the exchange at Prime Minister's Question time yesterday, I should like to say a word about parliamentary responsibility.
The complex is situated in Oldbury, in the area now represented by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes). It is fair to say that he could not be here today, but, notwithstanding what he said yesterday, he has authorised me to say that he supports what I am saying in this debate, and I have every reason to accept what he says. It is an area that I hope to represent along with Rowley Regis after the next election, and may that be soon.
At the moment, it provides employment for some of my present constituents and for some of the constituents of my hon. Friends the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) and the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert). It is important because it is only part of a threatened series of closures affecting the whole of the Black Country—Cookley in Dudley, Bilston, Wolverhampton, Tube Investments in Walsall and so on.
Birchley employs 227 men but the total at risk in the whole series of closures may he between 3,000 and 4,000. I have called it a complex. It is only a small complex, but it consists of three mills, so that technically it is a complex of a seven-inch, a nine-inch and a 21-inch mill, rolling steel bars and producing approximately 1,000 tons a week, and it is part

1819
of the Special Steels Division of the British Steel Corporation.
Its probable future is seen by the Corporation as having a limited life, with the 21-inch mill closing in the financial year 1973–74, which means that it may be at risk from next April, while the other mills would be in danger in the financial year 1975–76. The reasons as they have been expressed by the Corporation are that this is part of a rationalisation process, a concentration of special steel production in larger units because smaller units are not economically viable.
We know that a large mill at Rotherham is envisaged producing about 8,000 tons a week This was not announced baldly as a sudden sensation. Our complaint is not that the Corporation failed to cushion a sudden blow, but that it piled the cushions so as to conceal what it was doing, until it was burned through, and it was only when events revealed the process that it was discovered that orders were directed elsewhere and employees suspected, perhaps not unnaturally, that the mills were being quietly run down, and the unions involved formed an action committee to discuss the matter with Corporation officials.
On 25th April, Mr. Bromiley, the managing director of the Special Steels Division, wrote to Mr. Pearsall, Chairman of the Action Committee:
"I fully understand the apprehension that you and your colleagues are feeling, but I must make is clear that there is no reticence on the part of the corporation to discuss Birchley's future. It is merely that we are not ready. …"
The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen wrote to the Chairman of the Corporation. On 6th April he received an answer which said:
"A planning study in depth is now in progress and later in the year we shall be discussing with the Government our alternative strategies and capital investment proposals. Until those discussions are concluded it would not be possible to have any very meaningful exchanges about the future of any particular works…"
I wrote to Mr. Bromiley on 15th May and received the following answer:
"I think it is very unlikely that I would have anything more to say than that which is contained in Lord Melchett's letter."
Nevertheless, we arranged a meeting for 26th June and before that meeting took
1820
place, on 15th June, a notice was exhibited at the premises saying that these decisions had been reached, that the future of the mill was already limited, and specifying broadly in which financial years that future was likely to terminate. So, we have one more example of what has become perhaps a typical way in which large corporations deal with those people concerned. One day it is too early for discussion and the next day it is too late because the matter has been decided.
To return to the future of Birchley, the Action Committee made it clear that the employees would prefer to remain within the Corporation but they said that if this were to be denied them they would look for a future within private industry. This situation is probably unique, certainly in the Special Steels Division, because we have had here a number of offers from companies anxious to acquire the Birchley mills. We know of at least two private companies who have stated publicly that they would be prepared to make realistic offers the moment negotiations were opened.
Of course they have not put any specific figure on this because until it is agreed precisely what plant, what goodwill, and what proportion of the order books is for sale, they cannot give a specific figure. They are ready to do so and to guarantee that these mills will continue in production until the 1980s. The British Steel Corporation has rejected those offers. It has declined to discuss the possibility of a sale to private industry on the grounds that when the giant mill is in production it will require the order books of mills such as Birchley.
That admits of a number of comments. One was the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that it was rather strange, if small mills are to be jettisoned because they are not competitive, that the Corporation should fear competition from them. A further comment comes from a number of local experts who suspect a fallacy in the reasoning that if local customers cannot obtain their orders from Birchley they will go elsewhere in the Corporation. There are three fallacies. Local customers can be supplied cheaply and quickly at the moment because there are no transport problems. If they have to be supplied from Rotherham there may well be such problems.

1821
Secondly, this is a field in which there are so many variations in size and quality of steel that stockholders are not always capable of meeting a particular requirement. There is a need for what in the industry are called jobbing mills. This is an area of diverse industry—"You name it, we make it". Local customers are likely to ring up at 10 a.m. and say, "We have a small order which we require at once. Can you deliver it by four o'clock this afternoon?" It is mills such as Birchley which can meet that kind of need.
Then there is the matter of cost. I have a report by a working party from within the Corporation. I say at once that this report is confidential and how it has found its way into my hands is a matter which I do not think it would be wise to disclose here. If the Corporation is less than frank about its decisions, it must not be surprised if these documents do change hands. Because it is confidential I do not propose to quote from the contents of the report except on one matter, which I do not believe the Corporation would consider to be confidential, and it is an argument rather than information. What it says is:
"A problem mainly, but not entirely, confined to Special Steels Division is that of the difficulties of ensuring an adequate customer service if too large a proportion of the capacity is in high capacity mills which require large batches (100 tons+) … it is necessary to ensure that sufficient capacity is retained in mills which can roll small batches at a cost which allows adequate return.…"
On the Corporation's own argument it may find that orders denied to Birchley may be lost to foreign competitors rather than being replaced within the Corporation.
The House may ask whether the fate which threatens Birchley is the conclusion of consistent unprofitability or is the nemesis of unhappy industrial relations. The answer is that it is neither. It has consistently shown a profit and there is no reason why it should not continue to do so. This is not a "lame duck". This duck is laying golden eggs and shows every prospect of continuing to do so.
Nor is there any problem of industrial relations. The management has admitted that it could not have a better work force. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there has never been any form of industrial action, go-slow or industrial
1822
dispute. Recently the light mill had its production interrupted for a time and the whole force, without being asked, went to the heavy mill, got their jackets off and helped. The proposed closure is the employees' reward for loyal and profitable service.
I turn to the question of the impact on the locality. It cannot be often that a situation affecting a works of this size has gone to the heart of a community so completely. All the Members of Parliament in the area have demonstrated their concern, irrespective of party. The Action Committee consists of all the unions concerned. They are watching events here very carefully, and I have a telegram here about today's debate which I would read if time permitted. There has been a campaign by local residents called "Keep Birchley Rolling", and a mammoth petition is in the course of preparation. The president of the campaign is the Mayor of Warley. I have a letter from the town clerk setting out a resolution of support from the local council. Again, I would read it if time permitted. The local Press and the broadcasting and television services have given enormous and unstinted support and, through them, we have even had coverage in the national media.
I come to the point of the debate. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's attitude. The overall picture begins with the Government. We know from the Government that the target of steel production in 1980 is between 28 million and 36 million tons. In view of the time I shall not be tempted, as I might otherwise have been, to engage with the Minister in discussing how much pressure was placed by the Government on the Corporation to accept the lower end of the range. The Minister announced on 23rd May—and I accept what he says—that there was a complete understanding between the Government and the Corporation, and it is on that that I rely. In terms of legal pleading, I admit and adopt that argument.
The range of 28 million to 36 million tons is pretty wide. Production of 28 million tons would mean virtually no expansion at all. The industry is already producing 27 million tons a year. Did the Corporation base its calculation on the upper end of the bracket or on the lower end? In

1823
other words, is it calculating for any increase in special steels, or is the mill at Rotherham merely intended to keep production static?
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister what was the Government's attitude, and he replied that the Government would not stand in the way of the Corporation selling Birchley to private industry if it wished to do so. We want the Government to go further. They should not be neutral in a matter of this kind. Will they say that an employment situation of this sort is too important to be left to the accountants, even assuming, which we do not accept, that the accountants have their figures right?
The Prime Minister pointed out, quite accurately, that under the Act the Government had no power to give the Corporation directions. He also pointed out, perhaps not surprisingly, that the Act had been introduced by the Labour Government. Some of us felt that in the Act we made too many concessions to opinion from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Perhaps we shall not make that mistake again. But even accepting that the Minister does not have power to give the Corporation directions, we find it hard to believe that, if the Government have a view, the Corporation would ignore it.
If the Government genuinely wish to go further than merely saying that they will not stand in the Corporation's way, will they indicate that they accept social responsibility for this matter? Or do they simply abdicate all responsibility? If they do, those in the locality may very well conclude that the Government do not care about jobs, and that would surely be a fair inference.
4.19 p.m.
Mr. Robert Edwards: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for the fact that, with his usual generosity, he has reduced his speech to the minimum in order to allow some further comments, even if they can be only one or two, in this debate.
Here we are discussing an establishment owned by the people, the kind of establishment which one dreams about.
1824
where there is a completely harmonious relationship throughout the factory. We have not had an industrial dispute there in 30 years. For the last 10 years there the average surplus of each worker has been over 1,000 tons a year. Yet this establishment, profitable, a harmonious unit, serving the local Black Country industry, is threatened with closure. We just cannot understand the logic of this decision.
I have been making some inquiries about what is happening in the steel industry in America and in the steel industry in Germany. I discover from my trade union friends that in those countries they are moving away from the great mass-production steel factories and developing mini-steel factories catering for local demand. They are moving away from the whole concept of mass production in large massive factories towards mini production in the two major steel-producing countries of the world, America and Germany. This development is taking place based upon experience. I hope that we are not going to have to learn this lesson based on our bitter experience by closing down establishments like this.
I have an interest in that not merely do some of the workers live in my constituency but the mill has a close link with the Bilston steel works and the special production of the Bilston steel works—as have other works. For example, the great tube works at Newport, where 1,300 workers are employed, is also threatened with closure. That works uses or has used for many years the special steel produced at the Bilston works. I met a deputation from Newport. The men at Newport tell me that they received from Bilston the best steel in the world for the purpose for which they needed it, and that is, producing tubes for oil drilling—and for those there is an increasing demand today. They used to received 2,000 tons a week from Bilston. This has been reduced to 200 tons a week. Those men know their business because they love the steel industry and they are very wise and knowledgeable about it, and they say that the steel they are getting today, and not coming from Bilston, from the Black Country, is inferior steel, and that they have great difficulty in using the steel which is sent to them instead.

1825
We just do not understand the policy of the British Steel Corporation. We do not accept that the Corporation has complete autonomy to run the business as it likes, when people's jobs are being put in jeopardy in the Black Country, where every day we hear of redundancies and of small factories closing down in the very heart of Britain.
The Black Country, the West Midlands, is the strong arm of Britain. The Industrial Revolution started there. It cradled the iron and steel industry; it cradled coal production; and it cradled great engineering work. The whole area is now threatened, in our opinion, with very serious redundancies, and we believe that one of the contributory factors in that is the policy of the Corporation. Steel is the barometer of British industry and of Britain's future, and that is what troubles us today.
I am sorry for having taken so much time in this short debate, but I hope that we shall get serious answers to the serious problems which confront our people in the Black Country.
4.25 p.m.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): I am sorry that time prevents hon. Members who I know wish to take part in the debate from doing so, and that I may not be able to deal as fully as I should like with the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). I recognise the concern that there is for the 230 or so men whose jobs at Birchley may be threatened. It is right that these views should be ventilated on the Floor of the House, as they have been by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my hon. Friends outside the House.
The debate raises a number of interesting and important issues, and it is to these that I should like to turn. There is the entirely different issue as to the nature of the responsibility that nationalised industries have in our society. There is the question whether we have a right to expect the BSC as a publicly-owned enterprise to behave differently in this context from the way in which private sector interests behave.
By implication the debate has focused attention on how far the Government can or should press a nationalised industry to
1826
act contrary to what it considers to be commercially right. There have been many debates in the House on the steel industry which seem to have been based on a misconception—a misunderstanding of the nature of the Government's powers over the British Steel Corporation. In certain ways these are extensive. We appoint the board members, we approve the Corporation's general programme and we control the advances of public money to the Corporation.
These, of course, are broad powers. The whole concept of the nationalisation Statutes is that day-to-day management of the industry should be left to the board. It could not be otherwise. That is not to say that a Minister cannot question the wisdom of a nationalised industry's decision or make inquiries as to the reasons lying behind a managerial decision, but the fact remains that management must take managerial decisions and be responsible for them.
I turn now, against that background, to the points made in the debate. The Corporation has said that it has taken no decisions to close Birchley in whole or in part but that it cannot go on as it is and that its life is limited. I believe that to be a fair summary of the somewhat confusing messages that have come across. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a BSC confidential document which mentioned certain closure plans and reasons for closure in that part of the country. I have not seen the document and I have read only the comments on it that have appeared in the Press. I understand that the document is 18 months old and that it has been superseded by further studies.
While I repeat that to the best of my knowledge no decision has been taken about Birchley, we all know that rationalisation of the steel industry is absolutely essential if we are to become competitive by international standards. This must take the form in many instances of building new, bigger plants and phasing out older, smaller ones. Rationalisation cannot take the form of freezing the pattern of steel making and fabrication at the same localities for all time. A proper rationalisation was one of the major reasons given by the Labour Party for nationalisation. We must get productivity up and manpower per unit down.

1827
Much of the debate has concentrated on urging the BSC should sell its Birchley plant to private sector interests. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to two companies which were interested. I know of two that have a general interest and there are more which have expressed an interest, but I am not aware of any offer having been made or of any price being discussed. Again, this is not a matter for which I should be responsible. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it all depends on what part of the order book is included, and I lay stress on that.
In so far as criticism has been made that the British Steel Corporation is taking a dog-in-the-manger attitude in stating that it did not intend to sell the plant—I think that is a fair summary of the criticism made—it is not my job to defend the BSC decision in detail. It is not my job to comment on the facts and figures on which the BSC bases its assessment of the course that it considers to be commercially right. I say "commercial" because we cannot have it both ways. We cannot lay down as a policy objective that the BSC shall attain profitability in 1973–74 and pump vast sums of the taxpayers' money into steel with a view to modernisation and efficiency and, at the same time, try to countermand managerial decisions which undermine those objectives. It would be commercial madness to put vast investment into new plant and then find that there were no orders because the order book had been sold with the written-down assets of the old mills, thus allowing a competitive position to be created where the Corporation were bound to be the losers. I do not believe that in this matter we can expect or indeed demand the corporation to act unlike any other large commercial user.
It is not for me to defend BSC's reluctance to sell the plant. There are, however, reasons which I could put forward why it would be wrong for the Government to intervene. Hon. Members opposite have constantly criticised the Conservative Government for excessive intervention. We have heard today criticisms of the Government's attitude about the Joint Steering Group as a review body. But surely there can be no question of the Government's right to
1828
intervene as bankers and approvers of the industry's investment plans.
Then, somewhat inconsistently with the other view, the hon. and learned Gentleman presses us to intervene when it is clear that it is the BSC's managerial responsibility which is involved. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Birchley is too important to be left to the accountants, yet he said that the decisions should be made by the Joint Steering Group. The implication of his remarks appeared to be that future strategy would be best left to the accountants. I find that I am unable to go along with him. These are managerial decisions and hon. Members opposite must be careful in how far they expect management decisions to be moved from the Corporation—a corporation which was set up under Labour legislation to take these very decisions—and back to the Floor of the House. I believe that if we tried to run the nationalised industries from the Floor of the House we would find that we were creating an instrument which was difficult to control.
It is quite justifiable that the BSC should be resistant to moves which would imperil the loading on its new expensive plant, built with public money. I understand this attitude, although I neither defend it nor support it. But do we expect the public sector to act differently from the private sector?
It has been said that Birchley is profitable. I have not the information to confirm or deny this, but accepting it as true, it is not the whole of the story. I am asked why there is no information. Because the BSC does not produce detailed management accounts for the consideration and approval of the Government. That requirement is not in the Iron and Steel Act nor is it part of the nationalisation strategy proposed by hon. Members opposite. I have not time now to go into whether it should or should not be part of that strategy.
On the assumption that the information on profits is correct, it is not the whole story. The corporation must look at the effect of the operations as a whole and must concern itself with the comparative profitability of its various options.
Mr. Robert Edwards: Without any social considerations?
Mr. Boardman: The BSC takes into account, as does any other employer, social considerations. It would be most irresponsible for any employer, particularly one as large as the BSC, not to do so.
I must make it clear that the Government's rôle is critically important. We must accept Government responsibility for the social consequences of management decisions which may be made. We have never attempted to shirk that. We have brought in measures of regional assistance. There are now more powerful instruments to deal with these problems than has ever been the case before, and we intend to utilise them as and when we think appropriate.
This kind of industrial problem is not new. Hon. Members will remember that a similar situation arose in respect of the textile industry. The need then was recognised on both sides to close down old capacity in the cotton industry under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959. That provided for both the Government and the industry to pay for the scrapping of old plant and for the re-equipment of continuing firms.
I said at the beginning that the Government have no power to compel the British Steel Corporation to sell iron and steel assets. As hon. Members will recognise, this would be contrary to the spirit of the Act which was framed to leave day-to-day management as a matter for Corporation. However, I stress that there is no objection on the part of the Government to the sale of Birchley to a private re-roller. A sale would be in accord with the Government's wish to see the private sector competing with the British Steel Corporation. Thus it is open to any firm to make an offer to the Corporation. But it must be for the Corporation to assess such an offer and to decide whether to accept it. I have given some of the reasons why the Corporation may not want to do so, but the decision must be for the Corporation.
Hon. Members opposite were critical of what they called the hiving-off proposals for the corporation. But obviously they want to hive-off Birchley. Although Birchley did not feature in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 28th June, when reference was made to such sales, the state-
1830
ment met with considerable opposition from the Labour party. In our debates on the Iron and Steel Act, 1972, when we removed any doubt about whether the corporation was free to make the sale for which both hon. Members now press, hon. Members opposite were opposed again to the proposal. They cannot have it both ways.
We do not have the power of compulsion. But no doubt the British Steel Corporation will consider carefully what has been said today. I accept fully that both hon. Members have a sincere and proper concern, as have the Government, for those who work in the industry. I do not challenge all the tributes paid to them. However, we must define clearly what are the Government's powers, and hon. Members opposite must be consistent in their demands upon the Government. They cannot with one breath say that the Government must intervene and, with another, say that we must stand back and do nothing.

NEW PARLIAMENTARY BUILDING
4.38 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I regard it as a great privilege to have the opportunity to raise in the last debate before the Summer Recess a matter which is of more than domestic importance to this House. I refer to the new parliamentary building. I do so because, if it is built, it will be sited on what must be considered an important and most historic site.
The House of Commons Services Committee in the Session 1967–68 recommended that a new parliamentary building should be built on the north side of Bridge Street. It was decided in 1970 that an architectural competition should be held to promote a design, the competition to be open to any architect or architectural firm in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. It was proposed that the competition should be in two stages. Nearly 1,000 architects or firms expressed an interest in the first stage of the competition, and 246 of them put in schemes.
The second stage came when some were selected, and those contenders were asked to develop their schemes which had

1831
been submitted in sketch form. Last December it was announced that the assessors had nominated a winner. However, before any announcement was made, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction very properly thought that models should be built of the seven leading schemes and an exhibition staged in Westminster Hall. In March of this year it was announced that in the opinion of the assessors the winners were two young architects named Robin Spence and Robin Webster.
The Services Committee of this Session met to discuss and to meet and question the people concerned with the winning design and others. It reported at the beginning of last month, on 4th July. It said that the House should adopt the winning design with relatively minor modifications and, perhaps even more important, that the construction should be started as soon as possible.
Under questioning, the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons said that there must be a debate before a decision could be taken whether to proceed with the construction of this new parliamentary building. I am disappointed that time has not been found for a full debate before the Summer Recess. I appreciate the difficulties of the legislative programme that the Government have faced and I concede that there was no definite commitment that there would be such a debate before the Summer Recess. I realise that my hon. Friend who is to reply to this short debate is not in a position to give any assurance, but I hope he will communicate with the Leader of the House and try to seek from him an assurance that there will be a debate on this important topic before the end of this Session, which I understand means before the end of October, and that, whatever the Government's attitude may be towards this winning design, the Motion for the debate should be on the proposition that the winning design should be accepted with the modifications and that we should give the go-ahead for the work to proceed.
In the very few minutes available to me I do not intend that this should be a debate on the merits or demerits of the winning design, though, for reasons which I am prepared to explain, I am a strong
1832
supporter of it. I should like to concentrate on the administrative problems and other matters arising from a decision on this new parliamentary building. After all, if the winning design is accepted, as I hope it will be, the detailed designs have to be drawn up, planning permissions have to be sought and given, the existing buildings have to be demolished, and I should think there would have to be further foundation testing, particularly in relation to the four towers of the proposed winning design. The project will then have to go out to tender and building contractors will have to be appointed. All this has to be done before the work can commence.
I should like clarification basically on three points regarding this project. First, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would confirm that all the land, the subject of the site of this new parliamentary building, is in the ownership of the Government. I have heard rumours, which I hope are not true, that there is a parcel of land that is not yet in the ownership of the Government. I understand that that parcel of land might have a site value of approaching £2 million. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify that point. If not, I hope that very quickly that land will be within the ownership of the Government.
Secondly, it is important that we demolish the existing buildings and that the necessary excavation work preparatory to the sub-structure, let alone the superstructure, of the new building should be undertaken as soon as possible.
I say that for three particular reasons. First, it is of tremendous importance that if the building proceeds it should not be delayed by archaeological finds that may be discovered under the land. One only has to recall the archaeological remains that were, and are being, found when excavation work started on the underground car park in New Palace Yard to realise that it is more likely than not that important discoveries will be made. Therefore, if the excavation work could be done as soon as possible this would be less likely to cause delay in the construction work.
Secondly, although test borings must have been taken on the site, I think there will be a need for more comprehensive test borings, if only in the vicinity of the

1833
foundations of the four towers which are proposed to form the construction basis of the new building.
Thirdly—I am rather surprised about this—I understand that it is not known exactly where the Underground goes under the site of the proposed new building. We know it is there, and we know roughly where it is, and it is critical to the design. Speaking to the architects the other day, I discovered that every six inches counts, and it would therefore be a good thing to find out exactly where this public conveyance of the metropolis runs.
The third point on which I would like clarification is that if there are—I hope there are not—what I can euphemistically describe as conflicts between the Department of the Environment on the one hand and the Greater London Council on the other, I hope these will be resolved speedily. I am thinking particularly about if there is disagreement about the proposed line of the building with Bridge Street, or whether Bridge Street should become a pedestrian way or continue to be for motor vehicles.
I have one final and, I believe, critical point to make about the new building. When the House takes a decision about the building and about the important site on which it is proposed to build it, there should be a simple choice. That choice should be either to have the winning design, with modifications, and to build it as soon as possible, or not to have that design because we do not think there should be a new parliamentary building. I do not suggest there has ever been a commitment upon the Government that they should necessarily accept the winning design. But it would be going against the grain morally if we were to say that another new parlaimentary building should be designed for that site.
After all, there is at least an implicit commitment because the competition was open to any architect in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth to put forward plans if he thought he could do so, and, therefore, we must accept, as did the assessors, that we have the best design of those submitted. I feel very strongly about this point but I believe we would be reneging on a moral commitment and we would be throwing into the whole cauldron of political discontent and
1834
bring into disrepute the whole principle of international competitions. Two young architects have won this design competition, and I believe they won it convincingly. Surely it is a controversial solution but it has been accepted by the assessors, who said it
"Quite clearly came out on top".
It has also now been accepted by the large majority of the members of the Services Committee. I believe it to be a distinguished and distinctive contribution to 20th-century architecture on the Embankment.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Rubbish.
Mr. Chapman: I believe that, rather like Coventry Cathedral, there will be initial public hostility which will turn to acceptance, and when the building is finished it will be the subject of open admiration.
Mr. Cormack: Rubbish.
Mr. Chapman: I say to my hon. Friend, whose views I sometimes agree with, that if one looks back at the great architectural competitions one sees that they have produced the greatest architecture in this country and invariably the architects at that time were unknown people. Take, for example, Harvey Lonsdale Elmes, who was in his 20s when he won the design for the St. George's Hall in Liverpool accepted as one of the greatest neo-classical buildings. Barry was only in his early 40s when with Pugin, then in his 20s or 30s, they designed this august building. Christopher Wren was in his 30s when he designed St. Pauls and Inigo Jones was in his early 40s when he conceived the Banqueting Hall, Whitehall. I say this in support of this House coming out to give a clear lead and inspiration to architects in this country by accepting the winning design.
I speak finally on a personal note. I gather that it is customary that as I have the last Adjournment debate before the Summer Recess—and, by coincidence, I also had the last Oral Question reached this morning,—I should, as I should certainly like to do, associate myself on behalf of back bench Members with the remarks made by the Leader of the House last Thursday. I take this opportunity

1835
of thanking Mr. Speaker, his Deputies—including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Clerks, officials, staff and police of the House for suffering us for so long through so many sleepless nights this Session. As we ourselves go back now, not on holiday but to deal with the problems of our constituents it would be very remiss of me if I did not take the opportunity of thanking them all for the very excellent service they have given us.
4.50 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman), whose interest in architectural matters is well known, on raising this important matter today. I shall speak as briefly as possible because I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) hope to contribute to the debate.
The provision of a new parliamentary building is of the greatest importance to us all if we are to carry out our duties efficiently. We do our best now; and I do not think the public, our constituents, can seriously complain about the service we give them from what is, particularly for Private Members, often cramped and unsatisfactory accommodation which would not be tolerated in commerce, industry or the professions. It has, however, for long been recognised that something better is wanted, not only for ourselves but also for our very hard-working staff, if that service is to be maintained in conditions appropriate to both the efficiency and the dignity of this House.
I am, of course, aware that some hon. Members are not entirely enthusiastic about the winning design which has now been endorsed in a modified form by the Services Committee. The issue is debateable and it will no doubt be debated at length in the autumn when we consider the Committee's report and recommendation. The actual timing of the debate must rest with my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, though I will certainly ask him to consider my hon. Friend's request. We do not, however, have to reach a decision today, and I propose, as my contribution to this preliminary canter, merely to run over some
1836
of the considerations which the House will wish to bear in mind when it comes to a decision, and to mention what we shall be doing to help this to be done against a sufficiently informed background.
What worries most hon. Members who have criticised the winning design is its external appearance. This comes out clearly in the record of evidence presented to the Committee, and in the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), ably supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) and Cannock (Mr. Cormack) when we last debated the matter, though in a wider context, on 24th July.
I do not think that there will be any disagreement if I say that whatever the House decides to commission for the Bridge Street site must be worthy of its setting, which is one of the most important not only to this country but in the world. Whatever is built there must not be mean or gimmicky, nor, conversely, need it be grandiose, but it must be able to take its place appropriately, though not perhaps without the modesty befitting a newcomer, alongside its magnificent neighbours. Fortunately, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in evidence to the Services Committee, it is the rôle of the Royal Fine Art Commission rather than of my Department to form a view on the aesthetics of the matter. Its views are expressed in the memorandum which it submitted to the Committee and in its evidence as recorded in the report.
Hon. Members will be able to form their own views whether the Committee's summary in paragraph 4 of its Report—that the winning design would be a good neighbour to the existing buildings in Parliament Square—is sufficient answer to the critics' doubts, or whether greater weight should be given to the other considerations which some of my hon. Friends proposed unsuccessfully to incorporate in an amendment.
The Services Committee itself has gone some way towards meeting the criticism of the height of the proposed building in relation to the Palace of Westminster and the buildings on the other side of Parliament Street. Its proposal that the height of the proposed building should be reduced by about 1½ metres to bring it level with the top of the balustrade above

1837
the main cornice of the Treasury building should improve matters considerably from this point of view. There will probably also be general agreement with its other proposed modifications if it is eventually decided to accept its report that the winning design be adopted.
The proposed alignment with the Treasury building in Great George Street seems to have merit whatever the shape of the eventual buildings in Bridge Street. I realise that this is not quite enough for our friends across the water at County Hall, who would like us to set our building line even further back in order to incorporate another traffic lane in Bridge Street. Their views as highway authority for the area, must clearly be treated with respect, though I doubt whether they will find much support for another traffic lane in Bridge Street from any quarter of this House.
I expect that if it is decided to go ahead with this building we would welcome the provision of shops—subject, of course, to the committee's concern for retaining as much natural light as possible for the offices. Similarly I think that we would all agree that the vertical lines of the building need emphasis as a contrast to its rather massive, horizontal lines, that experiments should be tried with lighter colours and that more consideration should be given to security.
I emphasise that the decision is of course for the House. Just as my right hon. Friends do not presume to be arbiters of taste, so their general rôle is to give effect to the will of the House by providing the accommodation it requires. We shall, however, do our best to enable the House to reach the most satisfactory solution by providing hon. Members with whatever information and material is available. My right hon. Friend the Lord President has already said that the architects of the winning design, Mr. Robin Spence and Mr. Robin Webster, have agreed to participate in an illustrated lecture on their proposals. We for our part are incorporating the Services Committee's modifications of height and alignment into a model of the area so that hon. Members may see for themselves what this will mean in visual terms.
Hon. Members will no doubt wish to know what would happen by way of delay in providing this much-needed
1838
accommodation if the House were to reject the winning design and call for a new one for this important site. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West made such a suggestion on 24th July and proposed that we should commission further sketch plans for the House to look at alongside the winning design. He rightly said that if the House adopted the latter there would be no delay; if, on the other hand, the House preferred an alternative, the delay would not be very long.
This course has it attractions. However, there are also difficulties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth made clear. The most important is that the Services Committee has now recommended that the design as modified he adopted and it would not seem right for my right hon. Friend to commission yet more drawings until we, the House, have decided whether or not to accept that recommendation. There is also the point that we have the other six second-stage designs as well as the 239 which did not go beyond the first stage. Some hon. Members may feel that we should consider these before going any further.
It is, of course, true that, so far as we know, a number of the most eminent of our present day British architects did not enter for the competition. But we have no guarantee that their designs would be any more acceptable than those that we have; and to start afresh would naturally take longer than to go ahead with what we have. There is, of course, also the question how we would judge the respective merits of a number of fresh alternative designs. My hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth is expert in these matters. However, most of us are not and I imagine that we should need some formal method of adjudication. The assessors in the last competition have already delivered their verdict.
However, these are issues for the House to consider at a later stage. In the meantime we are doing what we can within the Department to ensure that if the House were to decide that the winning design should be adopted so that the extra accommodation may be ready by 1978, its wishes should not be frustrated by any lack of urgency on our part. With this in view we have issued notices to treat in respect of all the existing buildings on the site which are not yet in

1839
Government ownership. We are also on the point of issuing notices under Section 57(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, informing those concerned of the proposed change in use of the premises. This is to enable all statutory processes to be completed and demolition to begin during the first half of next year.
I take note of the point my hon. Friend raises with regard to possible archaeological finds, and a constant watch will
1840
be kept in this respect by my Department's Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments. We are also conducting useful preliminary negotiations with London Transport about the reprovision of the Underground railway station, but I understand that the line will continue as before.
It being Five o'clock, Mr SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put till Tuesday, 17th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.

ENVIRONMENT
  Roads
  Roads
  Goods Vehicles (Loading Code)
  Goods Vehicles (Loading Code)
  United Nations Programme Secretariat
  United Nations Programme Secretariat
  Royal Parks (Commercial Vehicles Ban)
  Royal Parks (Commercial Vehicles Ban)
  Housing Finance Act, 1972
  Housing Finance Act, 1972
  Road Traffic (Survey)
  Road Traffic (Survey)
  Hypermarkets
  Hypermarkets
  Hoddesdon-Ware Bypass
  Hoddesdon-Ware Bypass
  Canals
  Canals
  Portswood Link Motorways, Southampton
  Portswood Link Motorways, Southampton
  Small Businesses (Teesside)
  Small Businesses (Teesside)
  Motor Vehicles (Parking Regulations)
  Motor Vehicles (Parking Regulations)
  Greater London Development Plan
  Greater London Development Plan
  New Buildings (Skylines)
  New Buildings (Skylines)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Dan Smith
  Mr. Dan Smith
  Rent Assessment Panels
  Rent Assessment Panels
  Broad Sanctuary (Members' Parking Facilities)
  Broad Sanctuary (Members' Parking Facilities)
  Household Insurance
  Household Insurance
  Durham Motorway (Central Barriers)
  Durham Motorway (Central Barriers)
  Freight
  Freight
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Rents
  Rents
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Action Group on London Housing
  Action Group on London Housing
  Railways (Organisation Report)
  Railways (Organisation Report)
  Sheffield-Manchester (New Road Link)
  Sheffield-Manchester (New Road Link)
  Severn Bridge (Tolls)
  Severn Bridge (Tolls)
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Central Lancashire New Town (Land Purchase)
  Central Lancashire New Town (Land Purchase)
SCOTLAND
  Hypermarkets
  Hypermarkets
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Fines
  Fines
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Colleges of Education (Diploma Courses)
  Colleges of Education (Diploma Courses)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Hospital (Rutherglen)
  Hospital (Rutherglen)
  Employment (Rutherglen and Cambuslang)
  Employment (Rutherglen and Cambuslang)
  Grants and Subsidies (Glasgow)
  Grants and Subsidies (Glasgow)
  Electricity
  Electricity
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Arts Expenditure
  Arts Expenditure
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  School Places (East Midlands)
  School Places (East Midlands)
  Speech Therapy Services (Report)
  Speech Therapy Services (Report)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Brent (New School)
  Brent (New School)
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  CSE and O-levels
  CSE and O-levels
  Mary Hare Grammar School
  Mary Hare Grammar School
  Higher Education (Percentage of Children)
  Higher Education (Percentage of Children)
  School Holiday Parties (Safety)
  School Holiday Parties (Safety)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  National Theatre and Museum (London)
  National Theatre and Museum (London)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Central Computer Agency (Operating Unit)
  Central Computer Agency (Operating Unit)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  St. Stephens Parliamentary Press
  St. Stephens Parliamentary Press
WALES
  Dee Crossing
  Dee Crossing
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  Agriculture (Employment)
  Agriculture (Employment)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Cardiff Comprehensive Development Area
  Cardiff Comprehensive Development Area
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Heathrow (Traffic Movements)
  Heathrow (Traffic Movements)
  Maidenhead (Over-Flying)
  Maidenhead (Over-Flying)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Coal
  Coal
  Small Firms Advisory Bureaux
  Small Firms Advisory Bureaux
  Shipping (Investment Grants)
  Shipping (Investment Grants)
  Steel Plants (Scotland)
  Steel Plants (Scotland)
  Educational Establishments (Registration)
  Educational Establishments (Registration)
  Overseas Companies (British Acquisition)
  Overseas Companies (British Acquisition)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd.
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd.
  Oil Slicks (English Channel)
  Oil Slicks (English Channel)
  Marine Technology (Government Support)
  Marine Technology (Government Support)
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Reconstruction)
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Reconstruction)
  Works of Art and Antiques
  Works of Art and Antiques
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Beer
  Beer
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Balance of Payments (North Sea Oil)
  Balance of Payments (North Sea Oil)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  £ Sterling (Parliamentary Questions)
  £ Sterling (Parliamentary Questions)
  Economic Data Banks (Facilities for Members)
  Economic Data Banks (Facilities for Members)
  Alimony
  Alimony
  Mr. A. Seymour (Correspondence)
  Mr. A. Seymour (Correspondence)
  STATES OF EMERGENCY
  STATES OF EMERGENCY
  NATIONAL PARKS (SALE OF LAND)
  NATIONAL PARKS (SALE OF LAND)
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES
  NATURE CONSERVANCY
  NATURE CONSERVANCY
  HOUSING ESTATES (PLAY FACILITIES)
  HOUSING ESTATES (PLAY FACILITIES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices (Control)
  Food Prices (Control)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Beef and Veal (Import Duties)
  Beef and Veal (Import Duties)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  UNDEFENDED DIVORCE ACTIONS (SHORTHAND NOTES)
  UNDEFENDED DIVORCE ACTIONS (SHORTHAND NOTES)
  DETECTIVE INSPECTOR RONALD LARBY
  DETECTIVE INSPECTOR RONALD LARBY
  CONTAINER DISPUTE (COSTS)
  CONTAINER DISPUTE (COSTS)
  OFFICIAL SOLICITOR
  OFFICIAL SOLICITOR
  COURTS (POSITION OF ACCUSED PERSONS)
  COURTS (POSITION OF ACCUSED PERSONS)
DEFENCE
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Assault Ships
  Assault Ships
  National Army Museum
  National Army Museum
  HMS "Hermes"
  HMS "Hermes"
  Trawlermen (Protection)
  Trawlermen (Protection)
  Army Personnel (Civilian Training)
  Army Personnel (Civilian Training)
  Mrs. Emily Groves
  Mrs. Emily Groves
  Crowd Control (Weapons)
  Crowd Control (Weapons)
  Rubber Bullets
  Rubber Bullets
  Francis Rowtree
  Francis Rowtree
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
EMPLOYMENT
  Ransomes and Rapier, Ipswich (Closure)
  Ransomes and Rapier, Ipswich (Closure)
  Deaf Children (School Leavers)
  Deaf Children (School Leavers)
  Manual and Other Workers
  Manual and Other Workers
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Rio Tinto Zinc Limited, Avonmouth
  Rio Tinto Zinc Limited, Avonmouth
  Rutherglen and Cambuslang
  Rutherglen and Cambuslang
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sudan
  Sudan
  China
  China
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  USSR (Jamming of Broadcasts)
  USSR (Jamming of Broadcasts)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Finer Report
  Finer Report
  Council of Europe (Newsletter)
  Council of Europe (Newsletter)
  London Airport (Taxi Drivers)
  London Airport (Taxi Drivers)
  Immigrants (Language Training)
  Immigrants (Language Training)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Not Guilty Pleas and Acquittals
  Not Guilty Pleas and Acquittals
  Social Inquiry Reports
  Social Inquiry Reports
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Mr. Maurice O'Regan (Trial)
  Mr. Maurice O'Regan (Trial)
  Police Station (Orpington)
  Police Station (Orpington)
  Alimony (Postal Facilities)
  Alimony (Postal Facilities)
  Fines (Allocation)
  Fines (Allocation)
  Emigration and Immigration
  Emigration and Immigration
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Ceramic Ware (Lead Content of Glaze)
  Ceramic Ware (Lead Content of Glaze)
  Courts (Position of Accused Persons)
  Courts (Position of Accused Persons)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Poisonous Substances (Carriage By Road)
  Poisonous Substances (Carriage By Road)
  POPULATION PANEL
  POPULATION PANEL
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Members (United States Visit)
  Members (United States Visit)
  Refreshment Department (Late Sittings)
  Refreshment Department (Late Sittings)
  Refreshment Department (Payment of Wages)
  Refreshment Department (Payment of Wages)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Senator McGladdery and Mr. Catherwood
  Senator McGladdery and Mr. Catherwood
  Electoral Law Order
  Electoral Law Order
  Advisory Council (Fees)
  Advisory Council (Fees)
  Industry (Employment)
  Industry (Employment)
  Ulster Defence Regiment and Constabulary (Resignations)
  Ulster Defence Regiment and Constabulary (Resignations)
  Rent and Rates (Enforcement)
  Rent and Rates (Enforcement)
  Bomb Incidents
  Bomb Incidents
  Casualties
  Casualties
  Detainees and Internees (Casualties)
  Detainees and Internees (Casualties)
  Irish Republican Army (Intermediary)
  Irish Republican Army (Intermediary)
  Mr. Joseph Clarke
  Mr. Joseph Clarke
  Railways (Finance)
  Railways (Finance)
  Rating and Valuation System
  Rating and Valuation System
  "The Terror and the Tears"
  "The Terror and the Tears"
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Cable Television
  Cable Television
  Telecommunications (Investment)
  Telecommunications (Investment)
  Post Boxes
  Post Boxes
  Local Commercial Radio
  Local Commercial Radio
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Sterility
  Sterility
  Asthma (Deaths)
  Asthma (Deaths)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Emergency Bed Services (Women)
  Emergency Bed Services (Women)
  Gynaecologists
  Gynaecologists
  Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme
  Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme
  Deaf Persons
  Deaf Persons
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Finer Report
  Finer Report
  Coldharbour Hospital (Inquiry)
  Coldharbour Hospital (Inquiry)
  Medicinal Products (Infection)
  Medicinal Products (Infection)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF SAINT EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH
Leslie Wilfrid, Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

WOMEN PEERS AND ROYAL HOUSEHOLD APPOINTMENTS
2.11 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: 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 appointment to the offices of Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms and Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard is open to both men and women Peers.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, my Lords.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, which I am sure will be favourably received by our women Peers, may I ask him whether, in the event of one of the women Peers being appointed to one of these offices, the "fancy dress" associated with the office will be provided by the State or whether she will be expected to pay for it herself?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will give notice of that question I will give it the consideration that it undoubtedly deserves.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his first Answer will give tremendous pleasure to all who believe in the equality of the sexes?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was aware that that might be so, but of course
1094
I was basing myself on strong precedents, in the knowledge of the fact that certainly two posts have been held by ladies. The position of Earl Marshal was held by Maud, Countess of Norfolk in 1245; and the post of Constable of England was also, I believe, held by a lady. I think the Dymoke family hold hereditarily the post of Champion of England, so that title, too, may have descended to a lady, though I am afraid that my historical researches have not carried me to the point of ascertaining whether or not it has. This again would have been a post which could have been held by a member of the "other sex".
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the uniform is normally provided for male holders of these offices by the State and, if so, why there should be any difficulty in following the same procedure, and in fact using the same uniform (to appropriate measurements) as it is quite customary for women to wear trousers, even in this House?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I believe that there is no difficulty here, except the fact that I have not the foggiest idea of the precise answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. I should have thought that it would depend upon the precise measurements of the holder of the office.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Earl ensure that if a Lady is promoted to either of these offices she will ride side-saddle and not astride?
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, might it be a good idea to design a suitable uniform in the style of Boadicea or something along those lines?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I suggest that these are all questions which, properly speaking, should be addressed to the Government of the day on these important matters.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Earl's reply to my supplementary question imply that the measurements of all male holders of these offices are standardised?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Queen

1095
reviews the Troops in the appropriate uniform, may I ask why there is all this fuss? Can the noble Earl tell us when we may expect the first appointment?
EARL JELLECOE: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's second supplementary would depend on the Prime Ministers of the day and on the talents available. In answer to the first supplementary, I assure her that, so far as I know, there is no fuss.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, there seems to be a degree of fuss about the uniforms, measurements and so on. May we be told what special talents noble Lords on the Government Front Bench possess that women do not have?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Earl arrange that possible candidates for either of these posts might sit on the Government Front Bench instead of disguising themselves among the Bishops?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the answer to both supplementary questions is that this is of course a Ministry of all the talents, both male and female, as can be seen on this Front Bench of your Lordships' House, though some of them have crept a little to the left for the moment.

CRIMINAL LAW REVISION COMMITTEE'S REPORT
2.15 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: 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 there is any date by which representations about the Eleventh Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee ought to be made.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CUTROSS): My Lords, while my right honourable friend has asked a number of organisations to let him have their comments on the Report by early October, and he would be glad to receive at least preliminary views by that date, repre-
1096
sentations received after this will not be too late for consideration.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that Answer, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that this publication consists of 284 closely printed pages without any summaries on recommendations, that the Report itself occupies 254 paragraphs, that it will require a Bill of 47 clauses and 2 Schedules, that it took the Committee eight years to prepare, that the Home Office sat on it till June 28 and that it is unreasonable to expect reasoned memoranda on it before the end of the year?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my right honourable friend's view about this Report is that he would like to encourage people to get on with their consideration of it. I do not challenge the statistics adduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. However, there is nothing like setting an early deadline to try to impress on people the seriousness with which we take the necessity to inquire of their views. I have said that views received after the beginning of October will certainly not be rejected and there has been an undertaking by both my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister that there will be a debate on the matter before any legislation is introduced. I suggest therefore that there is plenty of opportunity for people properly to consider this matter.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, would the noble Viscount accept my assurance that I neither wrote nor instigated the leading article in The Times on Monday? Would he agree with the concluding paragraph of that article, which stated:
"A large number of lawyers, parliamentarians, and members of other interested groups are on vacation. It is almost impossible during this period to convene adequately attended committee meetings or do the work of preparing detailed memoranda. The Government is at present giving many persons of responsible opinion cause to fear that it has to a large extent already made up its mind to implement the Committee's proposals and to introduce legislation to that effect at an early stage. It would be unfortunate if that were the case. The Committee spent eight years producing the report. Three months is not time enough to form conclusions on it."
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I accept that the article was

1097
not written by the noble and learned Lord and I envy those who are on vacation. The final paragraph suggesting that we have already made up our mind to introduce legislation is not true; it is dependent entirely on the consultations, the other views expressed and the debate in the other place which has already been promised.

NORTH SEA GAS PRICES
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what the current price paid by the Gas Board for North Sea Natural Gas at handing over point is for each of the following fields:

West Sole,

Hewitt,

Leman Bank,

Indefatigable,

Viking;

and whether the price has been fixed for the gas from Ekofisk and Cod.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): The price per therm for basic contract quantities are respectively 1.21p, 1.2p, 1.2p, 1.21p and 1.5p. In the case of Leman Bank the price applies to the first 600 million cubic feet per day, and is 1.19p for the next 600 and 1.18p for the remainder. The price of valley gas—that is, the additional quantities over and above basic gas—is 0.85p per therm for all fields. Negotiations for the purchase of gas from Ekofisk and Cod are still in progress.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this unusually informative Answer, and I should like to ask how he squares that Answer with that given by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, that no renegotiation had taken place on any of these prices?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the only renegotiation that did take place was with B.P., and that was in 1970.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, that has not been stated: that is all.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is it a fact that the price being paid by the Gas Council is the lowest price being paid for these supplies of gas by any country in Western Europe?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes my Lords; that is my information.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, inasmuch as the Gas Council has a goodish monopoly power, it is not really an extremely creditable or a very good thing that they should pay the lowest prices, is it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know what the answer to that question ought to be. These prices are a matter for negotiation between the Gas Board and the producers, and prices are renegotiated provided that the various contracts come to an end, as happened in the case of B.P.

WATER INDUSTRY: PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION
2.21 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state their timetable for legislation for the reconstruction which they have proposed of the water industry.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER- SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, it is hoped that legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. Meanwhile, the remaining consultation papers on the National Water Council, the Amenity Use of Water Space and the reorganisation of the British Waterways Board are being issued this week. I will send the noble Lord copies.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the very long delay, almost amounting to deadlock, on the issue of the consultation papers with regard to the future of land drainage has raised doubts as to whether

1099
Her Majesty's Government intend to go ahead with legislation in the next Session? Is my noble friend further aware that as there are several other possible solutions as suggested by the Central Advisory Water Committee for the future structure of the water industry, these are now being widely discussed as alternatives to the one that the Government have already suggested? Can my noble friend give us further words of reassurance that the Government really do intend to go ahead now?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my noble friend will know that I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech on legislation for the next Session, but on the particular point with which he opened his supplementary question. I can confirm that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food intends to issue a statement very shortly on the future of land drainage.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the delay in settling this matter is having a seriously unsettling effect throughout the whole water industry? And is my noble friend also aware that there is a general wish throughout the whole community to see cleaner rivers and greater supplies of water to meet the needs of the community? A lengthier transition is going to mean a complete standstill in all the plans of the existing authorities. Will my noble friend please take the thought on board that decision is really urgent?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the need for decisions and very early legislation is a view fully shared by my right honourable friend.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that in my opinion the water industry has co-operated exceedingly well in the initial discussion stages? Would he not agree that indecision on the part of the Government at the present moment would have a very serious effect upon the general attitude of the water industry?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am very much aware of those facts.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what point of priority this
1100
legislation might take in next Session's legislation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will not be drawn to that extent.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: MAPLIN PROJECT
2.24 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which was made by my honourable friend, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, in another place this morning about the Maplin project for the Third London airport.
"My right honourable friend has already made clear that the nature of this project, its long timescale and the crucial issues of Government policy that it raises, require substantial public sector involvement. The Government have therefore decided to seek powers to establish a Development Authority to undertake the task of land reclamation; secondly, to make land available to the British Airports Authority for the airport and the Port of London Authority for any seaport development that may be approved; thirdly, to promote, in close co-operation with the private sector, such commercial and industrial development as is consistent with the Government's regional policies; and fourthly to act as landlord for the entire complex.
"Maplin will create a need for large-scale urban development in South-East Essex. My right honourable friend intends that this shall be built to the highest environmental standards. The Government propose to designate a substantial area for development by a New Town Development Corporation, working in close collaboration with the local planning authorities. We expect to publish a draft designation Order early next year.
"On runways, our consultation document identified four possible sites—lettered A, B, C and D—from South-West to North-East. Broadly, the further North one goes the less the noise but the greater the cost. We have carefully considered all the representations made about siting. Many have favoured site D mainly on

1101
grounds that reduction of noise, however small, should override all other considerations. But site D is further offshore, in deeper water, and its extension into the Crouch estuary could complicate the hydraulic aspects of reclamation. It also creates major problems over removing the Shoeburyness military establishment, with serious risks of delay, and it would rule out any option for future access to the airport from the North.
"Site A is strongly advocated by aviation interests on the grounds that it is cheapest, quickest and easiest to develop and causes least difficulty for the military withdrawal. Site A is also the choice of local authorities, North of the Crouch. Having carefully weighed all the evidence, the Government have decided that, within the limits of practicality, environmental considerations must be uppermost. This is why we chose to go to Maplin in the first place. Notwithstanding the additional cost the Government have decided to locate the runways at a Northerly site—Site C. This will have substantially the same environmental advantages as Site D but without its physical difficulties. This location is acceptable to Essex County Council and we consider that it will safeguard the interests of Kent. I should add that the overall noise impact of the airport should be much less than envisaged by the Roskill Commission because of the development of quieter aircraft—a development the Government will do its utmost to foster.
"Detailed work will be put in hand to reclaim enough land for the first two of the four runways for any seaport development, plus land for industrial and commercial development. Further reclamation will be undertaken when needed."
That is the end of the Statement.
2.28 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement which, as he said, has already been made in another place. It raises so many important issues that if only there were a spare second we should have liked to debate it; but no doubt the Government will be treating us more kindly in another Session.
I should like to ask one or two questions. The choice of Foulness is still a controversial one; that the Government should have chosen the site most rejected by Roskill. I should like to ask the noble Lord, therefore, how the various airlines and the British Airports Authority—and especially the latter—view this? What is the cost of the front loading for the airfield; that is, the capital on which they will have to meet interest charges before they begin to generate any revenue at all? The noble Lord may not have that figure. If he has I should be grateful if he could tell me. Can the noble Lord tell us what will be the total cost? In that connection, it might be helpful if the Government would consider issuing a White Paper to answer the many questions raised by the Statement. The Statement itself has revealed a great deal of careful consideration by the Government before they arrived at this decision. May I also ask (I think it is implicit) whether the Shoeburyness range will now have to move? There was a slight implication that site D would be more difficult, but I take it that the site that has been chosen equally calls for this move.
Finally, while congratulating the Government on what appears to us to be a fairly firm, public interest-orientated statement, may I ask what role private enterprise is going to play? I know that a number of companies have invested some money. Is the railway to be built by British Railways? Can the noble Lord say anything on the communications? I am sorry; I must stop, but there are so many questions. Perhaps I had better wait for the White Paper which I hope the noble Lord is going to give us. And how far have the Government taken into account modern aircraft development which may, by the time this Airport is ready, make the whole place unnecessary?
LORD WADE LORD WADE My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, and I will not attempt to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the number of questions. I note that it is the intention of the Government that the Government should act as landlords for the entire complex, and I presume that that includes the commercial and industrial development referred to in the Statement.
In view of the recent winding up of the Land Commission, I wonder whether this represents some change in Government policy. I recognise that it is extremely difficult to choose a site. As for noise, would the noble Lord agree that wherever this Airport is placed there will be noise. Lastly, the noble Lord said that the detailed work would be put in hand. Can he say how soon it will be put in hand and how long it is likely to take?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: Before my noble friend replies—
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, there are so many questions I think it would be better if I tried to deal with this batch first. It is difficult to answer the first question of the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, on overall costs. What we were considering here mainly was the comparative costs of the four alternative sites for the runways. The one we have in fact chosen costs £5 million more than the cheapest, site A; in hard reclamation costs it is £5 million more expensive than site A. The least noisy site, site D, would have been £21 million more than site A. The consultation document went into a lot of other costs, but the site reclamation costs are the firmest ones and the ones with which we are chiefly concerned.
The noble Lord asked about movement of military establishments from Shoeburyness. A number of decisions upon this matter have already been taken; the possibility of moving some of the establishments to existing defence establishments at Tam and Kirkcudbright is already under consideration, as is also the possibility of moving others to Spadeadam; and further dispositions are still under discussion. As for service access, the position is that consultants have for some time been working on this problem, both in respect of the road and the rail access, and we hope to have their report by early next year. The prospects of modern aircraft, requiring shorter runways or no runways at all have been borne in mind from the outset. We had full reports on that matter in the Roskill Commission, and they are still being borne in mind, but in our view they do not alter the necessity for this Third London Airport with the first runway coming into operation in 1980. I wonder
1104
whether the noble Lord, Lord Wade, could remind me of his question.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I asked whether the intention that the Government should act as landlord for the entire complex represented a change of policy on the part of the Government.
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. Because of the particular nature of this exceptionally complex and large-scale operation, we feel it necessary to have a development authority to act as landlord here, and a new town corporation as well, but both of these will draw in private enterprise.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the rail and road communications into London will be functioning by the time the runways are in use, and that we do not follow what has happened at Heathrow, where we are only building an underground railway 20 years after? Can we have an assurance on that point?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, certainly there will be sufficient road access available by the time the first runway comes into operation in 1980, but no doubt there will be further developments after that.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, could my noble friend bear in mind that it is not just communications to the centres of population and London, but intercommunication between the three London airports which is vitally important. Will this matter be studied, because not only will passengers wish to change airports, but spares and technical personnel will have to travel from London Airport to Maplin. I am sure the House will understand that the noble Lord is wise not to give a global figure of costs, because these are liable to escalate over the period of development, but could he tell us what the first tranche of presumably loan capital will be next year, and possibly the second tranche the year after? What is the sort of order of loan capital which the Government are going to make available?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I really do not think it is possible, for the reasons my noble friend indicated, to give that answer yet. For instance, the area for designation of the new town has

1105
yet to be precisely defined. The consultants have not yet reported on the access, and we have only just taken the decision as to which particular runway the reclamation will have in mind.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has made a very extensive Statement, and I take it that it covers the country and not just one particular area. What attitude of mind is the Minister for the Environment showing in regard to land that has been cleared by slum clearance within certain areas of the country, and particularly in my own area in County Durham, in reclaiming such land for development purposes, instead of scheduling so many category D villages? Quite an upset has been caused throughout the whole of the county because of such a policy being pursued by the county authority. What powers does the Minister have in regard to that particular situation, and what redress have the people themselves got who are desirous of keeping to their own particular villages? Because these particular sites could be redeveloped for housing accommodation if local authorities were given that opportunity.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not sure that I immediately see the connection between the noble Lord's question and my Statement, but I will study what he has said and answer him more fully if I can. All I can confirm is that my right honourable friend has been very much concerned with all the environmental considerations involved in this particular proposal. But that is not to say that we are not concerned with the reclamation of derelict land in the County of Durham, which is now proceeding at a greatly increased rate.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, while thanking the Government for making up their minds without undue delay, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there are many people who will think that the establishment of a development authority and new town corporation is the right decision and that this should be a real public enterprise? Can he also give some consolation to those private firms and consortia that have been preparing plans, and probably assure them that they will get some of the construction and building contracts, or that they will be eligible for them—let us put
1106
it no higher than that. Is he further aware that while many people would have preferred the most northern site, many of them will feel that site C is the next best thing and that it lacks some of the disadvantages of the northern site, which would have impinged on the estuary of the Crouch? Finally, may I ask when we are likely to get a progress report concerning road and rail communications, because large numbers of people are in a state of uncertainty as to how and whether their homes are to be affected?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for this Statement, especially as he embodies, as it were, the voice of Essex in these matters. I would confirm that there is certainly scope for private enterprise in this project, as indeed my original Statement indicated. I would also confirm that we do regard it as important that the proposals for the road and rail access are worked out and published as soon as possible, and our expectations are that the consultants will be ready early next year.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while not wishing to prolong this discussion when there is so much business before your Lordships, will the noble Lord, who, understandably, only answered half my questions, consider adopting the usual courtesy of undertaking to write to me; and, more importantly, will the Government publish either the consultation document, whatever that may be, or a White Paper? There are so many unanswered questions, particularly in the area raised by my noble friend Lord Harvey, as regards the cost of transport and the vital need of rapid communication with London.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, certainly I will read the noble Lord's questions and answer them so far as I can. But it is not the position that we have a lot of answers that we can give at this stage and which we have not already given. There are an enormous number of problems still to be considered and further statements will be issued as it becomes possible to add to what I have already said.
BARONESS STOCKS: While very rightly dwelling on the relevance of this

1107
question of an airport and the development of South-East Essex, will the noble Lord remember that it is extremely relevant to the development of South-West Essex, now in the early stages of devastation? Its relevance is amply demonstrated by the Buchanan Minority Report of the Roskill Commission.
LORD SANDFORD: I well recall the noble Baroness making this important point in an earlier debate and it is an aspect that we have very much in mind.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask a question? Is land reclamation for agriculture at the Thames estuary to come under a development corporation or have we to wait for the Minister of Agriculture to do this? I understand that land can be reclaimed in the area at about £1,000 an acre, and with the price of silt land to-day at over £700 an acre it seems to me an economic proposition to reclaim a considerable proportion of the Thames estuary.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may well be so but I think that is rather another question.

HORSE TOTALISATOR AND BETTING LEVY BOARDS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
NATIONAL DEBT BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
POISONS BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
2.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE):
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New local government areas in England]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ("For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and I suggest that it may be of convenience to the Committee if with it we consider Amendment No. 88, which does for Wales what Amendment No.1 does forEngland. These two Amendments have the simple and straightforward virtue of making clear at the beginning the respective parts to which they apply and what the object of the whole part is. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.47 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
( "(4A)(a) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any order made under paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 3, the Secretary of State may designate any district to which the order applies as a special district within a non-metropolitan county in respect of which the district council and the county council shall have such functions and attributes as may be provided in the order, being functions and atributes of the council of a metropolitan district and of the council of a metropolitan county respectively under the provisions of this Act (other than sections 195 and 196 thereof) and, in the case of a district so designated within any such county, the said provisions of this Act shall have effect, in accordance with the provisions of the order and subject as may be provided therein, as if the district were a

1109
metropolitan district and as if, in relation to that district the county were a metropolitan county.
(b) Any such order may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear necessary or proper for bringing the order into operation and giving full effect thereto.")
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of principle rather than one of detail. The principle involved is flexibility. The Bill as it stands is extremely inflexible and this Amendment seeks to give the Government authority to act and to do that more flexibility is required. The Amendment by itself does not give additional functions to any local authority; it simply authorises the Secretary of State in circumstances where he thinks fit to give some or all of the metropolitan functions to districts in a non-metropolitan county. It will give to the proposals embodied in the Bill a mere modicum of flexibility. Each of the counties of England has its own physical economy and social geography and consequently if any principles are to be applied to these counties they can be applied only with flexible proposals.
The Government in the White Paper laid down admirable principles, but to apply those principles to the variation of counties we have in England can be done only by proposals in which there is some flexibility. Unfortunately, the proposals embodied in the Bill are extremely inflexible. As I said on Second Reading, they are on the basis that that which is not black must be white. This Amendment seeks to plead with the Government to bear in mind that there are other shades of colour between black and white and to recognise the facts of life. In terms of the Bill a county is either metropolitan or non-metropolitan; there can be nothing in between. We have counties in England which are graded as non-metropolitan and which have at their perimeter huge urban areas with greater populations than some of the metropolitan districts which will be created elsewhere; they have also needs and capacities which are quite different from the rest of the county and which should have some or all of the functions of a metropolitan district. Furthermore, in these particular counties the population is big enough to allow metropolitan functions to be given to these huge urban areas and still leave in the rest of the
1110
county a population which is far greater than the minimum laid down by the Government for metropolitan functions.
The two examples that stand out are Devon and Hampshire. In the case of Devon we have the largest administrative county; it has a population of 900,000. The principal feature of the geography of the county is the high land mass of Dartmoor National Park. This is a traditional barrier to communications and the principal roads and railways have to go around this land. Indeed, the problem of Devon was put by the Devon County Council itself. In its written evidence to the Royal Commission, the Devon County Council listed the principal difficulties affecting the administration of the county, and first among those difficulties was placed the problems of distances and communications. Here I quote:
"Devon is more than ordinarily expensive to administer not only because of the mileage of the roads, but also owing to the time taken in travelling from the centre to the outlying areas. In normal travelling conditions, considerable areas of the county are more than one hour's travelling time from Exeter but in the holiday season congestion on the roads involves much longer times. The time wasted is impossible to quantify, but it is a very real factor in increasing the cost of administration. Moreover, it is responsible for a good deal of inconvenience to members of the county council who must travel frequently to Exeter to committee meetings where all the major decisions are taken."
Those are not the words of the County Borough of Plymouth. Those are the words of the Devon County Council, the people on the spot who have to administer the county.
The Royal Commission, having received those representations, put forward proposals which would have made modifications in Devon and would have made the administration easier. But the proposals for Devon embodied in this Bill completely ignore those problems. In fact, they add to them by bringing within the county the county borough of Plymouth which is in the extreme South-West. Plymouth is 43 miles from Exeter. It is already bigger than some of the new education authorities which are being created in metropolitan counties. Its population at the present time is 240,000, but it is clear that within a very short time it will exceed 250,000, which is the minimum laid down by the Government for education and social services. Furthermore, if Plymouth had metropolitan

1111
functions the rest of the county would have a population of 660,000 which I should have thought was an admirable figure for the administration of education and social services. We hope, therefore, that the Government will have another look at the position of Plymouth and we believe that the Amendment which is before the Committee is perhaps the best way of having that further look.
The other example which I want to give is the county of Hampshire. Hampshire already has a population of 1,500,000 and, if the structure plans which have been accepted by the Government are put into effect, the population of Hampshire will be two million before the end of the century. The Government have themselves said that one million should be the maximum for education and social services. Here we have a county which already has 1,500,000 and is fast climbing to two million. In the extreme south of Hampshire there are two huge urban areas; one is Portsmouth and the other is Southampton. In the case of Portsmouth, there is a population of 200,000. It is 27 miles from Winchester, the county town. There is no through train service between Portsmouth and Winchester. There is not even a through bus service between Portsmouth and Winchester. The county councillors from Portsmouth will have the same kind of inconvenience as the Devon county councillors spoke of in their submissions to the Royal Commission. Southampton is in much the same position, with a population of 214,000. If both of these cities, which have a long history and experience of education, were to keep education and social services by having metropolitan functions, the rest of the county would still have a population in excess of one million; in other words, in excess of the Government's maximum figure. So it cannot be said that the giving of metropolitan functions to these two urban areas would in any way impair the efficiency of the services in the rest of the county.
We know the Government's defence. We have read the reports of the debates in the other place and we know the reply which was given from the Government Front Bench during the Second Reading debate. I should like to place that defence before the Committee and to question it. The Government raised two issues
1112
in their defence. They said, first, that if metropolitan functions go to places like Plymouth, Portsmouth and Southampton, then Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol will want them and will be equally entitled to them. That is not so. Nottingham and Leicester are the cores, the very centres, of existing counties. Nobody has ever suggested that the core of the county, where the county administration is should have the education and social services functions devolving upon the districts. That would be an outrageous suggestion. Since the county headquarters are established in an urban area, then it is appropriate that the county should carry out those functions. In the case of Hull and Bristol, the Government themselves are proposing entirely new counties—Humberside and Avon. Hull will be the centre of Humberside and Bristol will be the centre of Avon. So that none of these core towns has anything like the claim of the three towns in Hampshire and Devon which are on the perimeter of the county, divorced from the county town.
The second argument which was used from the Government Front Bench was that the proposals which we are now making would divide the districts in non-metropolitan areas into first-class and second-class districts. I suggest that that is a misuse of words. The proposal is not first-class and second-class. The proposal is each according to his need and capacity. Nobody can suggest that the needs and the capacity of a rural area of 40,000 population are identical with those of an urban area of 250,000. An urban area of 250,000 is an entirely different matter. It has a need for the organisation of education and social services within the urban area to meet the problems of that urban area. It has a capacity to carry on these services efficiently, because it has the population with which to do that. Consequently, I say to the Government that the arguments which have been used so far do not hold water so far as this Amendment is concerned.
I am one of those who would like to see local government, once it has been reorganised, with us without change for a long time. It is not something which we should be meddling with day by day. I would therefore plead with the Government, where there are serious genuine anomalies, to be prepared to have a look

1113
at them. If they have a look at them and do something to put them right, then reorganisation will be permanent or, at least, will last for a very long time. But if they ignore the feeling of injustice among large urban populations, then they will leave behind a feeling not only of injustice, but of dissatisfaction which will lead to considerable insistence that further changes should be made. I would venture to say that in some of the urban areas. particularly the three I have mentioned, the questions which will be put to future candidates for the other place, regardless of Party, will be: Where do you stand on local government? Do you stand for a large area like this, which is on the perimeter of the county, having metropolitan powers, or not? I suggest that any candidate who does not fall in with the wishes of the local people is unlikely to become the candidate. Feeling is so strong. I would ask the Government: Please have a look at this question and see what you can do. If you cannot accept this Amendment, then at some later stage let us have an Amendment which is acceptable. I beg to move.
3.0 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: The case for special treatment of a number of big county boroughs, and especially Plymouth. Southampton and Portsmouth, was powerfully stated by a number of noble Lords on the first day of the Second Reading debate of this Bill, the Report of which unfortunately has not yet been printed. That case has now again been powerfully deployed by my noble friend Lord Jaques. This modest Amendment seeks to permit a non-metropolitan county to hand over some of its functions to a district as though that district were a metropolitan district. This is already the case for districts where the county is a metropolitan county. Quite recently I received a letter from 33 chief education officers of metropolitan districts who are very happy that education has been left in their hands and who are able to show that their own conduct of education is as efficient as has been the case in the cities of Portsmouth, Southampton and Plymouth, all of which are to lose their control of education.
I have had a letter from the secretary and former chairman of the National Association of Divisional Executives who used to control private education. He
1114
himself is a former chief education officer for Gosport, and he writes:
"It is most unsatisfactory that the whole of the administration of the education service should be concentrated in the new super-large county authorities, especially where these include major cities which hitherto, as county boroughs, have controlled their own education service".
He suggests that whereas there is perhaps a case for centralising some aspects of further education, the day-to-day administration of education should be in the hands of local people, nearer to the people. As the Bill stands, Clause 100(9) prevents education from passing into the hands of the three authorities which my noble friend has mentioned, and our modest Amendment would give the Minister power to change that.
Surely everybody, in theory at any rate, wants the new districts to be bodies with enough worthwhile functions and control of expenditure at local level to be really effective. But in a simple analysis of one county borough, Plymouth, the town clerk has shown that the present Bill, if it goes through unamended, will result in Plymouth having control of only 14 per cent. of the money spent in that city. The rest will be controlled by the new county, on the council of which Plymouth will have a permanent built-in minority; and this is roughly true of Southampton and of Portsmouth. The town clerk of Winchester, who has some 24 years of experience in office, writes with pride about what his city has done in local government, and in a letter to me expresses the fear, which I voiced in the Second Reading debate on behalf of the Associations of Rural Districts, Urban Districts and Municipal Corporations, that the taking away of functions from local authorities, the narrowing of functions of local authorities, will
"have most critical importance to the quality of those who serve on the future council. Parliament should realise that if the details of a local function are entrusted to a county council, this takes away from a local body with locally elected members something about which the county cannot have the local knowledge, time or opportunity to deal with adequately".
If these are the fears of professional local government men who have given their lives to the service, the Government should look sympathetically on attempts to satisfy their desires for the retention of a few more of the functions which the

1115
Bill proposes to take from them. No two counties are alike. In the allocation of functions, the Government and the counties would do well to temper the wind to the shorn lamb: consider each county separately, and consider especially the case of the counties which contain massive county boroughs. By this Amendment, the Minister would be able to treat at least some non-metropolitan districts more generously by retaining for some of the county boroughs some of the functions—not necessarily all—that are being taken away. That can be done by this Amendment, under which he could make certain districts what we call special districts and give them the powers that they would have if their county had been a metropolitan county. If the Bill has one fault, it is that it is too rigid, it is too mathematical. There are indeed special cases. On Second Reading we attempted to show that Southampton, Portsmouth and Plymouth were just such special cases and ought to be allowed to retain at least some of the functions which they have carried out so splendidly up to the moment. I hope that the Minister will accept this reasonable Amendment, and that, having accepted it, he will implement it with wisdom, after taking the advice of the local authorities who are concerned in it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not agree to this Amendment. Under this Bill my own county of East Sussex is to be incorporated with three county boroughs. If they all claimed this metropolitan status and all got it, we should be right back to square one. The noble Lord says, "Of course, it does not mean that each case will have to be acceded to by the Minister ". I cannot believe that the Minister can be quite so arbitrary as the speakers have been suggesting. They have mentioned Plymouth, Southampton and Portsmouth. I imagine that all major county boroughs would immediately put in for this treatment; they would want to remain as all-purpose authorities. I think it is putting far too much on to the Minister to suggest that he should exercise this power.
But I am really somewhat concerned as to whether something like this cannot happen under the Bill as drafted. I apologise for referring to later clauses,
1116
but I think that some of the remarks that have been made have taken no account whatever of these clauses. Clause 47 expressly states that, after a review, the Commission may recommend to the Secretary of State
"the conversion of a metropolitan into a non-metropolitan county"
and vice versa, and, in consequence thereof, similar treatment in the case of metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts. Clause 48 seems to provide that such reviews by the Commission must take place after ten years. I really was amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, paid no attention to this clause. Such a review will take place after ten years. After all this examination and re-examination, is it too much to ask that for ten years we should have the status quo?
But, then, Clause 49 seems to give the Minister power to alter the timing of such reviews. In all this Part of the Bill they refer (if I may use the word in the absence of my noble friend Lord Conesford) to the "metropolitanisation" or "de-metropolitanisation" of large areas at least the size of a county. It would be quite unreasonable to expect my noble friend to explain these clauses in detail at the present stage, but I shall be quite satisfied if my noble friend can assure me that the object sought by Lord Jacques and Lord Maybray-King cannot be met under these clauses.
BARONESS BACON: I find myself rather in a dilemma about this Amendment, because it might appear to be contrary to the view I put forward last week during the Second Reading debate. On that occasion I argued that in the metropolitan counties education ought to be the responsibility of the metropolitan county rather than of the districts, some of which were much too small and much too poor to carry out the functions of a local education authority. I am in this dilemma only because the Government are speaking with two voices on this Bill. The population of the new Hampshire will be fewer even now, without the increase referred to by the noble Lord, than the population of the new South Yorkshire metropolitan county. Yet whereas in South Yorkshire the education functions are to be given to small district councils in Hampshire education is to be the responsibility of the county. I should like to know, because it is germane to

1117
this discussion, what the Government propose to do about Amendment No. 103 in the names of my noble friends and myself in which we seek to put the responsibility for education in the metropolitan counties in the control of the counties rather than the districts. If as I fear, the Government are going to resist that Amendment, I do not see how they can resist the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because it is absolutely contradictory to say on the one hand that we must have an education authority with a population of 1½ million, and on the other hand that fewer than 1½ million is much too big an area to be an education authority.
I think that where the Bill falls down is over this very artificial distinction between metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. The Government are in a mess and a muddle about this. They argue one thing on one group of Amendments and another thing on another group. We should have clearly from the Government what is in their minds, because it is very difficult for us to make up our minds unless we know what is in the minds of the Government about education.
3.12 p.m.
LORD FOOT: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment, and they will be few because of the admirable and comprehensive way in which the Amendment was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. I want to support the principle of the Amendment which I understand to be that where you have an area with exceptional circumstances and conditions, the best and most sensible thing to do when trying to restructure the local government system is to have regard to those exceptional circumstances and try to meet them, rather than to try to avoid them. Subject to that, you must try to meet the special circumstances without breaking up the structure of the form on which you have decided.
The second reason why I support the Amendment is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques explained, if the City of Plymouth were designated under the Amendment as having metropolitan district powers it would go, not all the way, but a long way, to meeting those
1118
exceptional conditions which exist in the South-West. I do not speak for the City of Plymouth because it is my native town and the place where I have spent most of my life. I do not rise in order to pursue a sort of battle with the rest of Devon or the people of Exeter. I am concerned solely with trying to ensure that we get the best system of local government in the South-West that this Bill can provide.
I studied the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when he wound up the Second Reading debate, and I very much regretted the brusque way and, apparently, the unqualified way, in which he dismissed this suggestion. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has dealt with the argument that if you designated Plymouth, Southampton and Portsmouth in this way you would have to go on to designate other places like Bristol, Nottingham and Hull. But the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, used a second argument. He said:
"More importantly, it—"
that is the proposal—
"would mean that we should be on the way towards re-creating the present patchwork of counties and county boroughs which the Bill aims to abolish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1/8/72; col. 253.]
That is much the same sort of argument as I understand was being advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, when he spoke about being back to square one. But I submit that that argument is fallacious. The suggestion is that if you give metropolitan district status and functions to two or three, or four or five, different large urban areas, you would be on the way to re-creating what were formerly county boroughs. But the county borough is an animal of an entirely different kind to the district authority with metropolitan district powers, because the county borough is an all-purpose authority and exercises all the functions of local government within its area. If this proposal were accepted, admittedly, you would have two different kinds of district authority, but it would still be a two-tier system. It would still be county and district authority working side by side. The only change would be that you had passed some functions from the county down to the district.
I hope that the Government have not made up their minds to give us a final,

1119
"No". This proposal has been put forward by people who are very experienced in local government. It has great authority behind it. It is not a proposal that favourable treatment should be given to one particular place or another; it has nothing to do with that. It is a genuine attempt where it is required to make special provision for those exceptional cases.
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: With great respect to the distinguished mover of this Amendment I feel that it would be a great mistake if the Committee accepted it. I say that the more sadly because of the lucidity, moderation and restraint with which the mover and his supporters have made their case. But if we were to adopt the Amendment, I believe that we should be in danger of throwing the reformed pattern of local government back again into a condition of uncertainty, instability and confusion. In fact, we should be introducing yet another type of intermediate authority. I am one who feels that you can pay too high a price for a tidy system. Of course, the system we are now considering is not all that tidy. There is provision at the top for ad hoc regional bodies; then we have metropolitan counties, metropolitan districts and the counties and the districts and the parishes. In this case we should be introducing two different types of district within a county. I think that one of the aims of this reform is to bring town and country together and another is to make it as easy as possible for the ordinary citizen to understand which authority does what and to whom he should go. Imagine the confusion in a county with two different types of districts, with two different types of functions! What a source of jealousy, bitterness possibly, and, anyway, confusion of responsibility and of administration I think that there would be! I think the public would find it more difficult to understand such a system than the system described in the Bill.
Then there is another aspect. I think the effect of the Amendment is to give the Secretary of State a power really to create such hybrid authorities. This amounts to giving the Secretary of State power, on his own initiative, to carry out
1120
further local government reform. I am sure that Parliament would not wish to give the Secretary of State as wide a duty and responsibility as that, and I do not believe the Secretary of State would wish for this kind of power. In spite of the able way in which this case was put forward (and at first sight there are some reasonable aspects of it) I am sure the Committee must not contemplate for a moment approving the Amendment or it will be bound to add confusion to the whole objects set out in the Bill. I believe it would introduce an element of disastrous confusion for the future.
3.22 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It may be of help to the Committee that I attempt to give the reasons why I support this Amendment. I see it as a means whereby the Government can extract themselves from a difficulty in which I believe they will find themselves in a very short time; because as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said on Second Reading:
"The spreading dissatisfaction with over-centralised authority offers local government a most serious challenge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 165; 1/8/72]
Indeed, if the proposals embodied in the Bill remain as they are for Hampshire, such over-centralisation will happen.
Those who support this Amendment have attempted to put before the Committee the relevant figures of an authority existing now with a population of 1¼ million rising to 2 million and so on. Were the educational and social service functions to remain with the county council, as proposed in the Bill, such over-centralisation would occur. Already in Hampshire the county council, because they are a realistic authority, have recognised that the existing population (which is already above the upper limit of one million suggested by the Government and in the Redcliffe-Maud proposal) will prove to be too difficult. How it would be with 2 million people remains to be seen. The county authority have already suggested that decentralisation of some of the functions will have to take place. Notwithstanding the fact that the agency agreement cannot apply to the education and social services, they will probably seek some such kind of appointment as, for example, a district education officer. A district education officer looking after,

1121
say, Portsmouth or Southampton, already with a satisfactory educational set-up, will merely represent a return to the situation envisaged by Lord Aberdare. I will quote what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said in his reply, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred. He said:
"More importantly, it would mean that we should be on the way towards re-creating the present patchwork of counties and county boroughs…"(col, 253.).
In effect, if as the counties have suggested, there is a decentralisation, one is returning not to the existing patchwork but to a patchwork which is vastly inferior because it has no authority or responsibility.
The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, urged the Committee to reject this proposal because he said it sought to alter the status. It does not do that at all. All it attempts to do is to provide, long before the 10 to 15 year period of review, an opportunity for the Government to reallocate functions where they see fit; in other words, it attempts to be something of a rubbing block in between that which is proposed now and has yet to be proved and the review period 10 to 15 years hence. The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, said that she found herself in something of a dilemma. I hope that she will find that dilemma removed, because she herself put her finger on the point, which is: why should one authority have an educational and social service responsibility with vastly fewer people to look after and a vastly lower income through rate and grant than that which we are suggesting could pertain to certain district councils within Hampshire?
With great respect I will suggest that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, also has got wrong the intention of the proposers of the Amendment. We do not wish to create any second or special type of district council. We are very well aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said on Second Reading—albeit Lord Foot said somewhat brusquely (with which I must agree) that we will not have Southampton or Portsmouth as a special circumstance. We are not asking for this. We are suggesting that this Amendment provides a way out of the situation in which the natural abrasions that are going to come about over the next few years between these large urban
1122
populations, well able to take care of these activities will embarrass the Government.
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCK: This is a peculiar Amendment. Before any of the four noble Lords who gave their names to it rise up in wrath, may I say that if you look up the definition you will find that there are four meanings to "peculiar". I do not propose to disclose which one I am using or whether I am using all four. I am reminded of His Majesty of blessed memory King George III who, for the benefit of any old Harrovians present, reigned from 1760 to 1820 and who never understood how the apple got inside the dumpling. This Amendment is nothing but a Devon dumpling. There is the noble Lord, Lord Foot, encased by the three musketeers from Hampshire. It is a broadly-based Amendment, but even with my low intelligence it did not take me long to realise that we should have Plymouth and Portsmouth and Southampton brought up. Devonshire, that beautiful county! I have spent my last 15 annual holidays there and I hope to spend the sixteenth—but do not tell the Whips! In spite of that, I should not have the impertinence to pronounce on Devonshire's internal affairs.
With Hampshire, where I have virtually lived and worked all my life, it is another matter. May I quote one short passage from the Government White Paper of February, 1971? Paragraph 6 says:
"The division between counties and county boroughs has prolonged an artificial separation of big towns from their surrounding hinterlands for functions whose planning and administration need to embrace both town and country."
In my opinion that is an excellent intention. It gets away from the "we" and "they" attitude which we have all met in organisations, whether councils or charities, or whatever. I was rather surprised and very sad to see the names of the three noble Lords from Hampshire who are moving this Amendment, because with their background I would have expected them to be three of the most helpful and co-operative in joining up town and country. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is affectionately known as "King of the Co-ops". Then there is the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who had his early

1123
education—what I believe people in the Department call the formative years—at Winchester. There is also my dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, who happens to be both an honorary county alderman and a Freeman of Southampton. They decided that way, and that is the way they must have it.
Nobody has better experience of the ramifications of local government than the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I have been looking round the Chamber to-day and unless the noble Baroness is sitting among the right reverend Prelates she is not here. If she thinks I have gone too far she can always sue me! She, albeit from the safe neutrality of Wiltshire, wrote a powerful letter to The Times last April in which she said—or The Times said she said:
"The straightforward solution is to recognise the reality of Hampshire's social geography and to split it into two."
That is bad enough, but we have gone further since then. There have been suggestions to split the county into three. In another place there was also a proposal that there should be a quartet of metropolitans. It sounds rather like a musical performance by the Greek Church! There was another proposal to make it a hybrid county. Referring again to my old friend the Oxford dictionary, the first definition of "hybrid" is that it is
"the progeny of a tame sow and a wild boar".
That would be interesting, but hardly trustworthy.
In her letter the noble Baroness also said:
"The county council cannot be expected to give to the metropolitan problems of Portsmouth and Southampton the concentrated attention they need."
In the first place I am assured that under the present Bill all the education and social services departments at Portsmouth and Southampton would be retained as a complete entity. Secondly, it is a great mistake to think that county councils consist of a lot of old rustic cabbages. I have never been a county councillor myself so I can say what I think. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know the position of the chief officials of the county council in Hampshire. The clerk was previously deputy town clerk of Wolverhampton which has a popula-
1124
tion of around 300,000, far bigger than that of either Portsmouth or Southampton; the county medical officer and the county architect have previous experience at Bournemouth; and the director of social services came from Coventry, whose population is well over 300,000.
I have here (and any noble Lord or Baroness may read them with pleasure) signed letters from the Mayor of Gosport, Fareham Urban District Council, Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council, Droxford Rural District Council, Peters-field Rural District Council, the Hampshire Association of Parish Councils—in a minute I shall be going too fast for the Official Reporter !—Basingstoke Borough Council, and the County Councils Association, all protesting against metropolitan status being introduced into Hampshire. It really is ridiculous to think that town and country cannot work together for the benefit of each other. One has seen it done. May I remind your Lordships that the captain of Southampton Football Club was discovered in a Winchester boys' club, which shows a certain amount of co-operation between town and country. Already, in order to make that beautiful county of Dorset viable, we are being asked to sacrifice such valuable assets as the long port and Bournemouth Symphony stretches of sandy beaches, Hum Air-Orchestra. Further than that we cannot go. Metropolitan proposals would leave the county with a population of less than half a million and an area bigger than any metropolitan county.
Here may I apologise for my voice. Curiously enough, I began to lose it last Monday week at a meeting in Southamptin. Whether it caught me by accident or design perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, would be able to answer. To return to the particular. this Amendment in the first place would give the Secretary of State for the time being the biggest headache he had ever experienced, and no metropolitan county would ever know where it stood. I have to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. He intended to be here to-day, but unfortunately he had a bad attack of laryngitis and a touch of pneumonia. However, I told him that I would tell your Lordships that he agrees with every word I say. It seems to me that, with my noble friend and the noble

1125
Baroness, Lady Sharp, I shall be in the courts for some time to come!
I sincerely trust that Her Majesty's Government will resist this Amendment. I do not have any clue as to which way they will turn. Should the Amendment be pressed to a Division I ask your Lordships to register an overwhelming vote against it. By so doing you would in the first place prevent the rape of Hampshire and, secondly, you would give Hampshire (and incidentally other non-metropolitan counties) opportunities, which I am sure will be seized, to show the whole country how urban and rural areas can work together for the benefit of both.
3.37 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: Perhaps I should make it plain that, so far as these territorial matters are concerned, we on the Front Bench on this side would propose for the most part to remain neutral. We regard them as private wars between the people concerned and Members of the Government Front Bench. But this particular Amendment raises a matter of principle and it is appropriate to say a word about it. It is a very difficult suggestion, although I have the utmost sympathy with the arguments put forward by those noble Lords who support the Amendment. One can fully understand that people of such experience and standing would not have put forward any such Amendment had they not been concerned with very genuine difficulties.
Frankly, I think the Government have failed to face the genuine difficulties in all the areas which are touched by this Amendment. I am quite sure that one of the reasons for such dissatisfaction was the one emphasised by my noble friend Lady Bacon. Had the Government done what we have so strongly supported—namely, left the education functions with the metropolitan counties rather than the metropolitan districts—my noble friend Lord Maybray-King would have felt a good deal less strongly than, quite plainly, he does in the circumstances. I can very well understand Portsmouth, Plymouth and Southampton, when they see other areas exercising the full powers which they have been given, saying, "If they can, why can't we?" Therefore I think the Government have made difficulties for themselves by giving way and putting the education responsibilities
1126
upon the metropolitan districts rather than the counties. Had they remained in the metropolitan counties, then this natural sense of grievance of the three great cities that have been discussed would not have been there. There is a later Amendment upon this, and if the Government would accept that Amendment, and go back to putting the education responsibility on the metropolitan counties, certainly the edge would be taken from the grievance which is now affecting the cities concerned.
As I think many of your Lordships know, on our side of the Committee we have broadly said that where Hampshire is concerned we support the metropolitan county in South Hampshire. Again, if that had been accepted, it would have removed the grievances of both Portsmouth and Southampton, because then they would have been metropolitan districts within a metropolitan county. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments at this stage; I just point out to the Government that if they had looked at this matter more realistically than I think they have done, they would have removed the grievances of two of the three cities which are mostly concerned. I feel that the Government have got themselves in a position where people have felt constrained to put forward proposals which frankly, as a matter of principle, I think are dubious. I think this idea of having special metropolitan district powers within a non-metropolitan county, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and others have pointed out, would add greatly to the complexity of things. Therefore, with the utmost reluctance—though in this particular Bill I think everybody judges for himself or herself—I do not feel that we can officially support this Amendment. What I have said would not of course meet the particular problems of Plymouth. I will content myself with saying, as I said on Second Reading, that if the Government had been prepared to do for Plymouth what they have done for Cardiff, they would have heard a great deal less about Plymouth in the course of our debates.
I would sincerely ask the Government to think again on the main points of the place of education in relation to the metropolitan counties, and also the position in South Hampshire, because it seems to me that it is only realistic to

1127
suppose that when the review comes in ten years' time there will then be no doubt about South Hampshire, which is one of the most rapidly developing areas in the Kingdom. Is it really worth while sticking out now and saying, "We will not anticipate the review ten years hence", setting up a system of local government which I think none of us can realistically suppose will last more than ten years, and then having to transmogrify it? Would it not be better, even if it means eating a little humble pie, to say now that this is, on balance, the best thing to do? I have suggested various ways in which the Government might extricate themselves, but with great reluctance we are unable to feel that this is an entirely satisfactory Amendment.
3.44 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to speak at this time. Both the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who proposed the Amendment in eloquent terms, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, put the point that this is a matter of principle which we are now discussing, and it is on that basis that I am afraid we do not see our way to accept the Amendment. And I think the noble Baroness indicated that, given the facts as they are, she could not support this Amendment either. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has explained the effect of his Amendment, which is to allow the Secretary of State to provide by Order for districts with metropolitan district powers to be created within a non-metropolitan county. I agree with him and other noble Lords who have spoken that this has a certain initial attraction on the grounds of flexibility; and it certainly would meet the wishes of a great many former county boroughs, who would be only too anxious to retain the powers that they have at the moment as all-purpose authorities. But we cannot accept it on the grounds of principle, and I will explain that a little more fully. Before doing so, I would say that I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, thought that I was brusque on Second Reading. Perhaps they will recall that we were a litle pushed for time at that moment, with another important debate to follow, and I apologised at the time for having to be rather rushed in my winding-up speech.
1128
In our White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation we defined the criterion on which we suggested the metropolitan county should be established. This was that it should be divisible into districts, all of which are populous and compact. That, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, will know well, was the reason why in another place we could not accept metropolitan county status for Hampshire. For the rest of England, and for all of Wales, we intend by this Bill to establish counties which will consist of a reasonable balance of urban and rural areas. I suggest to your Lordships that to accept this Amendment would be to fall between two stools. To create metropolitan districts in a non-metropolitan county would undermine the whole principle of the Bill, and would result in a reversion to the division between town and country which has bedevilled our local government in the past. It would completely upset the delicate balance of functions, of which my noble friend Lord Amory spoke eloquently on Second Reading, and of which he has spoken eloquently to-day.
We have high hopes—I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Monck—of the new counties which are coming into being under this Bill. They will consist of a mixture of town and country, and they will be able to plan their services to balance the needs of both town and country. It would destroy this concept from the very start if certain districts within the county were to have special powers similar to those of a metropolitan district, while others did not. I am sure that it would be undesirable from the point of view of the organisation of social services; and certainly it would have equally unfortunate consequences for the matching health services which we hope to organise on a similar territorial basis in 1974.
So far as education authorities are concerned, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, our fundamental principle has been that these should consist of a minimum population of a quarter of a million wherever possible. Therefore our position has been completely consistent throughout: that most of the metropolitan districts have populations of this order, and so do the counties, but the non-metropolitan districts in most cases do not. I think it is

1129
wrong to suggest that if one were to allow certain cities such as those mentioned—Southampton, Portsmouth and Plymouth—to have these special powers, we could successfully draw the line when being approached by numerous other cities and large towns. Why should those other cities and large towns not retain their powers? Why should we single out three cities more than others? I am sure that this is an unrealistic suggestion, and that what would happen if we were to accept this Amendment is that a great many other towns and cities would ask for the same privileges. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Gage on that point.
May I take up one point that my noble friend Lord Gage made on the effect of Clauses 47, 48 and 49? These clauses allow the Local Government Commission to review the situation in the future and they also allow for reviews normally to take place between 10 and 15 years after April 1, 1974. This surely is the way to achieve the flexibility that noble Lords have been asking for. Here is provision whereby new arrangements can be made for non-metropolitan counties to be converted into metropolitan counties, and vice versa. The one thing that is not possible under Clause 47—and I should like to make this absolutely clear to my noble friend—is to do what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, wants to do; in other words, to create metropolitan districts within a non-metropolitan county. The noble Lord referred to Clause 47(1)(d) where he quoted the words,
"…conversion of a metropolitan into a non-metropolitan district",
but this is consequential upon the words,
"the conversion of a metropolitan into a non-metropolitan county"
and vice versa. So this provision gives flexibility but does not give the powers that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is seeking in this Amendment.
May I try to illustrate in a little more detail the case of Hampshire, which has been specifically mentioned? It is here that the difficulties emerge rather more clearly. I assume that those who are seeking metropolitan district status for Southampton and Portsmouth are not proposing that they should retain the present boundaries: that would simply be to re-create them as county boroughs, as
1130
they are at present, and we know the difficulties of that. I imagine that what they want to do is to create two metropolitan districts in South Hampshire, one based on Southampton and the other on Portsmouth. In the first place, this would be strongly resisted by all the other urban authorities in Hampshire, as my noble friend Lord Monck made perfectly plain. Moreover, it would create a very unbalanced county with two very large districts in the South containing the bulk of the population and running their own education and social services, and perhaps four or five non-metropolitan districts, smaller, poorer and dependent for their services on a county, the southern part of which had a majority on the council.
If one thinks, for example, of education, you would have a situation where there would be county councillors elected from the Portsmouth and Southampton areas who would thereby become responsible for education in the North of the county though not in their own districts, where their own district councils would be responsible. This would not be very happily accepted by those who live in the North of the county. I suggest to my noble friend Lord Lucas that this type of organisation would lead to far more abrasions than what we are suggesting. In the words of my noble friend Lord Amory, I think it would result in "an organisational nightmare" if we accepted this Amendment: it would destroy the fundamental basis of the county and district organisation and the division of functions between them, on which the whole of this Bill is based. I would strongly urge your Lordships not to accept this Amendment, if the noble Lord wishes to press it.
LORD JACQUES: All kinds of things have been introduced into this debate which have little to do with the Amendment. At one stage I thought we were being entertained after dinner until I looked at the clock. Even the Minister in his reply has raised questions which have nothing to do with the Amendment. For example, the question of boundaries has not been raised. In this Amendment we have not raised the question of boundaries; and so far as educational administration is concerned, this was a problem which had to be faced in London when there was a reorganisation there. If I may say so, it was more

1131
difficult to get over in that case than it would be in Hampshire; so I do not think there would be any difficulty in getting over the administrative problems. It was also suggested that the Amendment tried to re-create the all-purpose county boroughs. That is not so. Nobody has ever mentioned the all-purpose authority—and certainly the Amendment does not mention it. The second-tier principle has been reluctantly accepted. I believe that the Bill ignores the geographical facts, and what we are trying to do with this Amendment is to look at those geographical facts. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government recognise that South Hampshire and South Devon, and in particular the Plymouth area, present special problems,
whether they have any other plans for dealing with them or whether the Bill is the end of the matter.
LORD ABERDARE: I quite agree that these are very difficult problems, but we have confidence that the new Hampshire County Council will take account of those difficult problems and will be able to solve them.
LORD JACQUES: In other words the Bill is the last word. In that case, regardless of the result, I shall divide the Committee.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
The Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 134.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Henderson, L.

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Arwyn, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Shinwell, L.

Avebury, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Hylton, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tanlaw, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wade, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Maelor, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gloucester, L. Bp.

Maybray-King, L.

Hale, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hall, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

Hanworth, V.

Abinger, L.

de Clifford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Albemarle, E.

Digby, L.

Headfort, M.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Helsby, L.

Amory, V.

Dundee, E.

Hemingford, L.

Balfour, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Hodson, L.

Belstead, L.

Eccles, V.

Hood, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Effingham, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bethell, L.

Elles, Bs.

Howe, E.

Blackford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Hunt, L.

Bourne, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Essex, E.

Ironside, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Falmouth, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brentford, V.

Faringdon, L.

Kemsley, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Ferrers, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Fortescue, E.

Latymer, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gage, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Burnham, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Leatherland, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Garner, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V.

Limerick, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gowrie, E.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Greenway, L.

Lothian, M.

Cowley, E.

Gridley, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Cranbrook, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Crathorne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mar, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Merrivale, L.

Daventry, V.

Hankey, L.

Middleton, L.

Milverton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Sudeley, L.

Monck, V.

Reigate, L.

Swansea, L.

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Rennell, L.

Swaythling, L.

Morrison, L.

Ridley, V.

Thomas, L.

Mottistone, L.

Roberthall, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, Bp.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Vernon, L.

Moyne, L.

St. Just, L.

Vivian, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sandys, L.

Ward of Whitley, W.

Ogmore, L.

Selborne, E.

Watkins, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wellington, D.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wigram, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Strang, L.

Wolverton, L.

Platt, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Young, Bs.

Rankeillour, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 3 I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
4.5 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 8, leave out subsections (6) to (8) and insert—
("(6) On and after 1st April 1974 every district shall consist of one or more areas to be known as communities which shall be established in accordance with the following paragraphs:

(a) the area of each borough existing immediately before that date shall on that date become a community of the district in which it is comprised and shall be known by the same name as the borough's;

(b) the area of each urban district then existing which is wholly comprised in a district shall on that date become a community of that district and shall be known by the same name as the urban district's;

(c) the area of each rural parish then existing shall on that date become a community of the district in which it is comprised and shall be known by the same name as the parish's;

(d) in the areas of such boroughs and urban districts which, on and after 1st April 1974, are comprised in more than one county or more than one district there shall be established separate communities for those parts falling into each county or district;

(e) in the areas of those rural parishes which are in existence immediately prior to 1st April 1974 and are divided according to Part IV of Schedule 1 of this Act, there shall be established as communities as specified in the said Part IV.

(7) The Secretary of State may, on an application in writing made to him before the 31st December 1973 by the council of an existing
1134
borough or urban district make an order excepting such borough or urban district from the provisions of subsection (6) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 standing in my name. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said that he saw the Bill as setting up a three-tier scheme and, after talking about the existing parishes, he said:
"It is that grass roots community which I think should continue to be the basis of the whole structure of local self-government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31/7/72]
In that connection, he was to some extent re-stating what was said in the Report of the Royal Commission both by the majority and also by Mr. Senior in his memorandum of dissent. When the Local Government Bill first saw the light of day it was obvious that so far as England was concerned the Government accepted the philosophy of three-tiered local government only in a very limited way, for parishes would continue to exist only in those rural parts of the country where parishes were already in existence. For the rest, only the two tiers of county and district would be the institutions of local government.
The exception to what I have just said was that certain boroughs created by an Act of 1958 in rural areas would immediately become parishes on ceasing to exist as rural boroughs. That was what was originally in the Bill. As a result of pressures from all sides in the other place on Standing Committee and, further, on Report, substantial amendments were made by the Government. What the Bill now says is to be the pattern for England is county, districts and parishes, and it is in relation to parishes that the main change has come about.
As a result of the Amendments made on Report in the Commons there may be many more parishes than at first was envisaged by the Government when they prepared their Bill. In subsection (8) of this clause, and the associated Part V of Schedule 1, the English Boundary Commission is instructed to consult the councils that exist today of counties, boroughs and urban districts, and the committees to be set up under Clause 251, with a view to making proposals to the Secretary of State for the constitution of parishes with boundaries conterminous with that of broadly existing urban districts or boroughs when those bodies disappear. On receipt of such proposals the Secretary of State shall give effect to them by order.
As I said just now, there may well be a considerable increase in the number of parishes, for parishes now enter the confines of the town. When Mr. Page was moving the Amendment in the Commons, he said at column 98 of Hansard for April 17:
"There are good reasons why it would not be desirable to retain parish councils within the areas of all existing boroughs and urban districts. Where there is a borough which becomes merged within a new district and its population is large enough to have influence in the new district, to have a substantial number of representatives in the new district council, it would be wrong to preserve any particular powers, even at parish level, for those larger towns. I am thinking of towns with a population of 40,000 or 50,000 or more. Where we have the smaller towns, anything up to 10,000 or 20,000, it is right to keep alive the parish status."
Although the figures of population from 10,000 to 20,000 which Mr. Page mentioned are not contained in the Bill as an instruction to the Commission, they may well be contained in the guidelines which the Secretary of State will have to give to the Boundary Commission. If that figure of up to 20,000 is to govern the considerations of the Commission it could mean that if all the eligible boroughs and urban districts were to be recommended for parishes some 397 parishes would be added to the 10,000 already existing in England. The 397 would be what have come to be called successor councils.
Noble Lords may very well ask what is the difference between that which is now in the Bill before us and the Amendment I am moving. The first is the
1136
change of name from parish to community, and from that would follow community council instead of parish council. This would be a name more in keeping with the successor authorities, particularly for the towns, than one which is still associated with the definition of parish as being
"the district under the charge of a parson or other person having a care of souls therein."
Surely that would be inappropriate to the sort of body which ought to be created. The name that I have suggested is the one which was chosen by the Government themselves for comparable authorities in Wales.
The second difference is that every existing borough or urban district would automatically, on ceasing to exist on April 17, 1974, become a successor community and have a community council regardless of its population. That would be the immediate effect of this Amendment. But there would be a safeguard for a county borough such as Bristol, say, with a population of 425,000, which completely dominates district No. 2 in the new Avon county as proposed in the draft by the Commission, or Bath, with a population of 84,000 which comprises completely district No. 6 of Avon. All the councils of such boroughs, or any other boroughs or urban districts, would have to do in order to opt out of what I am proposing would be to write to the Secretary of State and tell him so before December 31, 1973.
Another effect of the Amendment would be to save an already overburdened Commission the task of consulting councils of existing counties, boroughs and urban districts and the many committees to be set up under Clause 252. There would be no limit imposed as to size. The existing council, which is best able to consider how it will stand in relation to the new district, is surely in the best position to judge whether or not a community council would suit its area. I have looked at this matter very carefully, and I think that our proposals would have the merit of greater flexibility. While one council with a population of well over 20,000 might feel that, geographically and for other reasons, there was no advantage in having a successor community council, another, with a population of well above 20,000, might, because of its relationship to the other boroughs or

1137
urban districts or the many rural parishes in the new district, see a worthwhile advantage in it. This would be left to the council itself to decide. It would consider its existing situation and would relate that to what would emerge after 1974. It would then say either, "We think there should be a community council for this area", or "We think there ought not to be a community council". If it took the latter course all it would have to do would be to write to the Secretary of State before the date I have mentioned.
In connection with the size of districts and so on, it has been reported that the Town Clerk of Abingdon asked the boroughs with 25,000 population or less if they were in favour of some form of local council to succeed them when they merged into the new district. Some 90 per cent. answered that they were in favour of establishing some form of council to succeed them when this Bill becomes an Act and becomes operative. Most of the towns with a population of between 25,000 and 40,000 were not in favour. In the latter connection I stress the word "most", because if there were some they are entitled to consideration. They ought to be able to opt for themselves whether they will have a community council after April 1, 1974.
As regards name, and to some extent size, there were pleas from all sides of Standing Committee D in another place, and subsequently on Report, for some way of permitting boroughs which had old charters, regalia, the title of mayor for the borough's chief citizen, and some forms of pomp and ceremony which they have inherited from the distant past, to retain these privileges. Pomp and ceremony, and names with a long historical background are not ignoble. We certainly respect them in this Committee, as do Members in another place. Mr. Page clearly recognised this desire on the part of those towns which, when they merge with a larger district dominated by a borough, would be able to apply for a charter under the terms of Clause 3. He recognised that some of the privileges which towns have previously bad ought to be passed on to some form of successor council. He told another place on Report:
"We have been unable to table Amendments at this stage on the retention of certain dig-
1138
nities, such as the mayors. I gave a forecast about this in Committee, but I am still in consultation with the local authority associations about the details. I hope we shall be able to put forward a proposal in this respect in another place, but so that right hon. and hon. Members of this House know about our intentions the consultation paper with the local authority associations has been put in the Vote Office. Right hon. and hon. Members will be able to see from it the form in which we are consulting the local authority associations and our intentions in another place about preserving the civic dignities at parish level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 17/4/72, col. 100.]
I regret to say that I have not seen the document referred to, and I do not know what it contains. But it seems to me that a community council would be a much better vehicle to carry such dignities, to preserve the regalia and property of ancient boroughs, than a parish council. I cannot envisage the mayor of the parish council going along to some civic function and there doing the things that mayors have to do, and ought to do, in their communities.
The final point I wish to urge on the Government is on functions. I am taking it for granted that the existing functions of parishes would be automatically transferred to the community councils, and that they are as set out in Annex 3 of the Royal Commission's Report. But to the existing functions I would seek to add somewhere in the Bill something which would enable the community council to give effect to what Mr. Senior in his memorandum of dissent said so succinctly when on the subject of the grass roots level. That was—and I quote from his paragraph 427:
"My colleagues and I are also agreed that the key function of such a body must be to act as a sounding-board for community opinion—to focus the sense of the local community, whether in protest against, in agitation for, or in consultation about anything that affects its social or environmental wellbeing, and to bring that consensus to bear on the responsible decision-makers, whether they be members of a local authority or of any other agency, public or private."
With that sentiment I am in complete agreement, although the Government would, I am sure, assert that, having opted against unitary authorities, local government will continue to be local under the Bill. But certainly districts are to be very much larger, in many cases covering very wide areas indeed by comparison with the existing situation.

1139
Remoteness is going to be increased. If I look at the draft proposals of the Boundary Commission for some of the new districts, I see it is obvious that some of the districts are going to be geographically large and, wherever they set up the centre of the district, put their municipal buildings and so on, it is bound to be some considerable distance away from much of the district.
The offices, as I say, of the district may be miles away. People ought to have a truly "local" authority to which they will have access and to which they may turn to talk about their grievance, even if the community council has not a functional power to remedy the grievance—which might indeed be about housing, about schools or planning or things of that kind. Such a community council could consider the grievance of these people and perhaps pass it on to the appropriate local authority. Those noble Lords in this House who have served in the other place will know that very often satisfaction was given to people who had a complaint by the simple fact of their having told someone who seemed to be an authority about it. So often this was the case; so often that satisfaction, I am sure, was felt by the people who went away, because. I have had this experience so many times myself. I urge upon the Government the acceptance of this Amendment in principle. If it is accepted, the consequential and other Amendments made necessary could flow from such a decision and be added to the Bill on Report in October. I say on Report in October " but we shall not be reaching the Report stage in October—I beg your Lordships' pardon: we shall complete the Committee stage, Deo volente, some time in September and therefore "Report" was the right word.
Perhaps the most persuasive argument I could adduce is that the Government have accepted the idea of community councils for Wales, and I am sure their decision does not arise from the fact that the Church of Wales is disestablished. While I should wish for Wales very favourable treatment in all matters, I would not seek the favour of the exclusive use of the community councils idea, but would gladly grant it to England. I beg to move.
4.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: This is a somewhat formidable looking Amendment, but if it means what I think it means after the noble Lord's speech, that it would be a good thing to have some equivalent to parish councils in urban areas, then I agree it is a principle which merits consideration. I remember a particular case where, under previous legislation, the county borough wanted to enlarge itself and to take in certain rural parishes, the attraction being that they would thereby have a much smaller rate burden. Nevertheless, the rural parishes were prepared to forgo that because if they went into the county borough they would lose their parish councils which they very much liked. I am quite convinced that there is this strong desire to take some part in the administration of the county, and it is a very sound one provided that it does not lead to too much delay.
I must confess that in my own county, where at the present juncture we are asked to formulate schemes providing these new communities—I suppose they would be recommendations to the Commission—they might wonder whether the prevailing burden to the administration could be managed. The noble Lord has made the definition of a community council fairly simple. I would imagine that where there is a district the size of a county borough which would lose its first-tier status but would be big enough to make a second-tier council on its own, the community council there would be unnecessary because it would be the same thing as the second-tier council. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that it is going to be a very simple matter, and although I think that as a principle it is very sound, whether it can be worked out so simply I am not at all sure.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. I wonder how much difference there is between us and the Government Benches on this question. When we are making this review, if we make a decision in the Bill that these local councils shall be termed "community councils", as distinct from parish councils, this may help to meet the needs and the opinions of some of the larger urban areas that are being amalgamated into a district, and of some of the boroughs. I do not feel that they would quite

1141
like in their opinion to be denigrated to a parish level, having previously been urban or borough. To change the name from "parish" to "community" would encourage a lot of good will among local people whom we should like to encourage to take an interest in this regard. The Government have definitely accepted that where there are parish councils and urban councils they shall continue as a three-tier system, largely with these areas having the powers as defined by the Parish Councils Act of 1957. This came out very clearly during the Second Reading debate on this Bill.
There is also a little ambiguity, although the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said quite distinctly that parishes going into the metropolitan area would retain the same powers as those that remained outside the metropolitan area. In my opinion that immediately brings another important point to light. While parishes do that, what is the position of urban authorities that do it? Would it not be better, instead of (as some people think; quite wrongly perhaps) downgrading them to parish level, if we could give them a community status, as in Wales, so that they could carry out their functions with the dignity that they thought appropriate to their area? It also raises another important function which was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, at Second Reading. In many of these areas, particularly those in the metropolitan areas, parishes and urban councils going in will have the status as defined by the Bill, with very large areas where there will be wards. What will be the position of those wards? Will they have an equal status with a parish or a community council? I think this is something we might clear up at this stage of the Bill. I do not think there ought to be a great deal of difference between us and the Government on this Amendment.
It is a desire on our side to try to retain the interests of people, to continue to give advice, having regard to the powers that were defined by the Parish Councils Act of 1957, having in mind the opinion of the Maud Commission and the consensus of opinion of those people who have been brought into consultation by the Maud Commission, which evidently indicated that something on these lines was necessary if we wanted
1142
to maintain the interest of people at local level, which is the most important function in local government. Therefore to change the name from "parish" to "community", as my noble friend Lord Champion has rightly pointed out, would enable the Commission thinking of these things to receive a directive, instead of the position being left as it now is in the Bill for areas to make their own application for definition of name. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment I hope they will at least accept it in principle and re-word it to meet the needs that we advocate.
LORD RHODES: The Minister should seriously consider the implications of this Amendment. We are too ready to worship size and to think that if we can get something bigger it is automatically better, but it is not; and anything that this House, in the late stages of this Bill, can do towards preserving and fostering local loyalties to knit people together should be done. Since the War we have seen policies, and I have been an ardent supporter of them, which have led to whole areas being swept away by the bulldozer, originally in the belief that by doing so and by putting up marvellous property so that people might live clinically, as one might say, it would make for a better community. In many cases it has done nothing of the sort. All that it has done is to divide people and to make them less neighbourly. We want to consider very seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said and what can be done to foster local loyalties and local traditions, so that over the years a bridge may be built between the old and the new. What happens in the case of an authority of fewer than 20,000 people which is suddenly put together with an authority of 130,000 or 140,000 without the same characteristics, and perhaps over a hill? It takes a long time for them to grow together. We should bridge it more easily if we were to preserve some of the loyalties that are there at present. Destroy nothing in the way of loyalties; build them up, and I think that by accepting this Amendment we can build them up.
4.35 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment because I think it will enable me

1143
to establish that, as the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, has said, there is little difference between us. I think there is nothing whatever between us in principle and only a certain amount in detail to do with nomenclature and procedure. We agree, and I think I made this clear enough for it to be unnecessary for me to repeat it now, that parishes are indeed a vitally important element in the whole structure of local government, and I should not wish to contradict or to dispute anything that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has just said. For that reason we have provided that every existing parish—and there are 10,000 of them—will continue, whether in a metropolitan county or an ordinary county, after April 1, 1974. Indeed they are the only authorities which will continue unchanged throughout this "general post" on April 1, 1974. Furthermore, we are providing that all small, free-standing towns will be able to apply to have successor parishes to continue all their traditions and ceremonial and still be able to continue to be the owners of parish property.
I note that this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has moved is in exactly the same form as an Amendment moved in another place at the Committee stage. So far as I can see, it does not take any account of the Amendments moved by Her Majesty's Government at Report stage, which were in response to this Amendment and to several other Amendments of a similar kind. I also note that the noble Lord said that he has not seen the further consultation document which my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development promised. I will certainly send him a copy and he will see there more precisely the pattern that we propose for the establishment of successor parishes and also many other matters to deal with parish dignities and ceremonial.
The Amendment also imports into England a number of ideas and names which are applicable to and have already been adopted for Wales: but perhaps it does not give sufficient recognition to the fact that Wales, with two million people, with no metropolitan county and with its district boundaries already provided for and defined in the Bill, is in a different position front that of England with well over 40 million people, six metropolitan
1144
counties, all the district boundaries still to be defined and a considerable amount of work yet to be done. The point my noble friend Lord Gage made was that whatever we may think about the merits and virtues of what noble Lords are proposing in the Amendment—we agree that there is considerable merit and virtue in it—we do not think it is practicable in England to go as far as that in setting up this structure as fully as it has been set up in Wales.
That is one of the main reasons for the differences between the two countries. The advantage to England is that when we are able to give further thought to the possibility of urban parishes, we will have the great benefit of the Welsh experience on which to draw. I will return to this aspect shortly. In the meantime, our thought is that the argument in favour of establishing special community units in towns in England, whatever its merit (and I have said it is considerable) must wait because we cannot get round to doing that at the moment. For example, in Greater London it would mean establishing no less than 1,000 separate statutory bodies, and we could not cope with doing that as well as with carrying out all the other arrangements involved in local government reform.
I come to the three aspects of the Amendment. First, there is the suggestion that we should change the term "parish", which is hallowed and respected in England, for the term "community council". This might be the right term when we get round to statutory authorities or even non-statutory authorities in the big towns, but I would not wish to commit the Government one way or the other. I fully take the point about a settlement of some size, which has had its own urban district council or which has even been a borough, not wishing to be styled and titled a "parish" together with a lot of other settlements with populations of not more than a few hundred people. It is for that reason that we have opened up again the possibility of allowing these larger towns that are opting for successor authorities to elect perhaps to call themselves towns instead of parishes and have successor town councils whereas smaller units might decide to have successor parish councils. These and a number of other possibilities I shall come to shortly.

1145
I ask the Committee to consider the question of size. We are not in any doubt that the smaller free standing towns that have had their own urban district councils should be free to apply for successor parish status, but the facts are exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said—namely, that whereas the smaller towns are clear that this is what they would like, when one gets to the size of towns with populations of between 25,000 and 40,000, one finds that they are by no means clear that they would want to apply for successor parish councils. They see their future lying very much more with the district as a whole. However, the various patterns that are possible under the various combinations are set out fully in the Consultative Document on which the Secretary of State has been consulting the local authority associations and noble Lords who care to read the document will see what it contains.
These consultations are complete. They led us to the conclusion that the best way to proceed, and to seek the objective of the Amendment, is to refer this matter to the Boundary Commission as one of the next matters it will tackle, after the district boundaries have been established, to see which of the urban units wish to apply for successor councils—we can call them parish councils for the moment; they may wish to call them town councils—and throw in their lot, as it were, with the boroughs as a whole.
Turning to the concept of urban parishes, our view is that there might be a case for the identifiable communities to which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, referred to be given a voice and to have a way of expressing their identity. As I say, whatever we might think about it now, there are severe practical difficulties in England such as are not encountered in Wales against bringing this into being immediately. However, we are not closing our minds to the idea. We certainly think that there is room for non-statutory bodies of many kinds straight away, and we are making provision elsewhere in the Bill for the principal councils to be enabled to finance such non-statutory bodies. We do not rule out the possibility of further legislation on this subject at some later stage and we will then be able to draw on the Welsh experience.
1146
Not only are we providing for the continuation of existing parishes and an addition to their number, but we are also providing that, for example, planning applications relating to a particular parish should in future be notified to them by the planning authorities and we are giving parish councils express power to oppose private Bills relating to them. I hope from what I have said now and from what I said more emphatically on Second Reading that I have convinced your Lordships that we share the views that have been expressed about the importance of parishes and that we are doing very much what is being sought in the Amendment, though in slightly different ways. I confirm that what I have been saying in a tentative way about the use of the term "town" instead of "parish" and about the continuation of local dignities and ceremonials will be the subject of an Amendment which we hope to table before we return to the Committee stage in September.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has been extremely temperate in addressing the Committee, but I am left with the feeling that he is not really seized of the desire expressed by a number of noble Lords that the Government should have a thorough look at this whole matter between now and Report. We have had some extremely powerful speeches on this subject. That made by my noble friend, Lord Rhodes, is likely to be one of the most powerful we shall have in Committee. A similarly powerful speech came from my noble friend Lord Popplewell.
This is a very difficult and complex Bill and when reading it—and indeed, if I may say so with respect, when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—one has the feeling that while the Government have set about the business of trying to revivify local government they have not given sufficient consideration to the involvement of people in that process. If it fails to secure the goodwill of the people then all the paper plans will come to nought. We have seen in this House on Second Reading, and we can see when we look at the growing list of Amendments, that this business of local loyalties is an extremely powerful matter. The Government ought to use the time available to them to give rather more thought than has been given to date,

1147
I live in an urban district that was made up of a number of parishes some years ago. If one thing was felt very badly by the inhabitants, which feeling remained with them for a very long period of time, it was the loss of the old parish council. It has taken us, I suppose, the best part of forty years to achieve any sense of belonging to the urban district. We are now about to be amalgamated with the nearby non-county borough, and instead of the town hall being brought closer it will be more remote. Here we have an urban district which has been in existence some forty years and throughout it, so far as those interested in local government are concerned, there is a feeling that they are going to lose, and lose in a very big way. They are going to have no voice, whereas they have had a voice; and they regard the new council as very much the council of the non-county borough to which they ate to be attached.
If this idea of community councils is good enough for Wales, then, despite what has been said, I think it is good enough for England. It is not that anyone begrudges Wales anything. But if they are to have it, there is something good in it and we ought to have it. I cannot see that there is created any great problem that cannot be solved with good will. If the Government are going to succeed in securing co-operation in this drastic scheme of local government reorganisation, there is not too much they should do to secure it. I hope that before we leave this matter the noble Lord will be able to give an indication that the Government have not got a closed mind on improving the Bill in this direction.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am slightly perplexed because I find myself in agreement with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said; with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes said; with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, and with everything that my noble friend Lord Sandford has said on this subject. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and I have always had in common a passionate belief that if you cannot get loyalty in small groups at low levels then you get no loyalty of any kind whatever. So, I go wholly with what has been said on local
1148
loyalty. I am a little perplexed as to where the difference precisely lies. My noble friend I think said that he could not see that there was any difficulty because, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, suggested the name of "community council" for the equivalent of the parish council in towns, and the parishes in the rural areas would presumably have the name of "community council" too. So, while from the point of view of the towns I can see that "community council" may be in many cases a more appropriate title for the local body than a "parish council", of course, if it were applied to the parish councils, too, there would be no real distinction. As I understood my noble friend Lord Sandford to say, the precise form and title or name of the local council as applicable to towns of various sizes is a matter under consideration and a matter for discussion and further study. In the light of those studies some conclusions will be made. Might it not be that, at the end of the day, it would be clear that there was no difference whatever between the aims as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and those so clearly described by my noble friend Lord Sandford?
LORD RHODES: The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, expressed himself perplexed because we all seem to be agreeing with one another. I think that the reason for his being perplexed is that the Minister has not said enough. If the Minister would only say a little more on why, for instance, there are these difficulties about the continuation of an urban district council having as a continuation an urban district community council, we should be happier in our minds. We really are staking our claims this afternoon for local loyalties, and we just want a little more support from the Minister if he will give it to us.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I think I can do that very briefly. We expected that the smaller free-standing towns that had had urban district councils of their own would want to have some sort of successor authority. When the Bill was first presented the suggestion was that they should be called "parish councils". In the latest consultation paper to which I referred, we are considering giving them

1149
the option of using the term "town council" and I think that will appeal to them. But we were correct also in our assumption, our expectation, that although it would appeal to the smaller free-standing towns to have successor authorities, we have proved to be right in our assumption that the larger ones do not want this successor status. As we have a Boundary Commission about to be set up when the Bill is enacted, this is a matter that can be referred to the Commission to say whether these authorities should or should not have successor authorities if they apply for them. This is a matter of really minor detail or difference between us. I would rather not attempt to go further now because the consultations for which this paper was first produced in April, following the discussions on this point at Committee stage in another place, have now just about been completed and we shall be ready to put down an Amendment at this Committee stage when we come to the point in September. That will give us an opportunity to look at the matter again and to put firm Government proposals before the Committee. I think that would be much more satisfactory than going into it further now.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Would that be after a decision had been taken by the Boundary Commission?
LORD SANDFORD: No, not after a decision of the Boundary Commission but after consultations about the guidelines to be followed by the Boundary Commission in determining this question of successor status which itself will be taken only after local consultation with the local authorities concerned.
LORD POPPLEWELL: But will that decision be taken so that ultimately it will be embraced in the Bill before it becomes an Act? That is the point I wanted to clear up.
BARONESS WHITE: May I put a point to the Minister on the matter of nomenclature? One of the objects of the Bill is to eliminate, so far as may be, the differences between town and country. I appreciate that Wales is different from England, in the sense that with us the Church is disestablished; but, nevertheless, even looking at it in the English context, might there not be something to be said at least for allowing them, if
1150
they wish, to use the term, "community council"? "Town council" might not be entirely appropriate either. We had a great deal of discussion in Wales on this question, which is why I am stressing this point, and we came to the conclusion that on balance "community council" would suit all possible circumstances better than any other particular name. The only other point I should like to make before my noble friend finally replies to the Amendment is that there is a real danger of a lack of continuity. If one loses continuity it is a serious matter, and this seems to us to be something that one has to think about carefully. The Boundary Commission have a great deal to do, and if we leave it to them there will be a lapse of time, it would appear to us from the procedure suggested by the Minister. I wonder whether he could reassure us on that point.
LORD SANDFORD: It is certainly true that under the Bill as originally published there would have been a break in continuity, but because of the representations made about the importance of securing continuity the Bill has been amended to ensure that the 10,000 parishes in England will continue, through the general post of April 1, 1974, unchanged.
LORD CHAMPION: I am very grateful for the powerful support this Amendment has received in this Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, I think rightly, at the end said what is the difference now between us. The difference of name, which we regard as very important in this connection, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady White, still remains. We believe that the procedure we propose is better, in so far as it does not involve the Boundary Commission but permits local councils to opt for themselves. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said nothing about functions being granted to statutory bodies. I recognise what he said about voluntary bodies being set up and that some sort of power might be given to them; but this, of course, is not in the Bill. At the start of his speech he wrongly accused me by saying that I had not taken into account what went into the Bill on Report in the other place. But I devoted at least one-fifth of my speech to pointing to the difference in the Bill as it first saw the light of day and as it emerged

1151
from Report in the other place. On those grounds I think he was entirely wrong.
I cannot accept all these differences the noble Lord mentioned. I live in Wales, and have lived there now for 50-odd years; so I know something about Wales, I think. I still know something about the country I was born in and the county, Somerset, and I find it difficult to see all these differences the noble Lord talked about between the two countries. Differences are there; they are slight and not sufficient to justify the difference between England and Wales in this matter we are now discussing.
What worries me at this stage is that we have been told of so much that might appear before us eventually but we do not have it before us at the moment. The suggestion for having the term "town council", for instance, appears to me to be an excellent one, but it does not appear as an Amendment on the Marshalled List, I should have thought there has been ample time since Report stage in the other place to have solved this problem and dealt with it. Will the provision for non-statutory bodies about which the noble Lord spoke appear anywhere in the form of Amendments? This is something to which we shall have to pay considerable attention. My noble friend Lord Rhodes said the reason we are perplexed is that the Minister has not said enough. I must say that my difficulty is the fact that much of what the Minister said is neither in the Bill nor on the Marshalled List. This is my worry at this stage. But the Minister seemed to me to be so forthcoming, and I admit that there is not now a great deal between us. I do not propose to press this Amendment at this stage, but I shall carefully study what appears on the Marshalled List at a later stage, even in Committee, and then further on Report, and then decide our next step. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 4.
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("the") to end of line 17 and insert ("boundaries of which are determined by reference to those of
1152
existing boroughs and urban districts and also, in cases where the areas of such boroughs and urban districts are divided by or under this section between two or more new districts, by reference to the boundaries of the new districts.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which is still dealing with parishes, and would ask the Committee to be good enough to consider with it Amendments No. 72, 73, 74, 75A and 80 to 87 inclusive. There is not time within the present timetable to allow for the adjustments in boundaries or the division of districts where, for instance, an existing urban district comprises more than one settlement; there is not time to do that before April 1, 1974. The Bill as drafted therefore provides for the successor parishes to be coterminous with the present borough or urban district. This does not mean that it will not be possible for any adjustments to be made, but these will need to be made after April 1, 1974, under the permanent machinery being established under Part IV of the Bill. Meanwhile the essential point, which is to ensure continuity of local goernment identity in the small areas concerned as a whole, has been met.
But there does remain a special case in that a handful of small boroughs and urban districts have already been divided by the provisions in the Bill. For instance, in Yorkshire the urban district of Queens-bury and Shelf asked that the Queensbury part of the urban district should go into one new metropolitan district and the Shelf part into another. I am sure the Committee would agree that it would be unfair if areas of this kind were debarred from consideration for the establishment of successor parishes simply because they had been divided in the Bill. Moreover, the practical reason against ad hoc divisions in these cases at the present time does not apply by definition, because the borough or urban district has for one reason or another already been divided.
Similar considerations could arise on the establishment of the pattern of non-metropolitan districts by Order after Royal Assent. As I have reminded your Lordships, the district boundaries in England are not yet provided for in the Bill. The Amendments to which I am speaking therefore adapt the general provisions for successor parishes so as to cover also this handful of cases in which

1153
existing small boroughs and urban districts are being divided either in the Bill itself or under the Bill by virtue of an Order establishing non-metropolitan districts in England. As I say, this is a purely English problem—we are in an English section of the Bill—as the provisions for establishing new communities in Wales are of an entirely different kind, and we have got much further with them. I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for explaining to us what these Amendments actually amount to. I must admit, having given them some consideration, that it appeared to me that they were an improvement on the Amendment that was in fact moved on Report stage in the other place. As such, and because we have got a great deal of business before us, I do not propose to say another word except that I welcome the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. We need not spend any time on this Amendment because it is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("including one") and insert ("and the corporation of a borough included").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Counties and metropolitan districts in England]:
5.10 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 208, column 2, leave out lines 39 to 45
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. May I at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 56. This provides for minor adjustment of the boundary between the new metropolitan districts centred on Bury and Rochdale which were set up by a Back-Bench Amendment at Report stage in the Commons. The present borough of Heywood lies between the county borough of Rochdale and the county borough of Bury. In any split of the district it is clearly appropriate for Heywood as a whole to go with Rochdale.
But the Westernmost fringes of the borough abut on to Bury county borough and clearly have some links with it. In these circumstances, the Government accepted the proposed Amendment which divided off a small part of the Western fringe of Heywood borough containing a population of a few hundred people only. However, this was strongly resisted locally and an officer of the department had a meeting with the local authorities concerned, made an inspection on the spot and, following his report, the Government consider that the case for moving these fringe areas into the Bury district is not sufficient to justify dividing the area of the present borough of Heywood. These three Amendments therefore provide for the whole of Heywood, including the Western fringes to be in the district centred on Rochdale. I beg to move.
5.12 p.m.
LORD HALE LORD HALE moved Amendment No.7:
Page 208, leave out line 52.
The noble Lord said: I feel it is understood that the Amendment, which I now beg to move, is really part and parcel of Amendment No. 10. I apologise to the noble Lord for not having replied to the letter which I received this morning, by the second post, just as I was leaving home, and to which I attempted to reply immediately, but through the courtesy of my noble friend Lord Champion I found that he had already come to exactly the same conclusion and there was no difficulty about it. The situation, as I understand, is that if my Amendment No. 7 is carried it follows that Amendment No. 10 must be accepted, and if it is not carried then Amendment No. 10 need not be moved. I think it convenient to consider the two together, because there is some confusion about twelve (f)s and twelve (g)s, and so on, and therefore I propose to put the point as clearly as I can in terms of the towns concerned.
District (d), to which my Amendment relates, is one of the districts of the metropolitan county of Manchester. It was arranged, it was part of the whole plan laid down, part of the whole discussions that one of these should be centred on Oldham and that one of the others (there are nine divisions) should be centred on the neighbouring town of

1155
Rochdale. I want to make only one other point clear: I speak for nobody on this matter. I am told by my noble friend that he has received a letter from someone in Middleton saying that I have no right to speak for Middleton. Of course I have no right to speak for Middleton. I have no right to speak for Oldham, but I know little about Middleton, and I do not know a great deal about Lancashire. I have never lived in Lancashire. I was for 25 years a member of the Leicestershire County Council and I resigned from that over 20 years ago. But I was associated with Oldham as a member, and I am now a citizen of Oldham by reason of the fact that a Conservative-dominated council of Oldham made me a Freeman of the Borough. My only predecessor as Member of Parliament for Oldham was Sir Winston Churchill. Oldham has much that can be said for it and I propose to say just a few words about it.
I do this without any brief. Indeed, I rushed to put down Questions the moment I saw this proposal, because I realised what it meant to Oldham and because I wanted to know just what had happened that quite suddenly resulted in a complete alteration of plan after years of discussion. I am not proposing any alteration to the Bill as originally drawn, I am proposing a restoration word for word to the Bill as it was drawn, as it was negotiated, as it passed Second Reading in another place, as it passed through unlimited Committee in another place until before a very small House (noble Lords will find this reported in the first of the two Hansards for July 6: it is also a remarkable fact there should be two on one day, which indicates the lengths to which the discussions did ultimately go) this was considered with 17 other Amendments. Eighteen Amendments, all of them geographical Amendments, were considered concurrently. Quite suddenly the Minister announced that he had altered the whole of his plans and that he was creating a completely new borough: that instead of being two, one centred on Oldham and one centred on Rochdale, there would be three, one centred on Oldham, one centred on Rochdale and one centred on Bury, none of them viable by the Minister's own standards as laid down in the White Paper—and this on the Motion of the
1156
honourable Member for Bury, who happened to belong to the Conservative Party.
The problem of Oldham is quite simply stated in the figures—and may I say that I refused to see the officials of Oldham on a matter like this because if I did it would be necessary for me to see the officials of Middleton as well. I have tried to keep my independence in the matter. I do not disguise the fact that I am heavily biased in favour of Oldham. Indeed, I hold the view that anyone who knows the town as I do would feel the same. I had hoped to call in my aid the brilliant pen of the biographer of Talleyrand, who was Member for Oldham long before me. Being rather tired from some researches into the French historians' account of Magna Charta, when they recalled that it was repealed by Pope Innocent immediately it was made and that he excommunicated the French who threatened to support the Barons, I could not this morning find my copy of that lovely book to see what Duff Cooper, the noble Viscount. Lord Norwich, said about Oldham and its people, and I must therefore ask noble Lords to re-read it.
The problem is that Oldham is three miles square; its actual area in acres is just under 10 square miles—not ten miles square, ten square miles. It had a population of 10,000 in 1900. I suppose the only really prosperous time that Oldham has ever had was in 1960. It has never been a rich town; it has always been a low wage area, even with highly skilled labour and great firms. I am not making any criticism of this. It is acknowledged now that Manchester is a low wage area and this is one of the matters which is now being discussed. We have great firms in Oldham. We had great industrial relations. We never had strikes we have a religious population divided almost equally between Catholic and Non-Conformists and Church of England. We have never had religious intolerance in Oldham. We have one of the best newspapers centred on Oldham, certainly one of the most independent that I know. We had a population living in decency, and in 1960 160,000 people were concentrated in those ten square miles. What has happened since, as I said in a previous intervention in debate, is that the young men have gone South, and the old people

1157
have said: "We cannot move; all our ties are here, all our intimate relations are here". It is not easy for anyone, it is not easy for me, to picture what it is like to live in one of these overcrowded conurbations which used to have, when I first went there, back-to-back houses. But even when we managed to erect housing estates—and, first of all, we had to acquire the land, build the roads and open up new areas—it was difficult to persuade people to leave those back streets and their friends and their ties. It might be the local chapel, it might be the local pub, it might be the local allotment.
I have a group of friends, and I know of no town which has quite so much in the way of social service. I will not refer those who think that these areas are backward areas to the ebullient youngsters whom we are producing today, who are making their name in every direction, but Oldham can boast of its children. There is Sir William Walton in music; James Fitton, who I think is almost the senior Royal Academician to-day and an intimate and close friend of mine; and Eva Turner, the best-loved figure in modern opera, perhaps one of the most distinguished stars of her day. So we have a civilisation in Oldham. I apologise for my purely physical defect which results from a motor accident. It is not to be taken too seriously; I just cannot help it. I am almost happy to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor occasionally suffers from hay fever—though I hope he is cured very rapidly, and I would not wish him harm—because it makes the defect almost respectable.
The proposal was that Oldham should become the centre of one area, should take in Chadderton, a great urban district which came into my constituency in 1950, and should take in the historic borough of Middleton. Middleton is about 5,000 acres. Those two, and Rochdale, too, are all very ancient townships. Middleton is a historic borough associated very intimately and closely with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, whose name in the House of Commons—Assheton—is shown in Ashton-under-Lyne. It was from Middleton that Richard Assheton led the bowmen of England to weed awhile the flowers of the forest on Flodden Field and took a
1158
determined part in that battle. It was an Assheton who was the principal founder of the Oldham Bluecoats School. I think it was an Assheton who was the Black Knight of Ashton-under-Lyne. The word "black" in the title Black Knight incorporates the noble Lord's criticism of the Black Prince, and for the same reason.
I would refer your Lordships to the pages of the debate on Report stage in the House of Commons which deal with this subject. There was an interesting and rather surprising little discussion yesterday, when it was said that it is a rule of this House not to suggest or impute motives. Here I find myself in a difficulty. I do not know precisely what the line is. I had thought that if you said a man was not Labour it was regarded in the Labour Party as a criticism. In fact, if some of us said that a man was not a Socialist that was regarded as a criticism. I should not have thought it was a criticism of the Tory Party to say that a man was a Tory, although I could understand that at this moment he might be a little sensitive if the reference was made too constantly.
But it was actually upon the Amendment of the Tory Member for Bury, with the support of the Tory Member for Middleton, that this surprising proposal was accepted in very surprising circumstances indeed. The discussions had gone on for years. All the assembled urban councils and boroughs concerned—such as Failsworth, Crompton and so on—had drawn up proportionate payments, estimates of rateable value per head, estimates of contributions to form the new organisation. It was all done and the change was not our child. Let us be fair about this. Of course Middleton does not want to go with Oldham. Middleton does not want to go with Rochdale. Middleton has much more connection with Manchester, because in any radial centre all transport goes to the centre. But it had been agreed, it was settled and then something happened; and without being able to impute motives it is almost impossible for me to provide a solution. Under the rules of your Lordships' House I cannot refer to the previous debate on the 18 Amendments which took place on the afternoon of

1159
Friday, July 6. But, as I understand it, I can quote the Minister's reply.
I know the Minister. I knew him in the House—I have not seen him for years—as a fellow solicitor. I knew him as one of the most industrious Members of the House, as a man of high integrity, of great activity, as a man who is likely to defy Newton's law and rise by his gravity, and who has undoubtedly performed a stupendous labour in fathering this immense scheme and in piloting it through in the face of all sorts and sizes of local criticisms, and all sorts and sizes of complaints from the parish pump. But what he said on that day is really quite surprising. He was accepting a Tory Back Bencher's Amendment on Report stage, to take out of the new conurbation the ancient borough of Middleton of about 5,000 acres, half the population of Oldham, a very large proportion of the proposed conurbation, and of course a very substantial rateable value—the second highest rateable value there. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with figures. Perhaps I have already tired your Lordships in taking so long over a cause which is certainly very near to my heart.
But the Minister said:
"I should like to deal first with the rearrangements of the metropolitan districts within the metropolitan county. We have had the case of the Bury and Rochdale division. Originally, as in the Bill, the Government chose to put Bury and Rochdale together. That was discussed very fully by all the local authorities concerned at a meeting which the then Under-Secretary held last July. We might have thought from to-day's debate that it was entirely a new idea sprung on local authorities only yesterday. In fact, it has been the subject of debate in the area for a very long time. The whole of the meeting last July was taken up with the debate on whether Bury and Rochdale should be separate, or should be combined. …."
and they came to the conclusion that the plan should stand after all these discussions. Then, after an intervention, the Minister said:
"I hesitated about the matter in Committee, because it was a new proposition put to me, and I thought we had got it right in the Bill."
It is very difficult to reconcile the new proposition put to him—and, after all, the reply was so brief as to be almost contemptuous—with something which he
1160
had just been saying they had been discussing for two years. He went on:
"But I have since studied it carefully with my colleagues in the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security, and we think they will make good separate local government areas with sufficient population in each. They are different communities, and we are giving them what they want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 6/7/72 Cols. 824–5.]
Then he went on to mention Heywood, which I think is the subject of the next Amendment and which is no concern of this area. It is not easy to explain that, and it is certainly not easy in terms of not being allowed to impute motives. It is not my practice to impute motives, and it never has been; but I think that perhaps it is in order to say that if a casual American visitor had been sitting in the Gallery observing the proceedings in another place he might have misled himself, by the brevity of the utterance and by the, rather casualness of the approach, into thinking that he was witnessing something which looked to his untutored mind very much like political skulduggery; and if he had said this to me later, I would find it very difficult to disabuse him completely of these suspicions.
I am moving this Amendment to call attention to something which breaches the principles of the Bill; which creates authorities not viable by the Minister's standards; which does not even settle the question whether Middleton people should still go to Oldham hospitals—and many Middleton people work in Oldham and many Oldham people work in Middleton—and which relies for its support on two propositions. The first is that we had all-Party support, because we got the support of the former Member for Rochdale. Unfortunately, the former Member for Rochdale was seriously ill at the time, but if I had been the Member for Rochdale of course I would have been advocating Rochdale's case. Every constituency Member knows how much of the "parish pump" there is in his activities, and how much there must be. Indeed, it is the whole point of the democratic system that the Member for Oldham should express the views of his own people. The Member for Rochdale died two or three days later, and there is a by-election pending in Rochdale; and, of course, one can understand that the

1161
question of the enlargement of the Rochdale division and the transfer of Middleton to Rochdale could be a very powerful and very potent argument with the electors.
But I have tried to put the case fairly, and as it is now clear that this Bill has got to go back to another place, because the Minister himself has already carried Amendments and has tabled many more; as the first intimation of this decision appeared in a well-informed note in the Guardian on the Tuesday, that there was then a brief discussion at a meeting hurriedly called on the Wednesday and then the acceptance of a Back-Bencher's Amendment at a moment's notice on the Friday afternoon, I ask your Lordships to say that the proper course is to accept these Amendments and to send the Bill hack to another place as it started. Then, if they want to re-discuss it, let them re-discuss it there. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Hale, has read from Hansard of another place the events leading up to the decision to treat Bury and Rochdale as two separate metropolitan districts instead of one, and I do not want to add anything to what my right honourable friend Mr. Page said on that occasion. It is in fact the results of discussions in the previous July which had been undertaken by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary at that time, and the wishes of the authorities as gleaned on that occasion are now reflected in the Bill as amended. So we have to deal with the question, having taken the decision to have three metropolitan districts—Bury, Rochdale and Oldham—which of those it would be the more appropriate for Middleton to join, because it is possible and practical to consider as belonging to any one of those three.
Now the facts are that of the three authorities Oldham is the greater in terms of population, with 224,000—the others are considerably less. The Middleton Borough Council have expressed a clear wish to join Rochdale, which certainly could do with an addition to their population because they would otherwise be as low as 140,000, which is considerably below the ideal figure for a metropolitan district. So we have the fact that the Middleton Borough Council have expressed a clear wish to be in Rochdale;
1162
and Rochdale is an authority which, without the addition of Middleton, would be seriously on the low side—148,000—but which, with the addition of Middleton, would be 202,000, whereas Oldham is already 224,000.
LORD HALE: I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him. I am certain he does not wish to mislead the Committee, but I honestly feel that he is in danger of doing that. I know how he puts it, but if you look at the proposals as they were you will see, of course, that there was not any Bury district, and you then had the position that district No. (c) was Rochdale, I think, and district No. (c) had a population of 331,000 as against then Oldham's 277,000. Each had a rateable value of just about £9 million, in each a penny rate would produce £86,000 to £88,000, and the balance had been perfectly fairly held. It is only when you create your new borough on the spur of the moment, and say, "We have got to try to make it into two new ones that the trouble arises. Indeed, one of the arguments put forward was," They add up to 400,000, and if we divide them mathematically by two they come to 200,000 each "—both of them non-viable, both below the limit. Surely, the material figures for the noble Lord to put forward are the figures before the Minister had this voile-face.
LORD SANDFORD: I do not think I would agree with the noble Lord for the reasons that I made clear at the beginning and which my right honourable friend made clear in another place. It is not accurate to say that there has been a volte-face. There were discussions a full year before this matter was discussed in another place, over which my honourable friend the Under-Secretary presided, as a result of which the decision was taken to treat this area not as two but as three metropolitan districts. That is the situation we are dealing with, whatever the situation may have been previously. If Bury and Rochdale had been one district there would be no case whatever for moving Middleton to join what would then be certainly a far larger and more resourceful area than Oldham. But the situation we are dealing with now is a situation in which there are three metropolitan districts, of which Oldham is the most populous and in relation to which Rochdale, if it were not joined by

1163
Middleton, would be very weak in resources and population; and it is for that reason that the decision was taken that Middleton should join Rochdale. But that decision, which can be taken on a consideration of population, rateable value, resources and so on, is reinforced by the fact that the Middleton Borough Council themselves want to join Rochdale. In view of those circumstances, I am quite sure that the decision taken in another place is the correct one and that it would be right for the Committee to resist this Amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Hale, feels he must press it.
5.40 p.m.
LORD RHODES: The noble Lord, Lord Hale, need not apologise for his emotion when he is referring to the town that he so well represented for so long. His name stands as high as any in Oldham, and there is no doubt about the fact that the work he did for them will be remembered as long as Oldham is a district. He partially made the case for Saddleworth, which is what I was talking about last week. I do not want to labour that case at all to-day. A referendum is taking place to-morrow and depending upon the result of that I hope to return to the matter at Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, said that originally the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations put Middleton in and Saddleworth out; now it is Saddleworth in and Middleton out. But there is no question that, despite all the talk there has been about boundaries and the grouping together of areas and townships and so on, in all England there is no district which has been as hammered by misfortune as Oldham. Two large industries declining in the space of 35 years is enough to put any district on its back. When Lord Hale is pleading the cause of Oldham he is pleading the cause of people who have been under considerable strain, of people whose houses need renewing, of people in an area where vast numbers of the population have shifted from one place to another. They need all the sympathy and help they can get from anywhere. I propose leaving the matter there. I will support Lord Hale in the Lobby if he brings the matter to a Division, in the hope that he will support me.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD RHODES: Well, it is natural. Of course it is. We are parish pumping, and proud of it. In the hope that he will support me when the time comes I will give him my vote in a few minutes' time.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I have listened carefully to what has been said. At the present moment, in area Rochdale is clearly smaller than Oldham. To remove Middleton from Rochdale to Oldham would leave Rochdale in far too small a state. Therefore, having looked carefully at the plan and having listened to everything Lord Hale has said, I do not feel that he has a case. At the last moment, when he interrupted my noble friend the Minister, he brought in Bury; but again I feel that if anything were to be done by removing Middleton into the area of Oldham you would probably then have to take elaborate steps to make Bury take over the rest of Rochdale. I do not think that this is feasible. I have looked at the map and considered the position. I have no axe to grind and I feel that Lord Sandford gave an excellent description of the position. I do not think that we should accept this Amendment.
LORD RHODES: May I ask what sort of speech that was? Was this a Back-Bench speech inspired by the Front Bench? May I ask what Lord Balfour knows about the district? Has he ever been there? Has he ever lived there? What is the point of making a speech like that?
LORD HALE: As a matter of courtesy, I must say to the noble Earl who spoke last on the Benches opposite that of course I accept that if you take Middleton out of Rochdale now and do not restore the position to what it was before the Report stage in the other place there will be chaos. The whole point of this Amendment and the next Amendment is to restore the position. It does not go as far as that, because in fact the new borough of Bury is not my pigeon. I know nothing about it. My knowledge of some of these small Lancashire towns consists merely of arriving at a half-filled or quarter-filled Labour hall and hearing the secretary say, "We had six times as many turn up when Bessie was here." Then he would say to me, "You take the 8.10 bus and change at Oswaldthistle and

1165
you get to Manchester Station by about 10". Then after about two hours the train would leave for London. That is all I know about some of these places. But I have suggested that we restore the admirable plan of the Minister for these boroughs, the plan as it was put in the Second Reading debate and throughout the long Committee stage in the House
of Commons. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friends will support this Amendment in the Lobby.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 119.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Serota, Bs.

Balogh, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Milner of Leeds. L.

Watkins, L.

Faringdon, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell. L.

Fiske, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wright of Ashton underLyne, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Lovat, L.

Abinger, L.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Elles, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Middleton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Amory, V.

Essex, E.

Monck, V.

Avebury, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Gage, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gainford, L.

Moyne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Bourne, L.

Gloucester, L. Bp.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V

Goschen, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Brentford, V.

Greenway, L.

Reay, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rennell, L

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ridley, V.

Burnham, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Camoys, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Hayter, L.

Sandford, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hemingford, L.

Sandys, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Henley, L.

Seear, Bs.

Colvillie of Culross, V.

Hereford. L. Bp.

Selborne, E.

Colyton, L.

Hodson, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stamp, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hurcomb, L.

Thomas, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Thorneycroft, L.

Croft, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Killearn, L.

Wade, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Latymer, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Digby, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Limerick, E.

Wigram, L.

Dulverton, L.

Long, V.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Loudoun, C.

Young, Bs.

Ebbisham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD SANDFORD: I must apologise to the Committee. When we were considering Amendment No. 6 I should have suggested that we also consider Amendment No. 8, which is linked with it and concerned with the same thing. So also is Amendment No. 56. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 208, line 52, column 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 209 and insert ("the boroughs of Heywood and Middleton ').—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 209, line 6, leave out ("and Wardle") and insert ("Wardle and Whitworth").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the Urban District Council of Whitworth, geographically situated to the North of Rochdale and, geographically again, it is very much like the wedge of a pie chart where the segment shoots right into Rochdale. It is as much a part geographically of Rochdale as Rochdale itself, and it has, of course, a common boundary. There was, and has been, a good deal of confusion about where Whitworth should be placed. Originally it was proposed that Whitworth should be part of the Rochdale and Bury Council. This, of course, has now been changed because they have been split and Rochdale and Bury are separate. At this point, when the decision had been made by the Minister that Whitworth should be part of Rochdale, a petition was organised in the Whitworth area asking that Whitworth should go with Greater Manchester. There were about 2,000 signatures to the petition.
The urban district council issued about 250 copies of a window bill. It was a most misleading bill—this is one of the points that I want to put to the Committee—because Rochdale was never mentioned on the bill at all. The whole point of the window bill was to persuade people that if they voted they had to vote either for Rossendale Valley or Manchester. I cannot think of anything more calculated to deceive people who were trying to make up their minds. Had the council said that it was a matter either of Manchester or Preston, that is, the top tier in either segment, that would have
1168
been one thing; or had they compared Rossendale with Rochdale that would have been another. They would then have been linking like with like. But to say for instance:
"Our complaints will be shelved in a central office a long way away"
implies that if Whitworth went in with Rossendale Valley their complaints would not be shelved in Preston a long way away.
There was a good deal of confusion. I am convinced that this publicity deceived not only the Minister but also the local Member of Parliament who at one time went to persuade the Minister to change his mind and to put Whitworth in the Rossendale Valley. It seems quite clear that the Minister gave a good deal of attention to where Whitworth should go, because in a letter to the clerk of Whitworth Urban District Council he wrote:
"I recollect that Whitworth Urban District Council made representations to us last summer about our proposal that they should form part of the Greater Manchester metropolitan county. We considered these representations very carefully and in fact when I visited the area in the summer I looked at Whitworth, both on the ground and from the air, and met the representatives of the urban district council to hear what they had to say at first hand. I am afraid that our conclusion at the end of these consultations was very clearly that Whitworth belongs with the Rochdale county borough and the metropolitan county rather than with the new Lancashire of the North".
That letter was from Mr. Michael Heseltine when he was Minister in charge of these affairs.
One may think that that is clear enough. The Minister made up his mind. Having popped all over the area, not only on foot but in a helicopter and given the matter very serious consideration, he reached the clear conclusion that Whitworth should be part of Rochdale. I think the Minister was right. There does not appear to me to be any strong reason for changing his mind. But change it he did. He may have done so because he believed that a petition of 2,000 out of an electoral roll of something like 5,000 indicated the wishes of the inhabitants of Whitworth. That would not be an unworthy motive. But a second petition was organised. I have never in my life come across a more confusing situation; no wonder the Minister is confused about it all. The second petition realised 3,000

1169
signatures in favour of going into Rochdale, whereas the previous one had 2,000 signatures in favour of going into Rossendale. So within the space of a week those inhabitants of Whitworth who want to stay with Rochdale have got more than 60 per cent. of the electorate, and that figure is growing day by day. It is rather important to note that this petition was supported by the vicar of Whitworth, the Roman Catholic parish priest and the Methodist ministers, who in many ways represent a fair cross-section of opinion.
I may be asked what my interest in the matter is. It is that I lived in Whitworth for eight years. I knew the area very well, and still do. I know its affinity with Rochdale. And I was asked, as one who knew something about Whitworth, whether I would try to persuade the Minister that he was right first time and that he ought not to have been swindled by a misleading leaflet to change his mind. I can see the Minister's reason for deciding that Whitworth ought to go with Rochdale. Paragraph 8 of the White Paper dealing with local authorities, which I am sure most noble Lords have seen, says:
"Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition."
Only Rochdale could satisfy those needs. Rochdale, with Whitworth as part of it, would completely satisfy the requirements of paragraph 8 of the White Paper) whereas, with the wildest stretch of the imagination, Rossendale never could; it is too far away. Indeed few people have heard of it. They know vaguely that it is a place some miles away. When people who live in Whitworth say that they are going to town, they mean that they are going to Rochdale.
Everything about Whitworth is associated with Rochdale. People go the other way only when they are going home, as I used to do when I went to Yearby, in Yorkshire, where I once lived. I hope I do not offend any Whitworth people, but I must say that one is likely to find people going there only when they have nowhere else to go.
I am informed that some 90 per cent. of the people who work other than in Whitworth work in the greater Rochdale
1170
area. That is one of the employment links about which we read in paragraph 8 of the White Paper. Rochdale is a shopping centre for Whitworth. As its population indicates, Whitworth is a small place. If one were to see the long queues for evening buses going to Rochdale, and those in Rochdale for buses going to Whitworth, one would realise the affinity between the two areas.
The cinemas are in Rochdale, and everybody from Whitworth who goes to the cinema goes to Rochdale. People would not dream of going to Rossendale; indeed, I am not sure whether it has a cinema. Certainly there are cinemas in Rochdale. There are also light opera, repertory and, of course, both codes of professional football. Rochdale Hornets is not a bad team, although Rochdale soccer team is not particularly good. People generally go to watch Manchester United, which shows their good sense. Whitworth people patronise events in Rochdale because it is on their doorstep; it is not miles away, as the Rossendale Valley is. People pop along to Rochdale regularly to take advantage of the amenities provided there. Most social services enjoyed by the Whitworth inhabitants are administered from Rochdale: moral welfare, family planning, the Blind Welfare Association and most of a host of others. We need not consider the gas, water and electricity services, all of which come from Rochdale. All three post offices are sub-post offices of the Rochdale area, and of course all the local news is contained in the Rochdale Observer which circulates very freely in Whitworth.
For all these reasons one can understand quite clearly why the Minister decided after his helicopter tour that Whitworth was quite clearly—his words—a natural part of Rochdale. I am not suggesting, in mentioning these things, that in the event of Whitworth's going in with Rossendale no gas, electricity or water should be supplied by Rochdale. The point is that paragraph 8 of the White Paper would be satisfied. How on earth could it be satisfied by going in the other direction? There are other matters worthy of note. One of these is that the interests of Whitworth and Rochdale coincide. I will not weary the House by reading out a whole host of organisations

1171
whose titles include the words, "Rochdale and District", which term embraces Whitworth. For example there are the Rochdale and District Employment Committee, the Rochdale and District Hospital Management Committee, the Rochdale and District Chamber of Trade, the Rochdale and District Chamber of Commerce, all of which embrace Whitworth and the Whitworth associations, whereas none of them is mentioned, thought about or considered in so far as Rossendale is concerned. I have here a list, with which I will not weary your Lordships dealing with Rochdale and district. I notice on it the Rochdale and District Wine-makers' Circle, but I do not suppose that is of any importance. Ninety per cent. of the branches of the trade unions are centred on Rochdale.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to give you the views of the Rochdale County Borough on this matter. They say:
"It is also possible that a further Amendment may be moved to bring Whitworth back into the metropolitan district C.C."—
that is. Rochdale.
"The Rochdale Council feel that this is a matter to be decided primarily according to the wishes of the inhabitants of Whitworth, but they would certainly raise no objection to such an Amendment, since in their view there is a greater community of interest between Whitworth and the Rochdale area than between Whitworth and the Rossendale area of Lancashire."
There is no doubt about this in my mind, and I have lived in the area for eight or nine years. I know what happens there, and I know the close affinity with Rochdale.
What the Amendment seeks to do is to endorse the Minister's original decision on this matter. It does not change anything. We are saying: " You did a good job when you reached your original decision; but why on earth you should be persuaded by 2,000 signatures to change your mind and suggest that Whitworth should go into Rossendale defeats the imagination. "The reply of course is:" You may have 2,000, but we have 3,000 ". So if you are trying to assess the wishes of the people of Whitworth there you have more than 60 per cent.—and it may be 70 per cent. now; I do not know how many more signatures they have obtained in the last few days. What we
1172
are saving to the Minister is: "You were right the first time, and we regret that, largely on the basis of misleading publicity, you sought to meet what you thought to be the wishes of the Whitworth residents—and if this be so, of course it is not an unworthy motive. But now that it has become clear that this is not the case, then the Amendment asks that you revert to your original decision and leave Whitworth with Rochdale, of which socially and traditionally it has always been part."
The Amendment is not aimed at the Government, and it is not aimed at the Minister. It is aimed at those who, for whatever motives, tried to persuade the Minister and apparently succeeded, that he was wrong the first time and ought to have second thoughts. The Minister is apparently having second thoughts. Now—how confusing for the poor fellow!- -it has been demonstrated that he is wrong again. What this Amendment seeks is that the Minister's original decision should stand. The inhabitants of Whitworth clearly, through the latest poll, want to stay with Rochdale and there seems to be no reason (it may be that the Minister can find one, but I cannot) why, if the choice is there, it should not be Rochdale rather than the Rossendale Valley. I beg to move.
LORD RHODES: I wish to support this Amendment. I would say to the 129 supporters of the Government who so loyally padded their way through the other Lobby against the last Amendment: "This is a winner! This is an absolute natural'". The reason for it is this. I know the place very well. When I was Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire I used to go out through Whitworth many times. In any case, I once fought an Election in Whitworth, and two notable things happened which have imprinted themselves on my mind for years and years, and probably will always be there. The first was that I arrived at Whitworth one night ostensibly to address a Labour meeting, and nobody knew until afterwards that I had been addressing one organised by the Liberal Party. The other thing—it is obvious how inexperienced I must have been at the time—was that I accosted a Whitworth resident (it could not have been the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne, because even with the passage of years he would have been

1173
considerably older) and told him all about what the Labour Party stood for and implored him to vote for me at the Election. After I had been doing this for about seven minutes, he put his head up and loked at me and said: "A'm voting Labour, it doesn't matter what tha' says."
When I said that Whitworth was a "natural to go with Rochdale, I meant it, because it is one of the Rochdale watersheds. The little river which runs through the village goes into the Roch. The road which runs past the end of the valley over into Yorkshire is about the only main road that they have. It is in effect a cul-de-sac. To make a journey into Rossendale means a real effort. In fact, the number of buses going over into the Rossendale Valley are very few and far between. The industries in Whitworth are similar to those in Rochdale: the thinking of the people; the way in which they live; the papers they read; the social conditions they have are all Rochdale-way. And I can tell the Minister something else. I do not think Lancashire wants them—not because they are not nice, not because they are not good citizens, but because it is over the hill, it is another wedge, as the noble Lord explained so eloquently, which goes down to the Valley of Rochdale. If the Minister can stand at that Box and defend Whitworth's going into Lancashire, I shall believe anything of him.
6.19 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to both noble Lords for that spirited argument for moving Whitworth into the Greater Manchester conurbation. My right honourable friend will also be grateful for the noble Lord's compliments about his judgment. But the fact is that we appear to have here something of a marginal case. We have had two lots of petitions, one for moving Whitworth into Greater Manchester and another for moving Whitworth into Lancashire. I think that the case on geography is also finely balanced. This urban district stretches like a spoke out of Greater Manchester. It is not, geographically speaking, an integral part of the conurbation; and it certainly has strong links, as the noble Lord has said, with Greater Manchester. Equally it has affinities, which he apparently has underestimated—if I understand aright the intervention
1174
of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes—with Rossendale. They are not so strong.
LORD RHODES: No; I was quite explicit about that. I said that it was difficult to get into Rossendale and that the natural desire at weekends is for people to go down into Rochdale. The noble Lord is quite wrong.
LORD SANDFORD: I was referring to the cinema, on which point the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, had to correct the noble Lord, Lord Wright, as to the attractions of Rossendale towards Whitworth.
LORD RHODES: Nonsense. Oh, no!
BARONESS BACON: I wonder whether we are not getting confused between Rochdale and Rossendale. There are two places.
LORD SANDFORD: If they were one and the same we should have no trouble at all. The position is fairly finely balanced, but the decisive factor, from the point of view of my right honourable friend—and it still pertains—is that the Urban District Council of Whitworth want to be regarded as belonging to Lancashire, and this, to our mind, in a fairly evenly balanced case, is decisive. But that is not to say that this issue, which as I say is fairly finely balanced, cannot and ought not to be looked at again by the Boundary Commission after April 1, 1974, to see whether in fact we have got it right and to test opinion on the spot, which is clearly divided.
We have these two Petitions but, as will become quite clear as we go through this Bill, I have to judge these Petitions with very great care and take every view that is expressed, whether by means of referendum or Petition, with a very large grain of salt. I said that the issue is quite evenly balanced and my right honourable friend, having at first taken one point of view, has now taken another. The decisive fact of the matter is that the formal and official view of the Urban District Council is in line with the Bill as it stands. I hope, bearing that in mind, that the Committee will agree, if the noble Lord. Lord Wright, feels disposed to press this Amendment, that the right thing to do, in view of the state of the Bill in its passage through Parliament and the fact that there are only 18 months to wait before the Boundary Commission

1175
can take a careful look at this issue and assess opinion locally, is not to accept the Amendment. The whole matter can be looked at in quite a short time by the Boundary Commission which has been specifically set up to consider problems such as this.
LORD RHODES: I do not think we ought to leave the matter like this. It seems to me that the Minister has looked at a map without any contour lines on it. Oh, yes! This is a Whitehall "look at a map": this, I can see, is a classic case. If the Ordnance Survey would supply the Ministry with a map with contours on it, it would be seen at once that the steep sides of this valley and the steep valley leading down to the valley which joins Rochdale is the natural place for Whitworth to be: that is, in the Rochdale district. I think that the noble Lord. Lord Wright, while perhaps not pressing this Amendment to a Division now, would expect something a little more forthcoming before the Bill passes through your Lordships' House.
LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE: Yes, I was just about to say something like that when the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes said it for me. There seems to be nothing to be lost, so far as I am concerned by pressing this Amendment, and I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, does not appear to have made a very strong case. He seems to be as ambivalent as the Minister in dealing with the situation. I agree that it is rather marginal, and bearing in mind the sort of leaflets that were distributed, which gave such a misleading idea of what was happening, to have got 2,000 signatures out of a total electorate of 5,000 does not seem very good. But when it later became clear what was meant and that the question was Rochdale or Rossendale "and not " Manchester or Rossendale" then the change occurred. That is when the people of Whitworth
then gave 3,000 signatures on the basis of staying with Rochdale.
I mentioned earlier that the probability is that that number will be greatly exceeded. We had a situation where 60 per cent. of the electoral role preferred to remain with Rochdale. That is not too finely balanced. Whether I am permitted to disclose this or not I do not know—if I am not, somebody will tell me—but on the Whitworth Council there were four votes to five in favour of going into Rossendale. I agree it was purely on a political basis—the five Conservatives wanted to go into Rossendale and the four Socialists wanted to go into Rochdale—so you can draw your own conclusions from that and I will not make any political imputations whatever. But I think that for 60 per cent. of the people to want to go into Rochdale is substantial. I repeat that the proportion is probably greater than that now. It seems to me that all the affinities Whitworth has are with Rochdale—for instance, if you get into trouble with the police you will be tried in Rochdale and the magistrates sit in Rochdale. There is nothing you can think of, so far as Whitworth is concerned, that has not got an affinity with Rochdale. Whilst the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has pointed out that the Boundary Commission could look at this question in 1974, it seems to me that I should be letting down the 60 per cent. of Whitworth people if I did not say that I am afraid, we shall have to divide on this. I only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will say to the Committee that this is a matter which is so finely balanced that he would advise the Committee to make up their own minds as to what they ought to do.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Fiske, L.

Jacques, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Janner, L.

Balogh, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blyton, L.

Gloucester, L.Bp.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Chorley, L.

Hale, L.

Maelor, L.

Croft, L.

Henderson, L.

Moyne, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Peddie, L.

Diamond, L.

Hoy, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hylton, L.

Popplewell, L.

Raglan, L.

Slater, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rhodes, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Wade, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Watkins, L.

Seear, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Tanlaw, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Shinwell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn. L.

Lothian, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Dulverton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Albemarle, E.

Dundee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles, V.

Luke, L.

Amory, V.

Elles, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mersey, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Bourne, L.

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brentford. V.

Garner, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ridley, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

St. Just, L.

Camoys, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandys, L.

Chelmer, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Selsdon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Headfort, M.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Stamp, L.

Colyton, L.

Hodson, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Swansea, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Trefgarne, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Davidson, V.

Latymer, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wigram, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Limerick, E.

Wolverton, L.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Young, Bs.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

6.36 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved Amendment No. 10A:
Page 209, line 39, leave out ("and Wilmslow").
The noble Lord said: I have pleasure in moving the Amendment that stands in my name on the Marshalled List. I do not intend to take up much of the Committee's time. The arguments here are pretty clear, and I am quite sure that this is not going to be something which will arouse any geographical confusion. Wilmslow is a place which is well known to many persons. It is an urban district council in Cheshire with a population of about 20,000. It is integrated with a smaller community, which is adjacent to it, called Alderley Edge. Under the existing proposals Wilmslow will go into the Greater Manchester County Council, and
Alderley Edge will remain in Cheshire, I will try to point out how farcical that decision is. I will indicate that a reversal of that decision, leaving Wilmslow in Cheshire, will involve no administrative difficulties; indeed, it will strengthen the administrative organisation in that area I know that in such an exercise as this, covering such a wide field and involving so many areas, communities and councils, opposition is bound to arise through fear, pride, or prejudice, on the part of some areas or councils that do not like change. In this case I believe that a genuine mistake has been made by those responsible and when it is recognised by intelligent persons the decision already made will be changed and Wilmslow will remain in Cheshire.
There was a referendum taken on this matter in the Wilmslow area. Rather more than 95 per cent. of the people desired to remain in Cheshire. I know that many noble Lords opposite subscribe

1179
to the belief that there should be a greater degree of public participation in these matters. I do not advance the results of this referendum as my sole argument in favour of the Amendment. This is just one argument and I consider it to be a small one; there are so many other sound arguments.
Noble Lords will wonder how it is that Wilmslow has not kicked up a fuss to the same extent as some other councils. The explanation is unusual. Wilmslow enjoys the distinction and suffers the disability of having as its Member of Parliament a man who is a distinguished Member of the Cabinet. Obviously, this places the loyal supporters of that Member in some difficulty in challenging a decision made by the Government. I agree that they have left it a little late. However, I am convinced that there has been misunderstanding on the part of someone which has caused this decision that Wilmslow should go into the Greater Manchester area. I have already said that to leave it in Cheshire would create no difficulty and would not reduce the viability of the district of which Stockport is the centre. There are practically no links at all between Wilmslow and Stockport; yet Stockport would be the administrative head of the area in which Wilmslow would be placed.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, quoted the White Paper in support of his arguments against a previous Amendment; therefore I too shall use the White Paper. I shall not deal with it at length but will merely refer to paragraph 8 which has already been mentioned. It states:
"Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition."
In all those criteria, with perhaps one slight exception, there is provided no justification at all for Wilmslow to go into the Greater Manchester area. I said that there was perhaps one exception; it is the question of employment. A number of people from Wilmslow are employed in the Greater Manchester area, but 61 per cent. of the employed persons living in the Wilmslow area do not work in the Manchester area. Therefore one could argue strongly that even employment does
1180
not provide to any extent a justification as one of the criteria which determine the action of the Government in these matters.
In regard to common interest, which is very important, it is interesting to note that of the 86 social organisations in the Wilmslow area not a single one, so far as I am aware, has a direct relationship with Manchester. The overwhelming majority have a joint membership and a joint association with the people of Alderley Edge, an adjoining community. In those circumstances, how on earth can such an action as indicated in the Bill be justified? To create a boundary between Alderley Edge and Wilmslow is a mistake. There is no doubt that they are closely integrated communities.
My last point is a strong one. I have indicated that if the decision is taken by the Government that Wilmslow should remain in Cheshire it will not affect the viability of the Manchester area into which it is supposed to go. But if it remains the decision that Wilmslow is to be forced into the Manchester area it should be realised that over the past decade a substantial sum of money has been spent on building up divisional headquarters to provide local services for areas in Cheshire South of Wilmslow. The services covered are health, welfare, planning, ambulance, fire and law courts. If this decision is enforced it will mean that most of that expenditure will be negatived or rendered almost valueless. Only a matter of six to 12 months ago £500,000 was spent on one building. If Wilmslow is not kept within Cheshire it will be necessary to put up administrative buildings to serve that area. If that is not a waste I do not know what waste is. Therefore I would merely ask at this stage that there be further consideration.
As was mentioned by my noble friend in another case the Minister has done his helicopter judgment. Probably from a helicopter the situation looks a little different than through the eyes of the people who live there. I know the district because I have lived there for a matter of eight years. I do not need to go over it in a helicopter. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government to think again about this. It will not trouble Manchester or Her Majesty's Government if the decision that has been taken

1181
is reversed. The general administration of the area would be strengthened, great economies would be achieved and many people would be satisfied if this Amendment were accepted.
6.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: As a start I should like to make it clear that my right honourable friends have come to their conclusions on this Bill after a much more thorough process than flying over areas in a helicopter, though in some cases this has been an additional part of the studies and consultations undertaken. In contrast to the previous debate, here we come to a matter where the issues are clear cut and the decisions are quite certain. The Wilmslow Urban District Council have consistently opposed their inclusion in the Stockport-based metropolitan district, though I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, that their inclusion or exclusion does not seriously affect the viability either of Stockport or of Greater Manchester; that is not an issue. The urban district council want Wilmslow to be in Cheshire and Cheshire County Council want Wilmslow to be there too, and several other Cheshire authorities support them in that. But it is a fact, as the noble Lord. Lord Peddie, said, that there has been remarkably little fuss or commotion from the inhabitants of Wilmslow itself.
The Government's view is that Wilmslow should be in Greater Manchester because on any objective criterion, whether you look at it from a map or a helicopter or study any of the relevant facts or figures, it is plainly part of the Manchester conurbation, both physically and in function. Physically it is almost connected, though there is a narrow green belt of about a quarter of a mile wide between Wilmslow and the main built-up area. Much of the criticism of the way in which we have drawn the metropolitan counties is to the effect that we have drawn the boundary too tight. Here, if we were to respond to that criticism, we would include not only Wilmslow but go further out into Cheshire still. We have thought it right to draw the boundary tight but no tighter than we have here at the moment, for to reduce it still further would be contrary to the principles we have adopted in these cases.
1182
I would make the point that Wilmslow is essentially a commuter suburb of Manchester, and this is partly illustrated by a number of factors which I should like to rehearse and to catalogue. The latest migration figures for a five-year period show that no fewer than 58 per cent. of the people moving into Wilmslow come from Manchester. The C.B.C. of Manchester have just built a housing estate for 4,000 people at Handforth in the North of Wilmslow. The train services number 70 trains daily from Wilmslow into Manchester. There are no direct train services from Wilmslow either to Macclesfield or to Chester. There are 71 buses daily from Wilmslow into Manchester, and 29 daily into Stockport. Sixty-nine per cent. of Wilmslow households read the Manchester Evening News. Water is supplied by Stockport. On shopping, not only do many Wilmslow residents go into Manchester but Wilmslow itself functions as an out-of-town shopping centre for the conurbation. It is in the employment exchange area of Manchester. Manchester is only 12 mile away; Chester is 32. Wilmslow is within the Selnec P.T.A. All those reasons add up to the fact that Wilmslow is an integral part of the conurbation.
It is quite true that there is some agricultural land in the urban district, and farmers perhaps look to Cheshire for their social and economic purposes. But this is a minute proportion of the total employed population—170 out of 11,000. It is for these reasons, which are not matters of judgment but matters of fact, that the Government strongly take the view that Wilmslow is an integral part of the metropolitan area, physically and by function, and it would be quite wrong to draw the boundary other than outside the urban district council. For those reasons, I must advise the Committee to resist this Amendment if the noble Lord feels disposed to press it.
LORD PEDDIE: I am certainly disappointed with that answer but it is also one that I expected. I do not intend to force a Division at this point because I have sufficient confidence in the noble Lord opposite to feel that he will give a little more consideration to this matter than he has done in merely reading a brief on the subject. All the arguments

1183
he has advanced I have already foreseen. For instance, as to that concerning the reading of the Manchester Evening News. I would suggest that Blackpool also ought to be included, because I should think that the most popular newspaper read in Blackpool is the Manchester Evening News. I should think, for instance, that there are many flights from Ringway, which is close by, to Schipol airport. Is the noble Lord, on the basis of the number of flights from Ringway to Schipol airport, going to suggest that there should be administrative links between Manchester and Amsterdam? He says that Cheshire wants Wilmslow in. Of course they do. So also did every other authority when this matter came under consideration ten years ago. Every single one indicated that it was wise for Wilmslow to be in the Cheshire area.
However, the general argument that is advanced, apart from the Manchester Evening News and so on, I do not accept. Two-thirds of the area of Wilmslow is in the North Cheshire Green Belt—I repeat, two-thirds of all the area. I have already dealt with the question of people's employment. Sixty-one per cent. of the working people in Wilmslow do not find employment in Manchester. But it is perfectly obvious that the Minister came along with the firm determination to turn this proposal down, and I know he has had very little time to consider it as it was put down only yesterday. I will not force a Division on this occasion, but I can only hope that more thought will be given to the arguments I have advanced to-day, and I will take the opportunity of presenting the case in stronger form on a future occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE: It seems hardly worth while to start on another Amendment, so perhaps I might move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

ROYAL ASSENT
6.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE):
My Lords, I have to acquaint the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Appropriation Act,

National Insurance Act,

National Health Service (Scotland) Act,

Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act,

Gas Act,

Land Charges Act,

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,

Industry Act,

Harbours Development (Scotland) Act,

National Debt Act,

Poisons Act,

Bath Side Bay Development Act,

British Transport Docks Act,

Devon River Authority (General Powers) Act,

Essex River Authority Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act,

Liverpool Corporation Act,

London Transport Act,

Milford Docks Act,

Selnec (Manchester Central Area Railway, &c.) Act,

Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Act,

Thames Conservancy Act,

Hampshire County Council Act,

Deaconesses and Lay Ministry Measure,

Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
6.59 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in the terms set out in the Order Paper. In moving this Motion, I should like to inform the House, if it is agreeable, that I propose to move this Motion formally and then to make my substantive remarks on the second Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a state of emergency exists.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
7.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations 1972, laid before the House on Thursday last, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In opening this debate I should like to concentrate on the measures which the Government may have to take to deal with the emergency confronting us at the present time.
I do not think your Lordships will wish me to traverse the history of the dispute which led to this national dock strike with which we are now faced. But I am quite certain that you will share my hope that the very great efforts which are being deployed to reach a negotiated settlement under the aegis of the Aldington-Jones Committee and on the basis of the recommendations contained in their report will be successful. The Committee have not spared themselves. They have had numerous meetings and, as your Lordships know, they met late last night and again to-day. It is too early to say whether their efforts will lead to an early settlement, but of two things I am confident. The first is that your Lordships will all share my admiration for the strenuous efforts which this power-
1186
ful Committee have been making. I am sure, too, that it will be the general view of your Lordships that we should say nothing in this debate that would in any way render the task of the Committee more difficult.
I now propose to outline briefly to the House the purpose of the Emergency Regulations which came into force last Friday. The Proclamation of a State of Emergency was made on Thursday, August 3, and on the same day the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations 1972 were made and laid before Parliament. They came into operation the following day. To declare a State of Emergency and to take the emergency powers which go with it are grave actions, and Parliament should always question such actions seriously.
My Lords, this is the fourth occasion in two years on which a Proclamation has been necessary, though I would remind your Lordships that, happily, on two out of the three previous occasions virtually no use was in fact made of the powers. The electricity consumption orders during the coal strike were the only example of the extensive use of powers under Emergency Regulations. Again I should like to stress that it is our hope that on this occasion, too, it will not be necessary to make extensive use of the very wide-ranging powers contained in the Regulations. Indeed, as I shall mention later, the only power under the Emergency Regulations which the Government have as yet exercised is that to establish the Port Emergency Committees. Nevertheless, I am sure there will be general recognition that the Government have a duty to protect the essentials of life of the whole community. Likewise, it has always been recognised that a national dock strike can quickly present a threat to essential supplies and that in these circumstances it is right for the Government of the day to arm themselves with emergency powers as a contingency measure.
Having said that, and before turning to the Proclamation and the Regulations themselves, I should like, very briefly, to outline to the House the position as T understand it to be at present—not the position regarding the dispute but the position regarding the threat to essential supplies. In the first place, I must make it clear that there is no immediate shortage of food for human consumption.

1187
While there may be certain pockets of local shortage, it is generally true to say that only a few imported items, such as fruits, are in short supply in the shops. Nevertheless, it is clear that were the strike to continue for any considerable length of time without remedial action we should begin to experience increasing shortages over a much wider range of foods.
The chief immediate area of concern is the increasing shortage of animal feedingstuffs. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the position here under particularly careful review. He is indeed at this very moment discussing these matters with representatives of the trade interests concerned, and a variety of ways are being urgently sought to prevent what would be the totally unnecessary, and indeed sad, slaughter of poultry and pigs on our farms. It is of course our hope that the strike will end shortly, and in that event things in this area will quickly come back to normal. But we must provide for the worst on a contingency basis, and in this specific and important area of animal feedingstuffs time is beginning to run short. Then I should point out, without going into details, that there are special difficulties which some of our remoter communities are experiencing. I have in mind particularly some of the smaller islands off the West Coast of Scotland, and Orkney and the Shetlands. Here again I can assure your Lordships that the position in these islands is under close review and is receiving attention.
My Lords, that is the background to the Proclamation and the making of the Regulations. Subject to Parliamentary approval, these Regulations will continue in operation for as long as the State of Emergency continues, which is for a period of one calendar month from the date of the Proclamation. If the emergency extended beyond that period a further Proclamation could he made. In that event, fresh Regulations would be required and would within seven days require the approval of Parliament; and both Houses would have to be recalled for that purpose. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that we are proposing to come back, rather abnormally, this year on Monday, September 11. That is our present programme. Should the
1188
unfortunate necessity arise of having to continue the State of Emergency and to make fresh regulations, it would. I fear, be necessary for this House to be recalled during the week preceding the date now fixed.
These Regulations are, with one exception of substance to which I will refer in a moment, substantially the same as those used in previous emergencies. Again I would emphasise that in seeking these powers we wish to ensure that they are available immediately when the need for their use arises. This means that there will be no use of these powers beyond what is necessary to ensure the essentials of life to the community. Similarly, the Government intend to end the State of Emergency and the Regulations as soon as it is feasible to do so. As I have mentioned, little use has so far been made of the Regulations. Port Emergency Committees in the major ports have been set up under paragraph 4 of Regulation 3. Initially the Committees will report about the state of the ports, and later, under the direction of the Secretary of State, they could take necessary action to control traffic in those ports.
Given the similarity which these Regulations bear to those to which your Lordships have become only too accustomed. I shall restrict my remarks to drawing attention to the only change of substance. Regulation 25 is in fact new and is designed to facilitate rapid recourse to alternative sources of drugs and medicines where the normal channels are impeded. It is not expected that this power will need to be used in the present emergency, although it was thought right, based on experience in the previous emergency, to add it to the standard body of regulations. The powers to waive provision of the Medicines Act 1968 are held by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services in respect of most drugs and medicines, other than those used primarily for the treatment of animal diseases. In the latter case the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the power to waive the application of the relevant parts of the Act.
Regulations 32 to 40 repeat the provisions of earlier Regulations, mainly with regard to offences and penalties, and I would remind your Lordships that in accordance with the proviso to Regulation 38(1) nothing in the Regulations makes

1189
it an offence to take part in peaceful picketing—I stress the word "peaceful".
There have been suggestions that the Government should take immediate steps to introduce price control of food under Regulation 23. These suggestions will be examined, but I am far from persuaded that it would be right to do so now. Should it be so decided at some future date, there would of course be considerable problems of an administrative nature connected with any possible scheme. I believe that at present trade is doing its best to hold down prices, but when imported foodstuffs, for example bananas, are in very short supply or are not available they inevitably acquire a scarcity value which no system of distribution or price control could possibly obviate, though I doubt whether a temporary shortage of bananas would serious endanger the life of the community.
I hope the fact that I have introduced these Regulations to your Lordships in a comparatively brief speech will not in any way be taken that either I or the Government view this situation other than gravely. I have kept my remarks brief because I am anxious not to say anything at this delicate stage which might in any way prejudice the chances of that early settlement which we all desire to see.
I will, in conclusion, dwell on three points. I wish, first, to refer to the difficulty which has arisen and the concern that has been expressed over the payment of supplementary benefit to the families of dockers who volunteered during the strike—I am glad that they have done so—to move essential supplies and who have apparently chosen to donate any wages they receive to some charitable purpose. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that following a meeting between the trade union and employers' side and the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission this afternoon, the following statement was agreed:
"It was agreed at a meeting on 9th August between the representative of the dockers and a representative of the port employers and the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission that in the event of any voluntary task being undertaken by the dock workers during a strike, no payment of wages shall be made to any person involved in the task performed, but the employer would be able at his discretion to make a lump sum payment to charity in consideration of the work done. In such
1190
circumstances Supplementary Benefit would be payable in accordance with the normal provisions."
Secondly, there is the position over the possible use of troops. I can assure your Lordships that troops would be used only in the last resort, when all other efforts to move supplies which are essential—I stress the word "essential"—to the life of the community by other means have failed.
Thirdly, I should like to emphasise that these Regulations are in no way directed against the dockers or their unions. They are not a means of bringing Government pressure on the parties in dispute. In seeking these powers the Government are acting, as any Government must act in the discharge of their duty to the nation, to secure the maintenance of the essentials to life. Whatever we may feel about the origins of this dispute and whatever our judgments may be on the various aspects of our industrial relations, I am confident that this action—the taking of these necessary powers—commands the support not only of your Lordships but of the nation generally. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations 1972, laid before the House on Thursday last, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
7.14 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the clear and adequate way in which he has explained the Motion. I wish to make it clear at the start that we on these Benches do not propose to divide the House or oppose the Motion. We recognise that a situation of this kind exists and that the Government must have the necessary powers to protect the life of the nation.
I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that the Government would use these powers to the minimum extent necessary—I am not quoting his words, but that was the purport of what he said—and I want to underline how important that is. He went on to say that these powers were not intended in any way to bring pressure to bear on the unions—that is, that they were not intended to be used for the purpose of strike breaking—and I am sure that that is the intention of the

1191
Government. Nevertheless, this Government, like every other Government faced with this situation, are in the dilemma that the withdrawal of pressure on the consumer technically withdraws some of the pressure on the employer. Inevitably, therefore, the carrying out of their proper function of protecting the life of the nation entails their giving a certain amount of assistance to the employer as against the employee. It is a dilemma but it is somewhat inevitable. All that one can say is that one is grateful for the clear undertaking to use the powers to the minimum extent possible.
I share the hone that the noble Earl expressed that the emergency and the strike will come to an end as soon as possible. I congratulate the Committee to which he referred. He called it the Aldington-Jones Committee but I prefer to call it the Jones-Aldington Committee.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it was merely a question of alphabetical order.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I think the Jones-Aldington sequence has gained a certain amount of currency in the Press and elsewhere. Be that as it may, we are talking about the same Committee in the same way and that is the important thing. We are both very conscious of the great efforts that have been made by this Committee and the way in which it was got together. The same applies to the thinking behind inviting people like Jack Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, along with the other members of the Committee, to carry out this function. We congratulate the Committee on the work it has done. We hope, without saying anything which might make life more difficult for them, that both employers and employees will realise the great responsibility which both sides have in making some contribution, and if necessary some sacrifice, in the interests of the nation, and we are all aware that there are arguments to be made and points to be considered on both sides.
I immediately respond to the appeal of the noble Earl not to say anything further about the circumstances of the strike which might only exacerbate the situation. I do not propose to detain your Lordships for long. It would however be appropriate for me to comment
1192
on some of the background circumstances to which one must have regard because this is, as the noble Earl said, the fourth occasion—it seems extraordinary, but it is the fourth occasion—in two short years when we are having Emergency Regulations put before us.
I need say little about the powers themselves because, with one exception, we know them well; we almost know them by heart. One does not want to drift into a situation in which there will be a fifth and sixth occasion, bearing in mind that future occasions could be more severe than the present one or the three previous ones. I am bound therefore, in support of what the noble Earl said, to say something by way of an appeal for new thinking. I urge him to urge all his colleagues to appreciate the wisdom of saying nothing that exacerbates feelings at this time. If the noble Earl were to ask me to give examples, I could give two. For instance, on the radio at one o'clock to-day his right honourable friend the Leader of the other place spoke of some action on the part of the dockers. I do not know what the action was, whether his right honourable friend's remarks were right or whether he sincerely felt what he said. Nevertheless he said that certain action of the dockers was "quite disgraceful". I therefore request the noble Earl to give my compliments to his right honourable friend and to ask him to bear in mind on future occasions—because we hope that this strike will be over shortly—to reserve comments like that until after the strike is over and not make them at what the noble Earl himself described as this delicate stage of negotiations. That is one example that occurs to me to justify my making this request to the noble Earl.
The second one which occurs to me is a matter to which he has just referred and to which I was going to refer in a very similar way, namely, the problem of "Have you got wages when you have foregone them?" Have you got resources when you have foregone them?". The noble Earl has been good enough to say that he was glad, and we are glad, that this work was voluntarily undertaken, and obviously in the circumstances those undertaking the work could not accept payment because they were acting individually and all the others on strike were

1193
not going to get payment. Equally obviously the employer should not get the benefit of that voluntary act on the part of his employees. So, in those circumstances, there is the device which is exactly the same as the device which the Government enacted in the Industrial Relations Act for those not wanting to join a union but who should not have the benefit of the results of union negotiation without making any payment—the device of making a payment to charity. And may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for honouring us with his presence on this occasion also.
Now, my Lords, my experience is in the tax field, and all your Lordships who are interested in that field know very well that a man asked to provide a certain service can say, " Yes, I am willing to provide the service but I do not want payment for it. You can give it to XYZ charity." We all know that that can be done in one of two ways. In one way the man providing the service pays tax on what is deemed to be his income. In the other way the man providing the service pays no tax because he is deemed not to have had any income. But exactly the same thing happens: he provides the service and the payment is made to the charity. Why am I saying this? I am saying it to show what a marginal situation this is. I am delighted that negotiations have now taken place so that what was done in, if I may say so, a somewhat "ham-handed" fashion from this point of view, not realising its consequences, is now being done in a much more sensible way.
The point I am making is that I do not think it was in the best interests of settling this dispute that immediately this difficulty arose—a very real difficulty, especially if your Lordships would be good enough to look at it in the light of those dockers who had volunteered their services—what happened? The Under-Secretary of the Department concerned spoke on the wireless justifying fully the action of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which was unnecessary, and, worse, making it appear that the Government and the Supplementary Benefits Commission were in some way or other connected and that this was part of Government policy. I do not say that he said so, but I say that he made it
1194
appear so to any docker listening in to that explanation or looking at it on television. That was unfortunate, and I am very glad indeed that the situation has developed in the way in which the noble Earl has explained.
I finish with an appeal to the Government to take stock of the situation. I have already referred to the fact, as the noble Earl himself did, that this is the fourth occasion in two years that we have had an Emergency Proclamation arising out of industrial relations difficulties. The "days lost through strikes" figures recently published, coupled with that, show that we are in the worst industrial relations situation since the war. To be as non-controversial as I can be, this Government is presiding over a situation on industrial relations which is worse than that which faced even any previous Conservative Government since the war. Surely, therefore, I am entitled to ask the Government to take stock of the situation and to have regard to some of the circumstances which might have formed part of the background.
We all know on what a marginal vote this decision to strike was taken. We all know the numbers who abstained. We can all interpret that in our own way. It would not be the first time that I have divided the House as a matter of protest on the way the Government is behaving rather than on the content of the particular proposal which is being discussed, and that is a well understood procedure. It is the only way in which those who feel that they are not being fairly treated can register their sense of injustice. One can therefore interpret the decision that was taken by the dockers' representatives at that meeting. I do not suppose any one of us here doubts but that the recent gaoling of five dockers was not completely absent from the minds of every one of those representatives; or the £55,000 fine; or other hostile acts—-as the unions see them—stemming from the Industrial Relations Act. There can be no doubt about that.
Equally, there is no doubt about the present situation under that Act. At the last count there were 10 million members affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. Of those, 9½ million out of the total of 10 million at the last count have come off the register. They have

1195
taken steps to opt out of the Industrial Relations Act and to bear the penalties. When one is thinking about how people react to a fine of £55,000, I would ask your Lordships to think of the real fine of between £3 million and £4 million a year which' the Government are imposing at this minute on all those unions. As the noble Earl sits there he and his Government—I still feel bitter about this and regard it as a complete abuse of power—are fining all the unions, including that union led by Mr. Jack Jones, who is at the moment the much applauded and responsible individual who, together with Lord Aldington, is million because they prefer not to sign a piece of paper which says "Register unless" or "Register or else".
That is the present situation, and I appeal to the Government, therefore, to realise that there are many members of trade unions—and he should not have called them "trade unions" in his speech; he was guilty of an inaccuracy, as they are not trade unions, according to the Government. There are many members of organisations of workers. Mr. Jack Jones, upon whom we are all relying so much, is not a "trade union leader"; he is an employee of an "organisation of registered workers", not entitled to call themselves a trade union under this Act. That is the present situation, and so I am appealing to the Government to take stock of the situation and to be willing to go and sit round a table with the unions, with the idea of both sides making some contribution in respect of the Industrial Relations Act. It is obviously asking for too much to ask the Government to repeal the Act yet. It is not asking for too much to ask the Government to take stock of the present situation, and on the occasion of this, the fourth imposition of Emergency Regulations, to see whether certain aspects of the Industrial Relations Act have not contributed to the present situation and will not be likely to contribute to even worsening situations in future. And I have indicated one that stands very high in my order of priorities.
7.30 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, it is my intention to speak only briefly. This
1196
is not an occasion for Party controversy. In the circumstances, no alternative was left to the Government than to ask for emergency powers. It has been done before; regretfully, it may happen again. What I am concerned with is the nature of this dispute; what was the cause of it. It may be argued that it is something to do with industrial relations and the Industrial Relations Tribunal, or something of the sort. Quite frankly, I do not think anything of the kind. I have myself had considerable experience with dock labour in the past; I was associated with them because of my connection with the seamen and I understand the nature of their difficulties. I can recall the casual labour of the past, the deplorably low rates of pay, the long hours of work and the regular unemployment. I thought we had departed permanently from that deplorable situation.
What is the dispute about? It is essentially a demarcation dispute. In the past, when we had demarcation disputes as between one section of workers and another as to who should do this or that, the matter was dealt with by the demarcation committee or the economic committee of the Trades Union Congress General Council. I can recall many years ago when I was chairman of the Glasgow Trades Council, which at the time was the most influential trade union body in the whole of Scotland. We had frequent demarcation disputes among the railway unions and various other unions, and we had a demarcation committee which determined who was in the right and which side was in the wrong. That is what the trouble is about.
But there is another reason for this dispute. Some time ago I ventured to put a Question in your Lordships' House. I did not get, and did not expect, a full and satisfactory answer. It was on the question of redundancy and what is to be done about it. This is part of the trouble. There is a great deal of unemployment in the transport industry. The dock labourers are insecure; that we know. If they see their jobs being taken away from them because of containerisation, naturally they resent it. We have to face that fact. I happen to know something about containerization, because it is closely associated with the shipping industry. Containerisation has come to stay; there is no mistake about that. We

1197
have got to understand it and adapt ourselves to this new situation. And if the Government have made a mistake, it is not the first time that a mistake has occurred; nor is this Government the first Government to have made a mistake. These matters have been discussed in the past—for example, the question of redundancy. What has been done about it? It just exists. There is, of course, unemployment benefit or supplementary allowances and the like. That is not enough. We must face the fact that whether it is because of automation or rationalisation, mechanisation or whathave-you, redundancy exists.
If I may supplement what my noble friend Lord Diamond has said in his very thoughtful speech, the Government have to consider the situation and find some way out of the difficulty, otherwise, we are going to have a frequency of disputes which this nation can no longer afford. There is another thing. I wonder—I may be quite wrong in what I am about to say—whether the Aldington/ Jones Report was not prematurely announced. It was suggested that the Report would prevent a national dock strike. That was stated in your Lordships' House; I cannot be exact about the terms. It was stated in the other place, in the Press, in almost every newspaper; the Aldington/Jones Report would make it unnecessary to have a dockers' strike.
We have a dockers' strike, and leaving aside all other reasons and arguments associated with the situation, we have a strike now because some dock employers refuse to agree, as I understand it, that only registered dockers should be associated with containerisation. They may have very good reasons for this. It may mean extra costs. It may mean the employment of dock labour which is more expensive and transport labour of what might be described as inferior quality. I do not use the word "inferior" in a derogatory sense; probably it is because of differentials in wages rates. Is it impossible for the Government to find some way out of that difficulty?
Here I want to ask a question. Would it not have been wiser on the part of the Government to intervene? From the very beginning of this dispute there has been no evidence of Government inter-
1198
vention except the present emergency powers. What has been going on behind the scenes? Has the Minister for Trade and Employment, or any other Minister associated with problems of this character, sought to intervene? There is no evidence of this. I should have thought that intervention should have taken place at a very early date. We have experience of this. I can recall the deplorable seamen's strike that took place during the period of office of the Wilson Government, when Mr. Gunter was Minister of Labour. It lasted several weeks. On that occasion I appealed to Mr. Gunter at the outset to intervene, and I was told that traditionally the Minister of Labour never intervened but always waited until approached. It was only when the Shipping Federation, on the one hand, led by Mr. Ford Geddes, and the National Union of Seamen, led by Mr. Hogarth, approached some Members of Parliament, including myself, that we were able to press for an inquiry. The inquiry did not take place until five or six weeks after the dispute had originated. That is all wrong.
I think there is general agreement that the Government had to act as they have done and take emergency powers. The Government must act; but a Government must also govern, and must be seen to be governing. They cannot afford to ignore what is brewing in an industry. They know what is going on they have their ears to the ground, and information is available to them. They ought to intervene at the earliest possible moment to prevent a dispute, even if it is regarded as premature action, because once a dispute begins it is a much more difficult thing to stop it.
I have one further question. Can the noble Earl the Leader of the House say whether the Government are seized of what is happening now in the discussions of the Aldington-Jones Committee in their association with the employers? What is going on? What is the actual obstacle? I have ventured to express an opinion about it, but I may be wrong and in that event I hope to be corrected. What is the real trouble? Is it a matter of finance? Can the Government act? Is it something other than that where the Government have the facility and will to take some action? We ought to know, because the sooner this dispute is brought to an end, the better.

1199
Nobody is more pleased than I am to hear that there are ample food supplies, but there is much more than that at stake. There is the effect on our economy, and Heaven knows our economy will not stand much of this sort of thing. I therefore hope that the Government may find an opportunity to do something perhaps through the medium of the Trades Union Congress General Council. I do not notice that Mr. Vic Feather is doing anything about this. Recently it was decided following meetings between representatives of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., to form a body which is intended to seek conciliatory action, to promote conciliation, arbitration or something of that sort. There ought to be action of some kind. I repeat that the sooner this dispute is brought to an end, the better. There ought, I agree, to be no acrimony if it can possibly be avoided. We cannot afford disputes of this character much longer. Although I understand why the dispute has taken place, and the background to it, we have to face the fact that if we go on having disputes of this character then the future of this country—well, no one can say what is going to happen.
7.42 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for outlining these Regulations and emergency powers. I agree entirely with the statement that nothing should be said that might prejudice the chances of a settlement. I am glad to read the reports in the evening newspapers, and on the Table, to the effect that progress is being made by the Jones-Aldington Committee. I hope this is so. I gather that the outlook is more hopeful. On the strength of these reports, I think questions about the situation that has arisen should be related to a time-scale of a week or less, and I very much hope I am proven to be right in that respect.
Nevertheless, my Lords, there are certain commodities, as the noble Earl has pointed out, and certain areas of the country where there is some degree of urgency. Perhaps in replying the noble Earl will tell us a little more as to how serious is the shortage of animal feeding-stuffs. I have read an account of the statement made by Mr. Prior, the Minister
1200
of Agriculture, and I gather there is some system of rationing in operation. Presumably this is a voluntary form of rationing by agreement with the wholesalers and the farmers. I should like to know how it is working. Again, there is the problem, to which the noble Earl has referred, of getting essential supplies through to the Orkneys, the Shetlands and the other islands.
Reference has already been made to the difficulties with which the dockers are faced, in particular the Glasgow dockers. Certainly I heard that they were willing to assist to get supplies through to the Orkneys and Shetlands. I welcome the statement made to-day by the noble Earl. At the same time I am aware that the Government are not directly responsible for what the Supplementary Benefits Commission decides and I will not attempt to embark on the extremely complex tax position which has been outlined to noble Lords. I think there are still one or two practical points that the noble Earl could deal with in his reply. I understand that petrol is being taken to the Orkneys and Shetlands and the other islands by plane; it is the only way at present. That is rather a dangerous operation. Could noble Lords have some information about it? A somewhat similar point: are supplies getting through to the offshore oil rigs? There again the situation, I am told, could become serious. It would be helpful if we could learn the latest position.
My Lords, are perishable goods—an inevitable casualty of a conflict of this nature—still piling up at ports? As to price control, I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl that there are many difficulties about its introduction, and I doubt whether, in the circumstances that exist at present, it could be effective without some form of rationing. These are some of the immediate problems, and I sincerely hope it will be a matter only of days and not of weeks before the dispute is settled.
I have a few comments to offer on the wider aspect, but I do not approach it in quite the same way as my noble friend Lord Diamond does, although our aims are the same; namely, that there should be better relations in industry. I hope that when this settlement is reached—I say "when", not "if"—it will provide an opportunity to create a new

1201
climate, a climate in which there will be a chance to consider calmly what has gone wrong in the last two years—for undoubtedly something has gone wrong in the last two years. I suggest that one of the unfortunate characteristics of the last 18 months is that we have had many bold statements from the Government about the need for maintaining the rule of law in industry, but all too often, it seems to me, the Government's actions have had the effect of undermining the position of the moderates and of playing into the hand of extremists. I readily acknowledge that that was not the intention or the desire of the Government; but that is how things have tended to work out.
There is another trend that I regret; and here I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Diamond, because I do not think this should be regarded as unmentionable: I regret the growth of violence in the course of picketing. While I appreciate the strength of feeling of those engaged in a dispute, especially when it coincides with fear of permanent loss of employment in the future, one must deplore the violent action that has occasionally taken place. It is in my view entirely out of keeping with the best traditions of the trade union movement. I should like to see all political Parties and the leaders of the trade unions, if I may call them such, united, and openly united, on this point, that physical violence, whether against the police or against other workers, is quite contrary to our democratic traditions. If I were to stop there I should be intellectually dishonest, because I recognise that the unity on this point of peaceful picketing which is so important cannot be achieved in the atmosphere of confrontation and distrust which has been prevalent, certainly in the last 18 months, and for which the Government must bear some considerable measure of responsibility. I do not expect the noble Earl to get up and say that he agrees with me, but I hope that he accepts the sincerity of my views on that point. In conclusion, I agree that these emergency powers are necessary, and I only hope that they will be short-lived.
7.50 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, while I share the sentiment that nothing should be said here which could exacerbate the situation, it seems to me that too much
1202
can be swept under the carpet if certain facts are not related. It seems to me that we are debating a matter which can be characterised only by use of the most evil cliché the English language: that about chickens coming home to roost. We have warned the Government with a monotony which was too boring for words—at any rate, hearing myself speak—but in vain, that confrontation and abrasiveness would not produce the results which we all desired and that something else had to be done; that the general pressures on the economy, as was stated in the Conservative manifesto, would not produce the harmony and equilibrium which we all desired.
Unlike some of my noble, right honourable and honourable friends, I do not believe that the fount of all evil is the Industrial Relations Act. We had very great problems before that. It is the profound change which has overtaken the social and economic system which has produced these difficulties, and the refusal—and, by no means, by this Government alone, though this Government were preeminent in refusing—to deal with these problems in a reasonable fashion. It has been said here, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this is a form of demarcation dispute. I beg to disagree. It is a demarcation dispute, but it is a demarcation dispute with a difference. It is the concentration of power in both trade unions and the Employers' Federation, together with the fuller employment which we have enjoyed since the war, which have produced this terrible problem, and I do not believe that any of the Governments since the war have been either capable of analysing the fresh problems or of devising methods to deal with them. It is because we have tried to combat the problem of inflation and the problem of the relationship between employer and employee by completely anachronistic methods that we have landed in the situation which we are in.
No doubt the problem of the docks and containerisation is an important and very difficult one. People are afraid for their livelihood and they are pressing for security which they cannot get. But they are pressing for security because, after all, unemployment has increased in this country from roughly 150,000 to 180,000 to over a million, and after a drop it is again rising towards a million. That the

1203
problem can be solved in the framework of an expanding economy has been shown in Rotterdam. Rotterdam has also had this containerisation problem but the dockers of Rotterdam, and of Antwerp, are not a different kind of people. They are very similar to our people and on occasion have been far more violent than our people.
Therefore, I must press on my noble friend Lord Diamond that the Government should reconsider their basic policies and their basic attitudes to life. It is no good hoping that the confrontation of the market forces, which are now monopoly forces, will produce any sort of desired result. I welcome the pacific tone of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. It was in line with the civilised approach which he always adopts when he is not prevented from doing so. But I must say that I only wish his colleagues would follow him, and that he would lead not only this House, with the distinction he does, but also the Government into new and better ways.
7.55 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies may I ask him one or two short questions? I understand that it is touch and go whether serious action will have to be taken by his right honourable friend in another place about animal feedstuffs. Can the noble Earl say why it is that these are in rather short supply? I think I read that there are 2½ weeks' supply. Is it not possible for this industry to carry bigger stocks? After all, this is the fourth emergency we have had, but we are talking about having to ration animal feedstuffs in 2½ weeks' time. Can the noble Earl say exactly what is the present position?
Also, did the noble Earl say that an agreement has been arrived at to pay the dockers a special sum for handling certain cargoes and that that will not count as wages but will be paid to some charity? Also, will supplementary benefit still be paid to dependants of the dockers? I think the public has responded to the Government's appeal not to try to stock up from the shops, because there appears to be no evidence of any run on tinned foodstuffs and so on. But may I ask the noble Earl whether there is
1204
any indication that the large suppliers and wholesalers of food are carrying out voluntary rationing at the present time, and whether that is likely to affect the shops in the foreseeable future if no settlement is arrived at? It seems to me that the stocks which we carry of both animal and human supplies are not enough, and I hope that the Government will give careful consideration in the future to seeing whether, for security reasons alone, these stocks can be increased.
7.58 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for the very studiously moderate way in which they have received these Regulations. I should like to say straight away that I find myself very much in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said about some of the underlying problems here. At this moment, when I think there are impatient noble Lords from Rochdale and Rossendale waiting to enter in the wings, I wish to reply fairly briefly. But I must say that I was at one with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who knows this industry and the shipping industry exceedingly well, that we are faced—and have been faced these past years—with a revolution in the techniques of cargo handling. We have not been alone in this. This is a matter which has affected all the great maritime countries, and of course it poses very great social and industrial problems for those countries.
Perhaps I may give a personal reflection here, that in this area of acclimatising ourselves to an inevitable change of this sort I do not think that we as a country have perhaps always been as flexible and responsive as we might have been. But in this particular area we can take some comfort from the fact that, as a result of these and other changes, we have seen a very dramatic run-down in the dock labour force in recent years. It fell from 60,000 in 1967—only five years ago—to just over 40,000 to-day. When we take account of the fact that not one of those men left the dock industry except of his own volition, and also take note of the fact that this reduction was carried out amicably and peacefully, we should take some comfort in hoping that the further and inevitable contraction of the industry which lies at one

1205
of the roots of the present difficulties can be achieved humanely and satisfactorily, given a minimum of good will and understanding all round; and I hope very much that the work which the Jones-Aldington Committee have been putting in here will be, both in the short term and again in the longer term, of very real value.
My Lords, that said, I should like very briefly to deal with some of the specific points which have been put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, both asked me about the position regarding animal feedingstuffs. My understanding is that it is true that the position here is causing serious concern. Modern methods of livestock production call for very high protein concentrates and result in a considerable dependence upon imported constituents; and the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Granville, was not lost upon me in this respect. I think this is something to which attention should perhaps be paid. The position here has of course been aggravated by a delay of about three weeks in the harvest of barley crops, although some barley is now becoming available. It is difficult to be precise about the present position, as this is a fragmented industry. It is not easy to get the precise information; and, of course, the situation can change almost from day to day. For example, if we were to get a run of even two or three days of good weather this could have a material impact upon the harvest, and therefore upon this general situation.
But, my Lords, with fresh supplies largely cut off, local difficulties were bound to arise even while there was no absolute shortage nationally. But compounders, merchants and farmers are cooperating, and co-operating very well, in efforts to share out available supplies; and I can confirm that the situation is not yet critical. For example, there are no confirmed reports of premature slaughterings of pigs or poultry as a result of lack of feedingstuffs. Nevertheless, my Lords, I would not wish to disguise the potential seriousness of the situation here and the fact that time is running out. That is why we are watching the situation from day to day. Indeed, that is why my right honourable friend, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, is in fact at the present time meeting with representatives
1206
of the trade. If it does become necessary to use the emergency powers to ensure a continued flow of supplies, we shall not hesitate to do so, but it is my ardent hope that this will not prove necessary and that other ways can be found to get round the difficulties. So much for the animal feedingstuffs position.
Before I turn to the question of offshore oil rigs, I have just been handed a last-minute item, and I think it may be helpful to your Lordships' House if I read it; I have not yet read this myself, so it is as new to me as it is to noble Lords. I understand that, following his meeting this evening with representatives of the National Farmers' Union and the feed trade, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is issuing this statement:
"There has been a slight improvement in some parts of the country due to home-produced grain coming forward, but there are difficulties with high energy cereals which are needed for intensive husbandry units. Because of co-operation in the trade and by farmers, available rations are being eked out and used to the best possible advantage. This means that we have managed to buy a few more days' relief, at least for the majority of farmers, and for the next few days I do not believe that it will be necessary for the Government to invoke its emergency powers to move animal feedingstuffs. But we are living from day to day, and that is how I must assess the position in reporting to my colleagues in the Cabinet ".
I am afraid I cannot do better than my right honourable friend here.
May I now turn to two other specific questions which were put to me? The first was on the supply of petrol to some of the Scottish islands. I think there was a supply to some of the smaller islands, Barra and Coll, yesterday, and I have no doubt that this was handled carefully. But I should like to take note of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade; I would not wish to give him an inaccurate reply. On the question of supplies to the offshore oil rigs, it is my understanding that the oil companies, with whom we are of course in close contact, have reported that they are satisfied with the supply position. Essentials, like foodstuffs and the rest, can of course be supplied by helicopter, and this is the normal form of supply. But I would hope very much, my Lords, that the arrangements which have now been worked out on the question of supplementary benefit,

1207
which has been one of the causes of difficulties at Aberdeen, the main supply port for the Northern oil rigs, may lead to the resumption of the supply to the oil rigs t and indeed the same would certainly apply to Orkney and Shetland.
I think those were the specific questions which I was asked by the noble Lord. Lord Granville, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. On the question of supplementary benefit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred, I do not think that I would wish to be drawn into what any colleague of mine may or may not have said. I should like to say that, in an area of a good deal of technical, fiscal difficulty, all the mysteries of which I must confess I have not myself penetrated, my understanding of the agreement which has been reached broadly confirms the understanding of the position by the noble Lord, Lord Granville.
Apart from a certain difference of philosophy about the Industrial Relations Act, I think SI should like to take issue with only one thing (and I shall do that in studiously moderate terms) which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and that was his reference to a statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on "The World At One", I think it was. I did not hear the programme, but my understanding of it—and I speak subject to correction, not having heard the programme—is that my right honourable friend categorised as "disgraceful" (I think that was the term) the reports, it true, of some of the weapons which the police had removed from a number of potential pickets on Humberside to-day. I should only like to say that my right honourable friend, who is I think a moderate man, a man whom no one could accuse of habitually using immoderate language, was speaking in his capacity as Home Secretary and in the light of his responsibilities for the maintenance of law and order in this country. There are reports, which I have not seen confirmed (and I speak subject to that) but which I understand to be reliable, that some dockers set out to-day on Humberside allegedly to exercise their right peacefully to picket a place of employment—and no one queries that—armed with a bewildering range of weapons, some of which are described as "bill hooks" in
1208
to-night's evening papers. Other reports refer to dockers' hooks, hammers and, indeed, to tomahawks. All I can say is that if those reports are confirmed to be true, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that this type of conduct is quite contrary to all that we understand by the best traditions of the trade union movement. I should not wish to go further than that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I simply correct one small point in what the noble Earl said? He said that he would like to take issue with me. There is no issue between us on what he said. There is no issue between us on our views of whether picketing should be peaceful or not. The only question is one of what is good sense and of deciding when to make a comment which may be perfectly justifiable—whether one makes it at a point in time when, according to the noble Earl, things are delicate or whether one waits a little.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, these are always matters of judgment. There are times when I think it best that one should call a spade a spade or a billhook a billhook. I accept that this is a difficult matter of judgment, but the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will accept that the Home Secretary has a very special responsibility here, in view of his responsibilities towards the police and the maintenance of law and order.
I hope that I have answered the specific questions put to me. I think that at this late stage, when the local government reformers are beating at the doors of your Lordships' House, I shall not conclude my few remarks by a general discussion on the Industrial Relations Act or upon the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for directing towards me the only compliment that I have heard him bestow upon Her Majesty's Government, of which I took due note and am grateful. I conclude by reaffirming the gravity of the present position and by reaffirming Her Majesty's Government's decision to act with two due senses of responsibility. The first is a due sense of responsibility in order to ensure that none of the powers now being made available by Parliament to Her Majesty's Government is used save in the last resort and save when absolutely

1209
necessary. The second responsibility that we propose to discharge is our ultimate one towards the community as a whole. That responsibility we shall not shirk.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
8.14 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD VERNON LORD VERNON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 209, leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to remove the rural parish of Poynton-with-Worth from the proposed District 12(j) of the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester and restore it to Cheshire, where it has always belonged. Before coming to my reasons for moving this Amendment I should like to say two things. The first is that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, in whose name this Amendment also stands, has asked me to say that he strongly supports it and he would have spoken to it had he not been prevented from being present here this afternoon. Secondly, I should like to declare that I have no personal interest in Poynton or Cheshire. I neither live there nor own property there. But it is only fair to add that for about a hundred years, until shortly after the last war, my family did own most of the parish of Poynton. Therefore, although I know Poynton less well than does my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury in whose name this Amendment also stands and who represented Poynton in Parliament for so many years, I am familiar with Poynton's background, I maintain contact with it and know something of the feeling there to-day.
Poynton in the last century and in the early part of this century was a very different place from what it is to-day. It was a small mining village, and like all mining villages it had its ups and downs. My family shared in its ups and downs; and I like to think (indeed I know) that they had a very happy relationship with the people of Poynton. Be that as it may, during the last century a remarkable community spirit grew up in Poynton, that has lasted to this day. Poynton
1210
is now no longer a mining village; it is more affluent and has grown in size and numbers to some 10,500 inhabitants. It is still a village although a large village, and it has retained its village atmosphere.
It is not and never has been a part of Manchester. Indeed it is separated from Stockport and Greater Manchester by a substantial tract of agricultural land which is included in the North Cheshire Green Belt. A lot of argument has centred round the Green Belt, especially during the discussions in another place. It is has been suggested that the Green Belt is so small that it is hardly worth considering; but, in fact, it is roughly a mile wide except at one point where (owing in my opinion to a very bad planning decision in the past) it has been reduced to 800 yards. But in any case, the smaller the size of the Green Belt the more important it is that it should be safeguarded. The Minister, Mr. Graham Page, stated specifically that if Poynton goes into Greater Manchester the Green Belt will be preserved. I accept the Minister's good intentions on this matter but I think that one would be absurdly naive to imagine that if Poynton goes in with Manchester (knowing the pressures to which big cities like this are subject at the present time) the chance of retaining the Green Belt is as good as if Poynton remained in Cheshire.
Again, it has been suggested that all Poynton's links in the fields of employment, culture, education and so on lie with Manchester and Stockport and not with Cheshire. I dispute this and the people of Poynton also dispute it. Of course many Poyntonians work in Manchester and Stockport and have links with those places, just as people who live in Surrey have links with London. But the important factor is where people have their roots, their interests, their recreation and their sporting activities. And they have those roots in Poynton and Cheshire. Even where employment is concerned, official statistics show that only 27 per cent. of the people who travel on public transport go to Manchester to work which leaves a substantial number who work outside.
More important than any of these arguments is the reduction in Poynton's representation at district and county level. It is not a matter of speculation, it is a

1211
fact. We have heard a lot from the Government, in the White Paper and in Ministerial speeches, about how vital it is to have local participation in government and how efficiency must, to some extent, be sacrificed to this end so that people can feel that they really matter and are not just small cogs in one enormous wheel over which they can exercise no control. Yet, in the case of Poynton, the Bill will have precisely the opposite effect. From having eight councillors on the Macclesfield Rural District Council and 10 per cent. of the district population it will be reduced to three councillors and 3·3 per cent. of the population in Stockport. In effect, therefore, Poynton will become a very small fish in a very large pond. It will be swamped and lose its identity. And in the process the extremely healthy relationship which has been built up between the parish council, the Macclesfield Rural District Council and the county council will be destroyed at a stroke.
I have attempted to put forward some of the compelling reasons for retaining Poynton in Cheshire, but in the final analysis it does not matter what I think; it does not matter what individual noble Lords think; it does not matter, in my submission, what the Government think. What matters is what the people of Poynton think, and they have expressed themselves in unmistakable terms. On March 25 of this year a petition was delivered to the Prime Minister. It showed that out of a total electorate of 7,881 people 6,658 requested that the Local Government Bill be amended so that Poynton could remain in Cheshire. Only 310 people refused to sign the petition. The balance of 570 were people who could not be contacted. This means that 95·5 per cent. of the electorate were canvassed and 83·6 per cent. supported the petition.
In the discussion on a previous Amendment we heard about different petitions and how one petition asked one thing and a later petition asked another. In this case there is absolutely no doubt about the petition. I have checked the position carefully, and I am satisfied that the signatures were obtained fairly and scrupulously. The people contacted were told of the possibilities resulting from Poynton going into Greater Manchester; they were also told the facts and they
1212
were asked to judge for themselves. They have made their decision and, as I say, 83·6 per cent. signed. This petition was not instigated by Poynton Parish Council; it represented a completely spontaneous reaction by the inhabitants of the parish who felt strongly about their future. If democracy is to be meaningful the Government surely cannot ignore the freely expressed wish of the people in a case like this.
Of course there may be cases where local views have to be over-ridden in the national interest, but I submit that this is not one of those cases. It has been said that if Poynton is taken out of Greater Manchester why should not some of the other rural parishes also be taken out? My answer to that is that every case must be judged on its merits; that Poynton has an excellent case and the people have made their views felt very strongly. I think that the position was extremely well put on another Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who said that there was a need to foster local loyalties and traditions; to knit people together. If this Bill goes through it will destroy local loyalties. So far the Government have shown a strange inflexibility on this issue. I hope that at this late hour, in view of the widespread objections to the Bill from the people of Poynton. the Government will have second thoughts and will accept this Amendment.
8.26 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: I am glad to support the Amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Vernon. The noble Lord said that his family had lived at Poynton a hundred years ago. When I went to Poynton as the Member of Parliament some 28 years ago there were no coalmines, fortunately for me. But Lord Vernon's family have always taken a great interest in the district and I can well understand why he feels so strongly about it. I can understand some noble Lords saying that people from the North Country have been very long-winded about their particular areas, but we are speaking about areas which we know extremely well. We have just been told that 95 per cent. of the people in the area of Poynton do not want to do certain things. Who are we in Whitehall to say to 95 per cent. of the electorate, "You have got to do this,

1213
you have got to do that"? Surely we ought to take note of their wishes.
I recognise that this Bill is a major piece of legislation and that the Minister has to be tough. This is the first big change in local government for about sixty years and he cannot continually give way, otherwise the floodgates would be opened. But I think that he must be more flexible than he has been recently when judging situations on their merits. A similar Amendment was introduced in another place by my successor, Mr. Nicholas Winterton. He said that the clear wish of 83·6 per cent. of the electorate of Poynton was to remain in Cheshire. I regret that a new Member in another place, Mr. I. W. Owen, the Member of Parliament for Stockport, North, presented a very inaccurate picture of the situation at Poynton, where he lives. I do not know whether he has an axe to grind—he probably has—but it was very unfortunate that he should have said what he did. Since the possibility of a Bill of this kind was first rumoured some years ago, when the Labour Party were in control, I have been inundated with letters, petitions and requests for interviews, and I have a file two feet thick on this problem of Poynton. One noble Lord referred to a helicopter in which Mr. Michael Hesletine flew over the area when he was in the Ministry. Really, it is not enough to fly over an area at perhaps 100 knots and say, "There is not much of a Green Belt separating Poynton from Hazel-grove". One has to live there and know what is going on in order to assess the situation. As my noble friend said, there is a large Green Belt separating Poynton from the areas to the North, Hazelgrove and the others.
Another fear about going into Manchester is of the increased rates. Owing to the rating equalisation clause it has been said that 27 per cent. of the working population go to Manchester. Where do the other 73 per cent. go? During the Second Reading debate last week I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who took me up on this very issue. I now have the figures, and I can tell noble Lords that 23 per cent. go to Manchester. Rail fares are very expensive and people do not particularly want to go there. The others go to Macclesfield, Woodford, and
1214
the surrounding districts, to new industries which are fortunately springing up.
I hope that my noble friend will consider this Amendment sympathetically. I saw the Secretary of State some two months ago, together with Mr. Graham Page who is the new Member of Parliament for the area. We were very well received and talked for about an hour. I came away with the feeling that the meeting was very courteous and that we had been listened to, but that they had no intention of giving way even before we put our arguments forward. I hope that the Secretary of State will make a few exceptions in this Bill. It will give a very bad impression in the county if he is absolutely rigid and says, "We will go through the motions of debating the matter in the House of Lords, but that is that." As my noble friend said, Poynton is a free-standing village, separated from the Greater Manchester conurbation by tracts of agricultural land in the Green Belt area of Cheshire at the foot of the Pennines. It is a very beautiful village. Are the Green Belt proposals to be abandoned completely? If so we should like to be told.
Despite Poynton's growth in the last 27 years—its population is now nearly 27,000—it retains a very fine village atmosphere, and has all of the welfare amenities voluntary workers for this and that—amateur theatricals, youth clubs and So on—which go to make up village life. Is all this to be thrown away? As has been said tonight, like many other areas Poynton's representation will be reduced to three on the metropolitan district council which will be based on Stockport. The inclusion of Poynton in this metropolitan county will destroy the valuable county district and parish relationship, built up over so many years. It should be appreciated that the constitution of Greater Manchester County in Schedule 1 includes only nine rural parishes, including Poynton, in what is an urban mass of nearly 3 million people. Manchester's population is 2,870,000, and the new Cheshire is to have 800,000. Therefore, percentage-wise, Poynton's population represents 1·40 and 3·38 respectively. Owing to industrial expansion in Macclesfield Poynton has very close bonds with Macclesfield. Let no mistake be made about that. We had an industrial site

1215
immediately after the war—about 1948—and we got some very fine modern industries which compare with any in the country. The people of Poynton travel south, against the traffic jams, to work in Macclesfield.
Let us look at Manchester. It was the last of the great cities to tackle its housing problem seriously. They have nothing to be proud of. Only now are they pulling down the slum areas. Leeds, Burnley and other towns were far ahead. If they now want to take in places like Poynton, why did they send out thousands of residents (using that horrible word, "overspill") to Macclesfield and elsewhere during the last 10 or 12 years? Many people did not want to leave Manchester. Perhaps the authorities thought they would get more rates from industry than they would from residents. They unloaded these people into Cheshire, and now they want to take some of them back. They have always been trying to grab good agricultural land from various places, but they have not always got away with it. One noble Lord said that the present Member of Parliament for Knutsford, Mr. John Davies, could not make the case because he is a senior Cabinet Minister. If Sir Walter Bromley. Davenport were still the Member for Knutsford the roof would have gone off another place. He certainly would not have stood for Wilmslow going into Greater Manchester. It is distressing to see a village like Poynton being steamrollered into Greater Manchester against the wishes of its residents. I ask the Minister with all the power at my command to look at this matter very sympathetically and to talk about it at a later stage. That would be worth while and I hope the Minister will be flexible.
LORD LEATHERLAND: What very strange things happen in your Lordships' House! Here am I, waiting patiently for Amendment No. 39 to come up, an Amendment which is going to cut off a slice of Essex and put it into Suffolk. Yet I find myself rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said that his family had been in the Poynton area for 100 years, and the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, said that he first became Member of Parliament for Macclesfield 28 years
1216
ago. I rise because over 50 years ago I was a bright young reporter on the Macclesfield Courier, with which both noble Lords will be familiar, so I know something about this district. As a matter of fact I got married there just over 50 years ago, and I lived there for four or five years. I had to drive myself away from that delightful district to come to London. Otherwise, I should still have been living a happier life than that which has been vouchsafed to me since coming South.
I used to attend the monthly meetings of the Macclesfield Rural District Council, which has been mentioned, and I am aware of the very important part which was played by the representatives who came from Poynton. They were highly respected. As the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, has said, I know that the people of Poynton tend to gravitate to Macclesfield for their social life. They used to attend the Macclesfield market. Some of them actually had stores in it, selling Cheshire cheese of a consistency which is far superior to any of the Cheshire cheese one buys to-day. Poynton looked towards Macclesfield in the South, as it does to-day. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a metropolitan village. So I sincerely—not merely sentimentally, but of my own knowledge—support the noble Lords in the Amendment they have put forward. Incidentally could the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, also wants to know), tell me whether Amendment No. 39 will be reached to-night? If he could, it would help us with our domestic arrangements.
8.38 p.m.
LORD WOOLLEY: I rise to support this Amendment. I do not have the historical and traditional connections which the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, has, or the political connections which the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, has, or the remarkable and unexpected connection of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. But support is very welcome from all quarters, expected or unexpected. What the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has said has been very impressive because he speaks from experience and from a very independent position. I am relatively independent in that I do not come from the Poynton area. I live in the same county and of course I know Poynton,

1217
but I am in the South of the county. I farm down there. Poynton is quite a big village with a considerable urban population. Colleagues of mine farm in that area—the North. It is a farming as well as an industrial area.
I fully support what has been said by noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment. Poynton is a remarkable instance of the blend of the old and the new. It is an old village in which the tradition of the name of Vernon, though the Vernons have departed and play no active part, as the noble Lord said, still permeates the place. The noble Lord's modesty would preclude his saying that. The respect for and the effect of the Vernons in that village has to be seen to be believed. It is a very fine and heartening thing to find that, because it is one of the intangibles, one of the asthetic, spiritual things of life, of which we are inclined to lose sight. We are grovelling about with figures and lines and we are overlooking the spirit of people that makes them great. I would only say that the spirit in Poynton is a remarkable one.
This is not a question of special pleading. I have no axe to grind. Indeed, the only person I can find who has spoken against Poynton remaining in Cheshire and against the purpose and intent of this Amendment is the Member for North Stockport, Mr. Idris Owen. I do not know the gentleman, but he put up a whole array of figures about the conection of Poynton with Stockport and how its very life would appear to depend on Stockport. All those things are remarkably impressive if one takes them at face or book value. I have no doubt that Mr. Idris Owen knows more about Poynton than I do. He knows the precise distance of the Green Belt at its narrowest point—he may have measured it; I have not—because he is a well-known local builder, and he will have a much more intimate knowledge of the Green Belt and of the various other factors in the Poynton area than I would pretend to have in factual content. All I would say about the Green Belt is that it is a real buffer against the continual urban sprawl which will otherwise completely engulf the area. If one looks at the map—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has a map at his left hand, and no doubt he is looking at it—
1218
Poynton is an island in this Green Belt, though the barrier at one point, I grant, is narrow.
But that is not, I think, the real importance of the argument. The real importance to me is that this is a quite remarkable community with very strong loyalties, a progressive and fine parish council, and people who are quite clear in their desire. Their desire is that they should remain in the rural district of Macclesfield and within the county of Cheshire. This is in no spirit of hostility to Greater Manchester or to Stockport, within whose district they would fall, They have nothing against them. Many of them go to work over the boundary. That is not unusual. It is becoming more and more common in local districts that people do go over the boundary. But this is a village that has grown on the basis and foundation of the old village rural life. The new people who have come in have blended with it and absorbed the traditions, and they are a community.
I went there and spent most of last Sunday going round the village to refresh my memory and to get information. Nobody except the action committee has approached me to take action. The county council have not; the rural district council have not; and the parish council have not. The county council, the rural district council and the parish council of Macclesfield are, as the Minister knows, all strong supporters of Poynton's remaining in Cheshire. I went there and people took me round. At one point there were a number of motor cars, and I said: "There are a lot of cars here. Why are they here?" They said: "Oh, that is the Baptist chapel". I said: "That is very encouraging, to see so many cars outside the Baptist chapel." Then they went on to tell me of what I thought was a most interesting incident. A short time ago the chapel was in difficulties. It needed renovation, and it needed painting, and people of all denominations, Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Methodists, joined with the Baptists to renovate that chapel. That is the spirit that permeates Poynton. It is a community. You do not go and roll over these things lightly with any bureaucratic juggernaut. That is not a good thing to do.

1219
I appeal to the Minister to listen to these pleas. As I have said, I have heard no one except this one gentleman, Mr. Idris Owen, speak against this plea. Why is that? If this transfer is made, I can only say that it will be a glaring and unfortunate example that "Whitehall knows best". I am sure that Whitehall knows a lot and I hope it knows enough to recognise a good case when one is put before it. I sympathise with the Minister, because this is a difficult matter. Of course he can say: "If we concede here, then we have to concede there." On that basis every defendant in a court of law must be found guilty, because all the others who are condemned would feel badly about it if some were let off. So we have to use some common sense. If we are to have a complete fiat on this matter, why waste time bringing it to this House? Why do we go through the process?
I ask that this case be listened to. I am sure that if this is done, not only will it be justice but it will be justice tempered with mercy and common sense; and it will be the best decision to ensure that a realy good community, which has been built upon the basis of its structure, its environment and its interests in the past, will go forward in the future: and it will be a better community within our country than if it is forcibly transferred into an unsuitable and unnatural environment, however good that environment may be. I do not belittle Greater Manchester, but this is a different thing, and you do not try to mix things that have no basic mutuality. Therefore I support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Harvey of Prestbury and Lord Leatherland, and I am sure the people of Poynton will be delighted to see the noble Lord back again to write another article for them.
8.47 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: We have listened to four very persuasive arguments, and the Government are very ready, and have been all along, to be persuaded by persuasive arguments. Even to-night we have, by the various Amendments, in the case of the Middleton Borough Council done what the Middleton Borough Council asked us to do; we have done by the Government Amendment, No. 8, what the
1220
Heywood Borough Council asked us to do; and by resisting Amendment No. 9 we have done what the Whitworth Urban District Council wanted us to do—all different from what we had originally intended. So I hope there will be no feeling left that this Government have been inflexible and unresponsive to local opinions. But in this massive business of reforming the whole of local government for England and Wales there are occasions when the principles have to prevail over local opinion. This is one of them.
The facts are these. Poynton began as a mining village, and it was a rural parish, but the fact of the matter is that it is now a substantial commuter suburb of Greater Manchester with a population of 10,000. I fully understand that the people who live there wish to continue to call Poynton a village and themselves a parish. That is perfectly understandable and respectable. But we have to bear in mind the actual facts. It is true that a number of people have gone to live there wishing to find a rural environment; and it is true that some people living in Poynton are still employed in agriculture. But for every person employed in agriculture in Poynton there are 60 people employed in other industrial and commercial activities in urban centres. For every person who goes to Macclesfield to work, there are 10 people who go to Manchester, to say nothing of all those who go to Stockport. So I do not think there is any getting away from the fact that Poynton is now, whatever it has been in the past—
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: Would my noble friend give way? I know that he does not mean to misrepresent the figures, but 23 per cent. go to Manchester and the remainder go to work elsewhere. Three miles away there is Woodford (with Ambrose Shardlow) and people work in a conurbation South and South-West of Poynton.
LORD SANDFORD: What I was attempting to do for the benefit of the Committee, was to draw a distinction between the ties Poynton has with Macclesfield, represented by 2 per cent. of the employed population of Poynton working there, and something like 23 per cent., as the noble Lord said, who go to

1221
Manchester. One in ten is the comparison of those links. Certainly other people work in Stockport and elsewhere.
LORD SOMERS: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He said earlier that Poynton had developed into a commuter suburb of Greater Manchester. I suppose the same could be said about Guildford being a very convenient commuter centre for Greater London. Is he going to make Guildford part of Greater London?
LORD SANDFORD: No, I do not think that Guildford, by any stretch of imagination, can be considered as an appendage to Greater London. When we were re-drawing the boundaries of Greater London and reorganising the local government of Greater London there was never any question of embracing Guildford. The fact of the matter is that Poynton is an integral part of the Greater Manchester conurbation, both by function and by physical conjunction.
As noble Lords have said, there is a Green Belt separating Poynton and Greater Manchester—a matter of perhaps half a mile or one mile, but no more than that. The links between the two possibilities that are being proposed by the Government and by this Amendment are indicated by the fact that Poynton is separated from the centre of Manchester by eight miles, from Macclesfield by seven miles; from the centre of Stockport by seven miles and from Chester (the county capital) by 43 miles. So I do not think there is any doubt that these links are closer and stronger with Greater Manchester and Stockport than they are with Macclesfield, Chester and Cheshire. But we heard a powerful plea from several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, to the effect that the community and identity of Poynton should be preserved. There is no reason why it should not be. This is a small rural parish and it will remain so. It is one of the provisions of the Bill that all parishes like this will preserve their parish identity unbroken and with complete continuity.
Furthermore, as to the fear that the buffer of Green Belt separating Poynton from Greater Manchester by this half-mile or mile or so will be lost if Poynton goes into Greater Manchester, that does not follow at all. Green Belt policies are not prescribed and maintained by
1222
local authorities: they are set by the Secretary of State. So far from any weakening of Green Belt policies, if there is any change in our policies it will be to strengthen them. So the parish remains with its identity unbroken, and there is no reason to suppose that changes in local government boundaries will do anything to weaken the Green Belt policies which serve to preserve Poynton as a single, identifiable community on its own. That is not to say that Poynton can be regarded as anything but an integral part of Greater Manchester and an attractive commuter suburb of that city. For those reasons, I cannot recommend the Committee to do anything but to resist this Amendment.
LORD RHODES: May I ask the mover whether he proposes to take this Amendment to a Division?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: Certainly.
LORD RHODES: Because I find this interesting. I had great difficulty in preventing tears from welling up when the noble Lord was speaking and also when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. But my noble friend Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne made an equally strong case for Whitworth. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, how he voted on Amendment No. 9. Did he vote against us on Amendment No. 9, or is he such a prisoner of the machine that he supports an equally heart-rending argument on that side of the Committee yet preserves his standing with the Tory Party by voting with them against us, and then expecting us to come in with him? Even now it is not too late. I will do a deal with him: I will vote for him if he will vote for me on the Report stage.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: I must say that I know a little bit about the area I am talking of, but the area that the noble Lord's noble friend was talking about I do not know. With great respect, I found it rather difficult to follow all the details, and in this case I am following the advice of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
LORD RHODES: What the noble Lord is saying seems to be that persuasion does not count in this House any more, so why waste our time?
LORD WOOLLEY: Of course I am always persuaded by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, but I found a difficulty in that there was some confusion about these two referenda held in the area referred to, and as a person who did not know the local details I was rather bothered—there was the question of the 2,000 and 3,000 vote. These are real difficulties. We are not expecting noble Lords to be persuaded against their better judgment, because we know they will not be; but there is a difference, because in this case I do not think there is any doubt at all. I have said, and I repeat, that the only voice I have heard raised in favour of Poynton's going into Greater Manchester has been the voice of the honourable Member for Stockport, North, who is very interested in this. Apart from that, the county council, the rural council, the parish council and the people of Poynton, one might say almost to a man or a woman, are against this. Are we going to ignore all these things; and, if so, why?
LORD VERNON: I think the attitude of the Government in this case is quite astonishing.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD VERNON: There has been support for this Amendment from noble Lords in all parts of the Committee, including the noble Lords, Lord Leather-land, Lord Woolley and Lord Harvey of Prestbury and myself; and the Lord Bishop of Chester, had he been here, would also have agreed. Yet the Government have shown complete intransigence. One begins to wonder whether it is really worth going through these clauses and Amendments, one by one, if the Government are not going to give an inch anywhere. I do not believe that the arguments advanced have been properly answered by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am not going to take the arguments any further because they have been adequately covered. I am merely going to ask the House to support me in the Division Lobby.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I rise like a trout to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, because I found the Government's arguments absolutely conclusive. The arguments we have had are those with which those of us who have sat on Private Bill Committees in the past on boundary extensions and the like are very familiar. We have heard these arguments in such Committees scores and scores of times. There was the small parish—as it was in the old days—on the outskirts of a county borough which had been almost completely eaten up. Sometimes there was a little space of Green Belt left between it and the county borough, but by and large the parish was virtually an integral part of the county borough. We had the pleas from the other side: "Here are we, a poor little parish; we have always been a poor little parish. Now we are being swamped by commuters from the borough; why the hell should we go into it?" That argument is as old as time. When I used to sit on those Committees I found the arguments put forward in reply, which were comparable to those put forward by the noble Lord on the Front Bench this evening, quite conclusive. I find them conclusive to-day, and I shall vote against the Amendment.
BARONESS STOCKS: It is with great regret that I find myself in agreement with the Government. This Bill will cause more unhappiness and frustration among wide circles than any Bill within my memory; but it is quite obvious that Poynton is a commuter suburb of Greater Manchester. In the past Manchester made itself greater by a succession of Private Acts. To my mind, that is the way a big urban district should make itself greater. But in this case the Government are going to do it for them. With sorrow and regret, I am going to vote for the Government.
9.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Croft, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Burnham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Blyton, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Falmouth, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Coleraine, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Hale, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Somers, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Stamp, L.

Newall, L.

Strang, L.

Helsby, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hemingford, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Vernon, L. [Teller.]

Hereford, L. Bp.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandys, L.

Wade, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seear, Bs.

Watkins, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Woolley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Slater, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gage, V.

Rennell, L.

Amory, V.

Gainford, L.

Ridley, V.

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selborne, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Bessborough, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sudeley, L.

Chelmer, L.

Latymer, L.

Thomas, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Limerick, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Luke, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Mancroft, L.

Wellington, D.

Davidson, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wigram, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Wolverton, L.

Diamond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wright of Aston under Lyne, L.

Digby, L.

Dulverton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.9 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 210, line 30. column 2, leave out ("Windle, Eccleston, Rainhill and ") and insert ("Eccleston, Rainhill and Windle, and the parish of").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment but I hasten to make it clear that it is required because of the flexibility of the Government in yielding to an Opposition Amendment in another place. What is required now is only a drafting Amendment consequential upon that. I beg to move.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: I hope we shall not pass this important Amendment without a little more explanation from the Minister. He has said that it illustrates the flexibility of the Government in yielding to pressure. As he said, the proposal is to substitute for Windle, Eccleston and Rainhill the words "Eccleston, Rainhill and Windle". I want to ask the Minister whether it is being done because of representations from the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Rural District Councils Asso
1226
ciation or the Urban District Councils Association. We ought to be told before we accept this earth-shaking Amendment. After all, we might have substituted "Eccleston, Windle and Rainhill " or "Windle, Rainhill and Eccleston". The fact that we are asked to substitute "Eccleston, Rainhill and Windle" rather than "Windle, Eccleston and Rainhill" demands an explanation. I do not propose to divide the Committee.
LORD SEGAL: If I may also add a plea, can the Minister justify relegating Windle to the bottom of the list? If he intends to do it simply in sequence of alphabetical order his argument remains completely unconvincing.
LORD SANDFORD: There are important pitfalls to be avoided here. It is in order to avoid them that we have adopted the drafting conventions used elsewhere in the Schedule.
9.12 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 211, line 14, leave out ("the parish of Finningley")
The noble Lord said: One thing that has impressed me to-day is that by the end of the Committee stage the geographical

1227
knowledge of all of us will be greatly enhanced. Coming to Finningley, may I first of all say to the Minister that the purpose of putting down this Amendment is not to decide whether this parish should go into the metropolitan county round Doncaster in South Yorkshire or whether it should remain in the County of Nottinghamshire. My reason for putting down the Amendment will become clear as I go along. Finningley is a very small parish. To-day your Lordships have been talking about Plymouth, Southampton, Rochdale and other places that are household words. We all know where they are and we know something about them, but Finningley is very small. Compared with the other places I have mentioned it is hardly a pebble on the beach. Its total population is only 771. But why should not the few be mentioned in your Lordships' House? Why should not the interests of the smaller communities have a voice in this Assembly?
I made mention a moment or two ago of geography, and I must state the geographical position of this very small parish. It is at the extreme northern tip of the County of Nottinghamshire. During the Committee stage in another place Finningley was referred to as sticking out like a sore thumb into South Yorkshire. However small it might be, it certainly is known in Nottinghamshire, and it may be known to some of your Lordships because there is a famous R.A.F. station within the parish boundary of Finningley. My information is that the services and the amenities there have given satisfaction to the inhabitants of this small parish. Also, I am told that there is general satisfaction because they have been, and are still being, well looked after by the rural district council of East Retford and by the County Council of Nottinghamshire. Again, so far as I know, no objection by the inhabitants has been made to the transfer by the council council. It is purely a local objection among the majority of the inhabitants of the parish.
Furthermore, my information is that when it came to the knowledge of the people there that they were to be transferred into the metropolitan district council around Doncaster they held meetings, and had a petition. I understand that there were two meetings attended by 100
1228
people—and to get 100 people at a public meeting in these days is almost a miracle. But at both meetings no fewer than 100 people were present. They voted unanimously, I am told, to stay in the county of Nottinghamshire. The petition, which was organised by local inhabitants, was signed by 87 per cent, of the adult population, who felt that they should be allowed to stay in the County of Nottinghamshire.
It is a good thing in our Parliament that the views and the wishes of the people, even in small communities such as Finningley, should be ventilated, and I have this primarily in mind as my purpose in moving this Amendment. Looking at the map and the geographical situation of Finningley, and its close proximity to Doncaster, which will be a metropolitan district of South Yorkshire, and bearing in mind the fact that there had been no objections to the transfer (may I say this quite frankly) by the Notts County Council so far as I know, and also bearing in mind administrative convenience, my immediate reaction was that the proposed transfer was all right. However, representations were made to me by the clerk of the parish council asking if I would bring to the notice of your Lordships the wishes of the inhabitants of his parish. The main objection, on the evidence submitted to me by the clerk of the parish council—and I should like the Minister to note this particularly because this is the kernel of the speech I am making—is the manner in which the transfer has been done.
May I read an extract from the letter which was sent to me by the clerk not more than a few days ago? It states:
"The parish of Finningley is to be transferred from the county of Nottinghamshire to the South Yorkshire metropolitan district of Doncaster, much against the wishes of the local inhabitants. The chief objection is against the manner in which this has been brought about without the local parishioners knowing that the transfer was to take place until an article appeared in The Times informing the general public that the Minister had agreed to the transfer at their own request."—
that is to say the request of the parishioners—
"The people of Finningley have never expressed any desire to leave Nottinghamshire on the contrary they have repeatedly stated that they were a rural community and were quite satisfied to remain as they are."
The main reason why I have tabled this Amendment is to clear up this matter because the local parishioners are accusing the Government of showing a lack of consultation. They feel that they ought to have been consulted; that they ought to have had the opportunity to express themselves as to whether they wanted to stay where they are now or to go into the new metropolitan creation. That is my main purpose—and I say this quite sincerely to the Minister—for tabling this Amendment but I have done so also for this reason: that whatever happens, whether or not there is a change, I should not like to feel that the future was in jeopardy. Although a small community, they have their local pride and they do not like to feel that they are being left out in the cold.
I should welcome some observations from the Minister, particularly upon the point of non-consultation and the people's ignorance of what was happening until the article appeared in The Times. I beg to move.
9.23 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for speaking in the way he did on this Amendment and for making it clear that it is the manner in which the change has been proposed which disturbs the local people of Finningley more than perhaps the change itself. It illustrates the difficulty of making changes that have not been subjected to the fullest possible consultation, but Members in another place were persuaded by the arguments put forward in Committee that the change was desirable. Also anybody looking at the position on the map, with Finningley and Blaxton as two villages—one in Nottinghamshire and one in Yorkshire, both close to each other and both serving the same R.A.F. operational airfield—must see that on the face of it the case for putting both villages together and putting them into the metropolitan district of Doncaster in the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire is indeed a compelling one.
Were it not for this feeling of grievance about the way in which the proposed change had been brought about I think the local people of Finningley would almost certainly be persuaded to accept the change themselves. The position is that all the secondary and adult educa
1230
tion services available to the village are provided from Doncaster. Doncaster is undoubtedly the place where most people go to shop and from where they get all their services.
However, if they take a different view the matter will fall to be reviewed by the Boundary Commission. All concerned will then have an opportunity to make their views felt and if the Boundary Commission were persuaded that the balance of argument lay in favour of Finningley remaining in Nottinghamshire or Finning-ley and Blaxton remaining together but being moved from Yorkshire into Nottinghamshire, then those changes could be made. There is no question of the decision which has been taken, and which I must advise the Committee to maintain, prejudicing the position of the parish or in any way controlling or dictating the conclusion to which the Boundary Commission might come after hearing all the facts of the case. I hope that with that assurance and explanation of the considerable advantages which are plain for all to see in making this change, the noble Lord will not feel it essential to press the Amendment.
LORD TAYLOR or MANSFIELD: If my information is correct, may I ask the noble Lord to explain why there was a lack of consultation. of public relations so to speak, about the wishes of the people of Finningley?
LORD SANDFORD: As I explained on Second Reading, the Government started with the benefit of the very full consultations and studies undertaken by the Royal Commission, supplemented by very careful consultations in all those areas where there appeared to be problems, in which consultations all parties concerned were given an opportunity to make their views felt. However, in this imperfect world the problems of these two villages round this particular airfield did not emerge. When they did emerge, in Committee in another place, Members of the Committee were persuaded by the arguments and by all the factors relating to the problem, of which I have mentioned a few, that the change should be made, and it was made.
But when changes are made during the passage of a Bill of this kind through Parliament it is inevitable that some of

1231
the people concerned will hear of them through the Press and the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings before they have had a chance to express their views. This is one of the reasons why I am reluctant to make changes, in spite of the persuasive arguments that are being adduced by noble Lords, and why from time to time, as now, I am suggesting to the Committee that in all the circumstances the best course is to wait until the Boundary Commission can look at the matter and hear all the views of those concerned.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.29 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 211, line 17, column 2, after ("ward") insert ("so much of the East Ward as lies east and north of Ordnance Survey parcels 4800, 4749, 5136 and 8630").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes a very minor adjustment in the boundary between South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire at Bawtry on the Old Great North Road. Bawtry in Yorkshire has already extended a little over the county boundary into the neighbouring parish of Harworth, and the Bill already provides for one ward and part of another ward of the parish of Harworth to be moved across the county boundary to join with Bawtry. It has since been found that part of the Bawtry built-up area lies not in these wards but in the East ward. This Amendment therefore seeks to move the relevant part of the East ward into Bawtry as well in order to complete the job which the Bill is setting out to do in this case. The change is acceptable to the local authorities concerned on both sides of the boundary. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
LORD BLYTON LORD BLYTON moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 212, leave out lines 8 to 10.
The noble Lord said: In the interests of time perhaps my two Amendments could he taken together. There is one argument on the two issues as both places are in the County of Durham. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. This would be very convenient. I am wondering if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would like to discuss his Amendment, which is a manuscript Amendment, at the same time as it covers the same area.
LORD BLYTON: The first Amendment is to retain the parishes of Birtley and Lamesley in the County of Durham and not include them in the Tyne and Wear metropolitan authority. There is great depth of feeling in these two parishes of Birtley and Lamesley about this; their desire is to retain their long-established and historic identity with the County of Durham. The Minister will be aware that the Durham County Council, the Chester-le-Street Rural Council, the Chester Urban Council and the parish councils of Birtley and Lamesley have made strong representations to him. They have made them with realism facing what is in the best interests of sensible planning and realistic local government.
Petitions have been presented to the Minister in which 80 per cent. of the people of Birtley and Lamesley, signed the petition in which they expressed their desire to stay in County Durham. I do not understand why the Minister has just ignored those strong feelings, because he has always indicated that the Government would be guided in their principles by the reaction of the people affected by such proposals. Yet, here is an area where 80 per cent. of the people have expressed their feelings and until to-night I did not know of any other area where 80 per cent. of the people have indicated their desire to remain in a certain local government area and their request has not been accepted.
It is quite apparent that there have been no representations from these two parishes asking for them to be put into the metropolitan area based in Gateshead. The Government proposals mean that the Boundary Commission, acting on the recommendation of the Durham County Council, has been compelled to create a district which makes nonsense of the guidelines laid down in paragraph 2 of the Department's circular. The circular states:
"Except in sparsely populated areas, the aim should be to define districts with current populations generally within the range of 75,000 to 100,000."

1233
The Chester-le-Street District Council, far from being sparsely populated, will have a population under this Bill of fewer than 50,000. They are being compelled to go even against the guidelines that have been made by the Minister. In other areas the Minister has accepted people's opposition where only 20 to 40 per cent. of the population have signed petitions, and I listened to the Minister say to-night that they had listened to the people's view. In this case the view has been entirely ignored.
The Boundary Commission is proposing seven new districts to be established in the new Durham County area. They propose that the Chester-le-Street Rural Council and the Chester Urban Council should amalgamate to form one of these districts. To that there is no objection. Even that leaves this district with fewer than 50,000 people, and leaving this district well under strength as laid down in the guidelines of the Government itself. Looking at the other six districts in Durham County that the Commission proposes, we find the Chester-le-Street new area is 31,000 fewer in population than the smallest of these six new districts. It means that the rateable value of the new area of Chester-le-Street is also almost inadequate.
The case that Birtley and Lamesley should be retained in the County of Durham is strengthened very much by the draft proposals submitted to the Minister by the Local Government Boundary Commission. The fact of the situation is this, that if Birtley and Lamesley with their population of 17,000 are excluded, the rateable value of Chester-le-Street district will be reduced by nearly 50 per cent. and the population by a quarter. In my view, if the Government insist that the parishes of Birtley and Lamesley are retained in the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county based on Gateshead, they will be turning against the principles embodied in their Bill and turning them upside down.
We have been told that the object of this reform is to give better local government at local level, yet this aim is denied to these people if they are taken out of the County of Durham. I know this area, as my life has been spent in Durham, and I do not know on what premise the Minister has done this. Birtley now is fully developed and is of no
1234
value to Gateshead. Again, the addition of Birtley and Lamesley to Gateshead will only increase its population, and increase the rateable value of the new Gateshead district by only a very small amount, whereas if these two parishes were retained in County Durham and formed part of the new Chester-le-Street county district, they would be of tremendous value in providing a sensible, realistic and viable unit of local government.
I should like to impress upon the Minister that he should recognise the strength of the feeling that exists in these two parishes against their being absorbed in this metropolitan area based on Gateshead, and to realise that the proposals are not good in terms of realistic Government planning. Every organisation, all political parties, the Churches, are unanimous in their desire to stay in County Durham, and are dismayed that their long history and tradition as citizens of the County of Durham is to be broken by this proposal, which neither makes sense nor logic of realistic local government.
I will now deal with my second Amendment. Why was Hetton put in the Sunderland area? What a ridiculous boundary it will be so far as Hetton is concerned if this district is left in the metropolitan area of Sunderland! Once the Government decided, quite correctly in my view, that Seaham urban district should not be in the metropolitan area of Sunderland, it is quite evident from the map that Hetton should have been treated in the same way as Seaham and put into the County of Durham. Anyone who knows of the pattern of the development in Hetton, which is typical of the Durham coalfield, knows that they have nothing at all in common with Sunderland. The history, the tradition, the social structure and the planning problems of this area are such that they should he left in the Durham area. Hetton Urban District Council have consistently maintained in the strongest possible way the view that in the interests of the welfare of the people of Hetton they should remain where they are now, in the County of Durham. If ever there was untidiness of the boundary which will operate when this Bill is enacted it is in the Sunderland metropolitan area, with Hetton jutting like a sore finger into the new Durham county area as it is to be in future.

1235
I welcome the decision to put Seaham back into County Durham, but whatever argument was used by the Minister for that there are much stronger arguments in the case of Hetton. It is predominantly a mining village. Many of its people work at Peterlee, and the majority work in Hetton itself; and they have had nothing at all in common with Sunderland. I am confident that when the Minister looks at his map again, and when the people of Durham realise that Seaham is coming to Durham but not Hetton, and that Birtley and Lamesley are going to the metropolitan area of Gateshead they will feel that it is such a mess that the whole arrangement will need revision. I am certain also that this will have to be done in the not very distant future and I therefore ask the Minister to give these two Amendments careful consideration tonight because no one is happy in these parishes as a result of the arrangement in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.42 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: It should be explained that in addition to what my noble friend, Lord Blyton, has said, the concept which inspired the Boundary Commission to suggest the change was that these two parishes, Birtley and Lamesley, should be transferred to the new metropolitan county of the Tyne and the Wear. That is the idea. There ought to be some explanation for this, but so far as we can gather no explanation has been forthcoming. There was a debate in another place, in the course of which the honourable Member for Chester-le-Street and the two honourable Members for Gateshead participated. I have read the Report of the debate and I am bound to say, irrespective of the views of Durham County Council, the contention of my honourable friend and colleague representing Chester-le-Street was conclusive in this respect: that nothing was to be gained by either of those parishes from the transfer.
His views were controverted in part by the two honourable Members for Gateshead. Their contention was that Gateshead wanted these parishes—for what reason was not very clear. But Gateshead wanted a colony, grabbed them, and had them transferred. They had never thought about it before—this is the remarkable thing about it—but when
1236
the Boundary Commission suggested the change, Gateshead seized upon it at once as very desirable. So far as I am able to ascertain, no other valid argument had been adduced in support of the transfer. As my noble friend, Lord Blyton has pointed out, these are two historic parishes: both Birtley and Lamesley have historic associations. They do not want to be uprooted; they are content where they are. I hope the Minister will take note of this point: that it will not make the slightest difference, except geographically, and then in a very minor fashion, if the two parishes remain where they are. What inspired the Boundary Commission to suggest the change it is difficult to say. That is the position so far as the two parishes of Birtley and Lamesley are concerned. Unless the Minister can adduce any valid arguments in support of this transfer, then I think the matter deserves further consideration.
I come to the second Amendment which affects the urban district of Hetton. I have been furnished with a map by the Durham County Council. Perhaps I may digress for a moment to explain why I speak on their behalf, alongside my noble friend Lord Blyton. I have a long association with the County of Durham, even longer than that of my noble friend Lord Blyton. I first went to Durham in the year 1892.
LORD BLYTON: I was not born then.
LORD SHINWELL: I went to South Shields from London, and went to school in South Shields; I was then just about eight years of age. I was there for some time. I then went to Scotland, where I acquired a somewhat fine Scottish accent, which has no doubt been observed. Then, at a later stage, I returned to South Shields and lived there for some time. So I have an acquaintance with the County of Durham, apart from the fact that I have spoken in every village and township in Durham. I almost forgot that I represented a Durham constituency for 35 years, apart from other constituencies elsewhere. So I know something about the place; and I know Birtley and Lamesley, having spoken in both places. We do not get very big meetings there. but the meetings are all right and they helped my colleague who is now in the other place to retain his seat. So I do

1237
not understand why they should be disturbed. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that there is no reason why Durham County should have been disturbed at all. They would have preferred to remain as they are. I do not mind the Boundary Commission coming along and making a good job of changes, but they left it all very untidy, and I want to refer to the untidiness.
My noble friend referred to Hetton as being like a sore thumb. It is quite a useful analogy. If noble Lords will look at the map they will see that Hetton is just jutting out. If the Boundary Commission are to make a good job of it, they should tidy it up. The line should not jut out there but should carry on with a reasonable and rational boundary. My noble friend pointed out what happened in the case of Seaham. I used, at one time, to represent Seaham, not in your Lordships' House of course but in the other place. It was suggested at one time that Seaham should be incorporated in the metropolitan county of Sunderland. Perhaps the Commission changed their minds, as Seaham remains in Durham County. But Seaham is nearer Sunderland than Hetton, yet it has now been decided that Hetton should be included in Sunderland while Seaham escapes. This is absurd. The Commission cannot carry on in this irrational fashion.
I come to what is more in my line in connection with Easington Rural District Council. I also represented Easington for seven years. When Seaham Harbour was hived off, it remained as Easington. What is proposed in connection with Easington Rural District Council is that two tiny villages, Burdon and Warden Law, should be transferred to another area—extracted like a bad tooth from Easing-ton Rural District Council. What is the purpose of it? I used to go to these places very often. I had to go to a remote part of the Easington Rural District Council area, the administrative area, the electoral area, very often to address meetings. I never could get an indoor meeting: I had to speak through a loudspeaker on a street corner, and talk to the people there in that way. Nobody ever came to listen to me. Whether I ever got any votes from the place I am unable to say; but it was part and parcel of the Easington rural area, and everybody was quite happy. When all the
1238
people are quite happy, why should somebody come along and disturb them? That is what I want to know. As to the Boundary Commission, they are no doubt very decent people, I should not be at all surprised—quite decent people—but what have they been up to?
LORD ABERDARE: I should just like to put the noble Lord right on this matter. It has nothing to do with the Boundary Commission. He can blame the Government for this, but not the Boundary Commission. The Boundary Commission are concerned with district boundaries.
LORD SHINWELL: I am only too delighted to blame the Government—that is right up my street. Now that I know,
am ready to transfer my resentment from the Boundary Commission to the Government. But that makes it even worse. You can expect anything from a Boundary Commission—after all, what do they know?—but a Government, an intelligent Government! It really is too bad.
I am not sure what my noble friend wants to do about this Amendment, whether he wants to divide on it. I should be quite content if the Government said in reply to what my noble friend has said and to what I have ventured to say that they would give the matter consideration. They may have some difficulty about Hetton. I am prepared to let that go, because there may be some difficulty about that. There could be certain adjustments, but that could be arranged later on. I would not bother so much about that, and I am rather inclined to think that my noble friend would agree with me about it. He had better say, "Yes" or "No". I think he would agree. Of course, he must not commit himself too far. He lives in Durham, and I do not; that is the difference. But it seems to me that, as regards Birtley and Lamesley, the Government might care to reconsider the matter. As regards Burdon and Warden Law, it does not matter very much. Leave them where they are; they are quite content. Why should they be disturbed? They are quite happy: do not make them miserable. Therefore I support my noble friend in these Amendments.
LORD SLATER: I rise to give support to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Blyton of South Shields and supported by my noble friend Lord Shin-well of Easington. It so happens that I was on the county authority six years prior to becoming a Member of Parliament, so I am in a different category from the two noble Lords who have already spoken and presented their arguments to your Lordships in regard to what has happened under the local government proposals. I know Birtley well and I know Lamesley well, as a member of the local authority at that time prior to becoming a Member of Parliament. There is one point of which I took particular notice. During the course of the speech which was delivered by my noble friend Lord Shinwell he talked about representing that particular area of Easington as a Member of Parliament in the other place, but he did not tell your Lordships that my constituency was next door to his and that the boundary ran down the main street, so that he had one side of the street in his constituency and I had the other half of the street in mine. That is the way the thing runs.
I am interested in the important matter of these Commissions that are set up by the Government, especially in regard to local government. I am not talking about Parliamentary Commissions—the time will come when one will be in a position to say something in regard to Parliamentary Commissions—but about local government Boundary Commissions. Do I take it that the Boundary Commissions, as set up by the Government, just work away, as it were, from an ordnance map? We have heard comments made by the Minister that observations have been taken from the air by helicopter, by plane and so on, but I should like to know how much attention has been paid locally by the Boundary Commission, over the period of years that they have been examining this situation concerning changes in local government boundaries within this country, and the number of visits that they have made to the respective areas before submitting recommendations to the Government for consideration. I wonder how many, if any, visits they have made into the County of Durham. I believe if they had paid these visits and had had consultations with the local
1240
authority they would not have given consideration to Birtley or Hetton going somewhere else. There has been a long struggle over the years and the purpose has always been not for Lamesley and Birtley to go into Gateshead but for Gateshead to go into the Newcastle area across the Tyne. This is where the battle has been going on all the time. Now the Government come along and propose a new situation for Birtley which is a self-contained area which has any amount of heavy industry, is well supported by outside interests and is in close proximity to Chester-le-Street. It is a place where people can easily satisfy their shopping needs, for it has good road transport, without their having to depend on going into Gateshead and Newcastle.
Therefore I hope that the Minister will note the arguments presented by my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Taylor said we had heard about Southampton and other towns and areas. I want to say that one of the best cases that I have heard presented in this Chamber in regard to local government was presented when the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, and the mover of that Amendment on that occasion argued against their own Party in Government because of the procedure that they were seeking to follow in these changes. I hope the Government will heed the appeal by my noble friend Lord Shinwell over the changes that they seek to introduce in regard to Durham.
9.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I support Lord Blyton on Amendment 14. I do not have his detailed knowledge of these parishes but on these occasions I feel that it is incumbent upon all Geordies to support each other. A strong argument for these two parishes has been presented and I know that in these two parishes, Lamesley and Birtley, there are strong feelings expressed that they should remain in County Durham. This Committee should take notice of these feelings. If the noble Lord chooses to divide the Committee on this Amendment I will support him.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I feel somewhat embarrassed on this occasion because my noble friends, Lord Blyton, Lord Shinwell and Lord Slater, and my noble but friendly enemy, Lord Ridley,

1241
have all spoken in favour of separating Lamesley and Birtley from the metropolitan county. I suffer from the disadvantage that I have been resident on Tyne-side for only 25 years whereas they have been resident for very much longer. Consequently, they know this district very much better than I. But I am not convinced by their arguments. If one drove out—when I first went to Newcastle in 1947 I used to bicycle out—along the road from Gateshead and Low Fell to Birtley one did not notice that there was any difference as one went from Low Fell into Birtley. The first time I went to Birtley was to visit the laboratories of the Birtley colliery. So far as I could see, these were virtually part of Gateshead. They were actually on the edge of Gateshead. When one goes down the hill from the main road towards the Team Valley one ends up in the Team Valley Estate.
LORD SLATER: Is my noble friend aware, when he talks about Low Fell as being more or less attached to Gateshead, that he has to pass through Ravensworth before he gets to Low Fell?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I am describing what happened to me as I went along. As one goes down the hill one gets to the Team Valley Estate, which is part of Gateshead. It is part of this whole metropolitan area. One looks at Birtley and sees it as an industrial area which is virtually indistinguishable from the Team Valley Estate, and surely in the North-East we want an extension of the Estate. The whole future of the North-East depends upon the Team Valley Estate developing still further; already there are 80,000 workers there, many of whom live in Birtley and Gateshead. The whole mass is one conurbation. To pretend that it is not, that Birtley is something segregated from this conurbation, is, I suggest, to do a great disservice to the whole development of that part of the country.
I have been a resident there for 25 years and I am very much concerned with the development. The services in Birtley are dependent on Gateshead. You cannot say that you could run an effective transport service except through Gateshead. In my opinion there is no
1242
question that the whole of that part depends on it. Lamesley is a relatively small and scattered part—
LORD BLYTON: Is my noble friend aware that the transport for Birtley people depends on the Northern and the Sunderland district and not on Gateshead?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Sunderland is part of the metropolitan district. The whole of this district ought, in my opinion, to be considered as one. The only question I would ask is whether it is wise to leave out Chester-le-Street. Maybe it is, but I think that Chester-le-Street ought to come in. If one comes to such questions as the provision of technical education, which is an extremely important matter in this area, what technical education is going to be afforded through Chester-le-Street? Gateshead can afford far better technical education. It has a first-class technical college; it can afford far better library facilities, museum facilities and all the facilities that are required for the development of this area.
I suggest that we are really being anachronistic if we say that 1,000 years or more ago we had the Venerable Bede in Jarrow and that everything is centred round something which disappeared a long time ago. To-day we are thinking of the future and I suggest that we ought to think of making this metropolitan area really effective. While I am prepared to agree with my noble friend Lord Blyton—partly, I admit, through ignorance—that Hetton might not be included, nevertheless I am quite sure from my own knowledge that both Birtley and Lamesley ought to be included in this metropolitan area.
10.6 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The debate on these Amendments has illustrated the great difficulties we are in with regard to these matters of geography, particularly when it comes to the creation of a new county such as Tyne and Wear. In another place there was exhaustive debate on the southern boundary of the metropolitan county, which is what we are basically discussing. In fact the Government made one concession to the Opposition in taking Seaham and two neighbouring parishes out of the metro

1243
politan county and putting them in Durham. As noble Lords who have spoken are well aware, this was for an extremely special reason connected with the pollution of beaches at Seaham caused by coal-mining operations in Durham. We saw great advantage in Seaham's remaining as a port for the dumping of waste coal materials.
The result has been that by giving one concession and taking Seaham back into Durham we have encouraged a horde of demands. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, would take Hetton, Lamesley and part of the parish of Birtley. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wants to take Houghtonle-Spring back into Durham. We should have no Tyne and Wear left if we listened to all of these pleas. As we go along, noble Lords will realise that it is extremely difficult to deal with these matters of parish boundaries.
I want to make one or two detailed remarks about the Amendments, but before doing so I would say that where there are parish difficulties, as in the case of other Amendments, these are matters for the Boundary Commission to have a proper look at in due course. The debate has also illustrated the differences of opinion which exist. One does not really know on what side one's friends are in these debates. I felt very much that I had more of an ally in the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, than in my noble friend Lord Ridley.
I agree that Hetton itself would prefer to be included in Durham, but its work ties are with the metropolitan county. According to the 1966 Census there were 7,250 residents in employment, of whom roughly half worked within Hetton. Of the remainder, at least 2,150 were employed within the area of the proposed metropolitan county and over 2,000 in the Sunderland district. Far fewer were employed in the proposed county of Durham. We really feel that Hetton is much more closely linked with District E (Tyne and Wear) than with Durham. I am thinking of ties of employment, shopping, newspaper circulation, and general community interests. Ties are likely to be strengthened rather than weakened as coalmining becomes less important and new industrial estates are developed. In
1244
fact the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, seems to be prepared to go along with the idea of leaving Hetton.
Then there is the question of the parish of Lamesley and part of the parish of Birtley. There are two reasons, at least one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, why Lamesley is rightly placed with Tyne and Wear. In the first place, the residential area of Eighton Banks, in the North-East of the parish, is a suburb of Gateshead. Secondly, part of the Team Valley Industrial Estate, mentioned by the noble Lord, extends across the Gateshead boundary into the northern part of Lamesley. So far as Birtley is concerned, this is physically linked with Washington. I agree that the A.1(M) divides the two, but it is a substantially built-up residential and industrial parish, and part of Washington. For those reasons, I would suggest that these particular parishes are better left with Tyne and Wear for the present moment. My right honourable friend in another place undertook to refer these matters to the Boundary Commission, who will make a special study of them after 1974.
LORD SLATER: May I ask the noble Lord how he arrives at the conclusion that Birtley is linked with Washington? Has he been in the area? It might be as well if he visited the area and saw for himself where Birtley is and where Washington is.
LORD ABERDARE: I regret to say that I have not been in the area. I am afraid that there are too many areas involved in this Bill to visit them all. But I am told that it is separated only by the A.1(M).
LORD BLYTON: There are four miles between them.
LORD ABERDARE: If the noble Lord would like to have some words with me afterwards about that, I will certainly take it up. So far as Houghton-le-Spring is concerned, the information I have is that Houghton-le-Spring wants to stay in Tyne and Wear and is opposed to any other major alteration in the boundary. So far as I know, there has been no local campaign to take them out of Tyne and Wear, and I suggest that their

1245
ties are towards Sunderland rather than with County Durham. If the noble Lord wishes to press this Amendment, I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
LORD BLYTON: At this stage I
1246
accept that this matter will be reviewed in 1974. The matter has been debated, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.13 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 212, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
("District (d) the county borough of Warley
District (e) the county borough of West Bromwich ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the Government's proposal to combine Warley and West Bromwich in a single district authority within the new area of West Midlands. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, must be aware that the proposal is disliked throughout this part of the Black Country. It is disapproved of by the two councils concerned. It is looked upon with disfavour by the two communities involved. So far as I can gather, there is no welcome for it in any local quarter.
I do not think that such an unfavourable popular reaction should cause surprise. As recently as 1966 there was a major local government reorganisation in the Black Country. A number of local authorities were amalgamated into five county boroughs. As part of this reorganisation the county borough of West Bromwich was extended to take in adjoining areas. Warley was created as a new county borough, comprising substantially the former county borough of Smethwick and the boroughs of Oldbury and Rowley Regis. It is obvious that Warley Council has been faced with a major task in welding together the constituent parts of the new county borough and in organising the effective administration of the many services that had to be dealt with. The council are now able to state that they have performed this task with a great deal of success and that they have undertaken considerable expansion of the services. They have a fine record.
Having loyally adapted themselves to the pattern of reorganisation imposed upon them in 1966, having made real progress in getting over the obvious teething troubles, having made good progress in their efforts to develop a new community loyalty and a new identity, as well as having built up a fine record in respect of the many social services for which they have become responsible, they are now to be compelled to start all over
1248
again the exacting process of amalgamation and reorganisation. The council hold the view that their record of practical achievements amply demonstrates that Warley, as at present constituted, is a viable unit of administration. Having become a viable unit for all the functions of local government, it will also be viable under the new system to administer a more limited range of functions. They are convinced that if they are allowed to continue to direct their energies and efforts to the further development and improvement of their own borough as they have been doing in the last five years, a great deal more progress can be achieved.
What is asked for in my Amendment is that Warley and West Bromwich should each remain as a separate independent metropolitan district in the new West Midlands County. That is what both of them desire. If my Amendment was accepted, the effect would be that instead of the seven districts as now proposed there would be eight districts in the new county. I am sure the Minister will be reminding me that as the basic population figure for district units has been fixed at 250,000, and Warley's population is just around 170,000, and that of West Bromwich about 220,000. neither county borough matches up to the basic minimum, whereas they will be fully adequate when combined. That is true. But unless I have misread Appendix 6 of Circular 8/71, there are three proposed district authorities whose populations are below 200,000.
I have also seen it stated that in the Greater London authority area, of 30 London boroughs 20 have populations of fewer than 250,000; seven have populations of fewer than 200,000; two have populations of fewer than 170,000, and one fewer than 150,000. I admit that this position is not due to any provisions of the present Bill, but if the relevant figures that I have quoted are correct it surely means that the Government are not rigidly enforcing the basic population rule but are permitting some exceptions under the present Bill. What I am seeking to persuade the Government to do is to agree to include Warley and West Bromwich in the limited number of exceptions.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the pressing and persuasive

1249
representations that have been made in support of this proposal, representations by personal interview, by correspondence, and by speeches in another place. So far all these efforts have failed to achieve the desired end. A similar Amendment to mine was rejected in another place by the Secretary of State for the Environment. This decision has caused widespread local disappointment, but it has also led to further representations being made in the hope of persuading the Secretary of State to have a further look at the matter and allow a favourable response to be given here. I add my support to what must be regarded as a final appeal, and I hope that the Minister who is to reply is not going to disappoint Warley and West Bromwich again, or disappoint me for the first time. I beg to move.
10.24 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sure that the whole Committee will have been impressed by that eloquent plea from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on behalf of the area which his brother used to represent with such distinction. I do not think that there is any doubt at all we would all pay a tribute to what these two county boroughs of Warley and West Bromwich have achieved since the reorganisation that took place in 1966. Their regret and disappointment at the upheaval that they now face is only too understandable. But I do not think it is necessary to regard the task and challenge that faces them now as being aptly described as having to start all over again.
What they are being asked to do by the Bill as it stands is to carry one stage further the work to which they set their hands a short period of six years ago, in 1966, when it fell to them to embrace, to amalgamate and to give coherence to a multiplicity of separate authorities. They are now being asked to join hands and to do the same for one single area at the heart of the West Midlands conurbation. This does not in the least diminish our acknowledgment and our appreciation of what they have achieved.
However, their populations of 163,000 in the case of Warley and 167,000 in the case of West Bromwich are considerably below the standard of 250,000 which is
1250
regarded as the normal minimum for metropolitan districts carrying out the functions assigned to those districts.
It is perfectly true that exception is being made for other authorities—we have been discussing two of them earlier this evening—whose populations are below that figure, namely, the district of Bury with 175,000 and the district of Rochdale with 200,000. Whereas Bury and Rochdale and other similar districts, like, say, South Shields with 177,000, have been accepted as exceptions below the standard of 250,000, there were justifications in those cases because they are distinct areas, standing apart and identifiable on the map as distinct entities. In the case of Warley and West Bromwich we are dealing with two contiguous county boroughs whose built-up areas are now entirely coalescing, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. To look at the two on the map one would not realise that there are two identifiable and separate units. The other awkward fact which prevents us from doing what Warley and West Bromwich would like and what many of us would want to do, were it not for these facts, is that whereas the population of the county borough of Bury, which already stands at 175,000 is increasing rapidly the populations of Warley and West Bromwich are declining; in the case of Warley it is declining quite rapidly.
So for these three reasons, first, that they are too low in population to shoulder the functions and responsibilities assigned to metropolitan districts; secondly, that they cannot readily be regarded as exceptions in the same way as Bury, South Shields, Rochdale and others because they are contiguous and it is convenient for them to be brought together, and for the further reason that their populations are declining whereas that of the other districts where exception is being made is rising, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment, however eloquently it was moved and however sincerely expressed were the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I regret this very much indeed because the record of the two county boroughs has been so distinguished, but I am confident that they will be able to carry forward the work which they have been doing over the last six years.
LORD HENDERSON: I am very grateful to the Minister for his friendly references to the two county boroughs. Of course I am disappointed at his decision. Before I make a further point I am rather in doubt about the figures which the Ministed has given. I am quoting the circular which I mentioned. It gives the population for Warley and West Bromwich together as 392,000. If we take 170,000 from that for Warley that leaves roughly 220,000 for West Bromwich, which is the figure I gave. However, that is a point of correction if I am right in what I am saying. I am grateful to the Minister for his kindly references to the work that is being done by these two borough councils. I am not going to withdraw the Amendment and I am not going to divide on it: I will have it negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.30 p.m.
BARONESS BACON BARONESS BACON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 213, line 26, at end insert ("and Rothwell").
The noble Baroness said: I understand that the Minister has suggested that we take my two Amendments and the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Popplewell together. Is that not so? I understood that that was his request. However, let me say that the Amendment about Sherburn and my Amendments about Rothwell have one thing in common, in that we are both seeking to put something into the Leeds district (b) of the West Yorkshire Metropolitan county. I do not propose to speak about Sherburn, except to say that I fully agree with the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Popplewell will move.
The effect of my Amendments is that the urban district of Rothwell will be retransferred from the Wakefield district to the Leeds district in the West Yorks metropolitan county. I have lived all my life in what will be the Wakefield district, and I represented for 25 years the City of Leeds, the Leeds district, so I can, as it were, be on the boundary and look at the problem from both sides. In the original Bill which went before another place Rothwell was included in the Leeds district, and it was not until the Report stage on July 6 that the Government, in
1252
another place, accepted an Amendment taking Rothwell out of the Leeds district, where it rightly belongs, and put it into the Wakefield district.
We are all grateful to the Minister for providing the excellent maps which we have before us. I should like to say, though, that while this is an absolutely correct map of Leeds, it is perhaps a little misleading, in that if one looked at this map of Leeds one might think that the centre of Leeds was in the centre of the county borough, but in fact the city centre of Leeds comes nearly up to the southern boundary where Rothwell takes one big mouthful of Leeds right into the industrial part of the city. It is possible to travel now under the present boundaries from the city centre West, North and East for several miles and still be within the city boundaries, but if one travels South to the boundary which meets Roth-well it is only about 1 or 1½ miles; so Leeds, even now, is very much truncated on the southern side. After reorganisation the Leeds district will take in many more areas to the West, to the North, and to the East. Otley, for example, which is 11 miles from the city centre, will be taken into the Leeds district; and although they very much wanted to be in North Yorkshire the Government have turned a deaf ear to this proposal. But, as I say, the southern boundary of Leeds meets Rothwell only a mile or 1½, miles from the city centre.
It meets Rothwell at a very industrial, built-up area of Leeds. I represented this area of Leeds, which is called Hunslet, and the part of Rothwell which meets Hunslet is called Stourton, which will be well known to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He will know, as others will know, that where Leeds meets Rothwell at Stourton, Stourton is really a part of Leeds. It is the industrial area of Leeds. When I have gone canvassing in that area it has been difficult to see which streets were mine and which were those of Stourton, which is in the Rothwell district.
We have heard a lot about green belts to-night, and the lush green areas of England; but believe me! this is no green belt area. It is difficult even to see a blade of grass; it is the industrial area of Leeds. Indeed there is one factory

1253
there where the city boundary goes right through the factory. Waddingtons, well known as printers and manufacturers of playing cards and games, have a factory where the works is in Leeds (all in one area) and the administrative block and the office are in Rothwell. Recently, the managing director of Waddingtons, Mr. Victor Watson, was speaking at a function and mentioned the difficulties which this created for his factory. He went on to say,
"Everyone in Waddingtons knows the troubles that this has caused, the most celebrated being the case before the War of the man who died in our works. The corpse was removed to the office and the police were sent for (from Rothwell). The very first question from the local copper ' elicited the fact that the death had taken place in the works, whereupon the constabulary notebook was decisively closed and the instruction given to return the deceased to the works and send for the Leeds police."
This still obtains today, that the boundary runs right through this factory.
The small town of Rothwell is the centre of Rothwell urban district, but even that is only four miles from Leeds city centre. If one takes the whole area of the Rothwell Urban District Council, not just the area bordering on Leeds, there are overwhelming reasons why Rothwell should be in Leeds and not in Wakefield. I will give just a few. Ninety per cent. of the people of Rothwell work in Leeds. The transport services from Rothwell to Leeds are very much better and greater than from Rothwell to Wakefield, both the bus services and the train service. The Yorkshire Imperial Chemicals, which is just over the Rothwell border, employs 4,000 people: the works are in the Roth-well area, but Leeds runs nine special buses a day for the workpeople. The Skelton Grange power station is in Leeds but its main entrance is in Rothwell. Rothwell's water is supplied by the Leeds Corporation water undertaking. Leeds is the main shopping centre for Rothwell. There are courts at Leeds and Wakefield, but the West Riding magistrates, covering the Rothwell area, meet in Leeds and not in Wakefield. Historically, Rothwell and Hunslet (which is in Leeds) are one. The old Hunslet workhouse is now St. George's hospital, Rothwell. Rothwell has a Leeds postal district; it is served by the Leeds telephone exchange, and if we turn to ecclesiastical matters all the Church of England parishes in the Roth-
1254
well Urban District are part of the Diocese of Ripon, in which also is Leeds, and not of Wakefield. The Methodist circuit covering most of the Rothwell Urban District is called the Leeds (Rothwell) Circuit. I could go on but I think I have said enough—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
BARONESS BACON:—to show that Rothwell really belongs to Leeds, and much more so than other places like Morley and Pudsey and Otley and Boston Spa, and all the others round the West and North and East of Leeds to which the Government have turned a deaf ear. Why, then, did they accept this Amendment and not Amendments from other places?
Reference has been made to local opinion, and I want to be quite frank about this. In Rothwell an active pressure group and some councillors, I admit Labour councillors among them, were agitating to go into Wakefield, principally on the ground that they would be a much smaller fish in the big pond of Leeds than would be the case if they went into Wakefield. For example, if they went into Leeds they would have only three councillors, but if they went into Wakefield they would have six. There was a poll of a kind, but it was on duplicated paper and took the form of a leaflet extolling the reasons why the people should vote to go into Wakefield rather than Leeds. I am informed that not every house received voting papers and that some papers were not collected. Although it was an unofficial poll, we were informed that a large majority of people were in favour of going into Wakefield. However, it is true to say that misleading statements were made at a public meeting about what would happen to the education services.
I am not blaming the people of Roth-well for agitating to be transferred from Leeds to Wakefield. Nor am I blaming my Member of Parliament, Mr. Albert Roberts, for tabling an Amendment at the request of the local people. But within no time at all after that Amendment had been tabled Sir Donald Kaberry, the Member of Parliament for North-West Leeds, added his name to it, thereby ensuring that the Amendment could not be withdrawn, and before one

1255
could say "Jack Robinson" the Government had accepted it. Why did that happen? Why did the Government turn a deaf ear on Otley, which is 11 miles from Leeds, but fall over themselves to move Rothwell, which is practically in Leeds, out of Leeds and into Wakefield? I must leave noble Lords to draw their own conclusion as to the reason.
Could it be that the areas to the North, West and East were not so solidly Labour, to put it mildly, as Rothwell Urban District Council? It was all too much for the Member of Parliament for Ripon, Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, who in another place, where this matter was discussed at half past four in the morning, could hardly contain himself; he shouted "Rubbish!" to his own Government colleagues and voted against taking Rothwell out of Leeds and putting it into Wakefield. I appeal to all noble Lords, and not only my noble friends, who wish to judge this matter on its merits to support me to-night in what I believe is an overwhelmingly just case.
10.44 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I gather that as we are discussing Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together it will be convenient, should a Vote be required, for separate Divisions to take place. In supporting the case presented by my noble friend Baroness Bacon I can claim to have some knowledge of the area about which she has been speaking, though I will not delay your Lordships at this late hour by repeating the arguments she adduced. Rothwell was originally encased, so to speak, in a number of the areas which are shown to be bordering on Metropolitan District (b). It is this transfer of Rothwell into Metropolitan District (e) that just creates this very untidy boundary. If one looks at it in a particular direction on the map, one sees where the boundary is and where the rest is. You cannot tell when you enter Roth-well. It is contiguous with Leeds in every possible direction. Therefore some very sharp practices, if I may say so, which do not appeal to us in this House have been employed in taking Rothwell out of Leeds for a specific purpose.
I do not want to say any more about that. I want now to come on to my own little pet pigeon. In moving my
1256
Amendment to insert Sherburn-in-Elmet, South Milford and Huddleston with Newthorpe into this area, I do so with an unrivalled knowledge of the area. I have lived in that area all my life. I know it, and I knew it in its difficult years. I knew Sherburn when its poverty was real: and what difficulties we had! I played some part during the war years in planning for the future. Those plans have materialised and there is now a very thriving privately-owned industrial estate. That estate has now something like 12 or 15 companies, and all are doing very well. Furthermore, into that area three large undertakings—Avery's, the weighing machine people, Avon cosmetics and Gypsums—have established very sizeable factories where approximately a thousand people are employed. Additionally there are those employed in the smaller factories.
That at once indicates that Sherburn is an industrial village. It is a village of 2,400 inhabitants. It has evolved into that industrial village because of the bad economic conditions in the past. The present proposal is that this industrial village of Sherburn should be linked up anew. If your Lordships will look at the maps which you have, you will see that the village of Sherburn is linked up in this great massive North Yorkshire rural area. The present proposal for a district link-up would be into an area comprising 90 odd villages, and Sherburn is the only industrial village of the lot.
Selby is, as most of your Lordships will know, a country market town, but it has some industries too. That is included in the 90. The whole of the rest is purely truly rural. Tadcaster, a brewery town, you might say could come within an inch and if so I will accept it; there is only the brewery at Tadcaster and no other industry. This is something which is not quite in accord with this village and with the factories we have there. Working night and day, with heavy lorries coming through the whole time, it does not link up at all with the rural areas.
Further, in relation to these proposed linked up 90, on Sunday last I took the car and had a run round the area, to see just exactly what the local government set-up would be. I travelled for miles and miles and could not find any villages of any comparable size in this Southern

1257
part at all. That is not quite the link-up that is necessary. It is proposed in the Bill that common interest must be taken into consideration. We are an industrial village. The border of the new Leeds (b) area comes up to the Sherburn border itself. In one small part is Arthington; Huddleston comes across, and South Milford and the three Western boundaries link up to the area with which they have always been associated down through the ages; industrial Micklefield, Swillingdon and Prescot area is going into Leeds and that was previously associated with the old Tadcaster Rural District Council; Sherburn is now going into Leeds but Sherburn is going to be an off-shoot itself.
In addition to this developing industrial background there is a commuter area. Comparatively large-scale private housing and council housing development has taken place, and there is the direct bus service and also train service with the Leeds (b) area, as distinct from no through service at all with the rest of the area in North Yorkshire to which we are being linked. In the planning in the war years the general idea was to develop South Milford and Sherburn as a housing site and to link the two villages up. Private housebuilding and council building is now making the gap between the two about half a mile or three-quarters of a mile. South Milford has not such an industrial background as Sherburn, but it has about 900 inhabitants and is developing considerably on a commuter basis where it has its direct service to Leeds. Therefore, there does appear to be a community of interests, and it would be a shame to destroy it by linking these areas up with a truly rural atmosphere to which they are not aligned in any shape or form. I say that feelingly because for some 15 years or so I played a rather large part in the development of this particular area.
This village, too, has developed a civic consciousness, with its well equipped recreation ground with football, bowls, tennis, each of them having their own pavilion, with wonderful sports arrangements for children with playground equipment. They have developed a first class village centre. It would do your Lordships really good to go and see it, because of its furnishings and because of what they have made of the centre. It is a purely social centre, being utilized
1258
for play for children in the morning and all kinds of things during the day; and in addition they have now taken over nine acres or so of land to develop as a park. This is not a rural background; this is an industrial background. In addition, educational development is taking place there. The recruitment area of the comprehensive school is 95 per cent. from the West Yorkshire area as distinct from the North area. The water supplies and all amenities are more with the metropolitan Leeds (b) area than anywhere else. Therefore, I sincerely hope the Government will have a further look at this matter with a view to putting this village into its rightful heritage, as it were.
I make no apology for having a word with the Minister. He told me he had received a telegram from some of the areas to the effect that they did not want to come into the metropolitan area, they wanted to come into district (b). I do not know from whom that telegram could have come, unless from South Milford Parish Council. The Sherburn Parish Council, when a review of local government was taking place—I am referring to four or five years ago—has discussed whether it should be rural. This is even before the schemes had materialised. But the Sherburn Parish Council has been firm the whole of the time as to where they would like to be. Only last weekend the chairman and members of the parish council interviewed me and we discussed this matter very firmly and clearly, so there cannot have been any telegram from Sherburn Parish Council. It might be that Milford has a different approach; if so, well, instead of being Milford, Newthorpe and Huddleston and Sherburn-in-Elmet, let us drop Milford but let Huddleston and Sherburn come into their rightful heritage. I shall move my Amendment on those lines.
10.58 p.m.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me if, as an adopted citizen of Leeds, I briefly give my support to what I think was the very strong case put by my noble friend Lady Bacon in her speech in moving this Amendment. I should not speak to-night but for the fact that I have come to know reasonably well the area about which the noble Baroness spoke. She is right when she says that Hunslet and Rothwell

1259
(I am sure many of your Lordships will have wondered why they have never heard of Rothwell before) form one of those contiguous areas where it is simply impossible to know where one ends and one begins. I have driven through both areas a number of times, because one does not live a completely Vatican city life as a vice-chancellor, and I cannot but agree with the noble Baroness that it will seem a curious outcome of this great exercise if Otley moves into the district of Leeds whereas Rothwell remains outside.
As I have said, I should not have spoken if I had not come to know this area reasonably well. And I suggest that it is not unreasonable that we should send back one Amendment, particularly on a decision that was taken on Report stag in another place at 4.30 in the morning. I quite understand the reluctance your Lordships may well feel at this time of the Session to prolong argument about details of legislation, but it would seem to me in this one case that there is very strong ground indeed for feeling that the earlier thoughts of another place were right and that the proposal in the Bill as it comes before your Lordships is wrong and, therefore, that the noble Baroness's Amendment should be supported.
BARONESS WHITE: I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Boyle added his considerable weight to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Bacon. As I have said earlier to your Lordships, in general, so far as our Front Bench representation is concerned, we are maintaining a reasonable neutrality on these territorial matters. But we feel that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Bacon is an exceptional case, and the arguments in its favour so absolutely overwhelming, that anyone who has even a much less intimate knowledge of the area than my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, must agree that Rothwell is really a part of Leeds and it is absurd to consider it otherwise. I know that certain local considerations arose which perhaps this Committee may not wish to go into, and which led to certain movements towards Wakefield. But looking at the matter objectively, and from the point of view of good local administration—and that, after all, is our
1260
job; this is the aspect from which we must consider this Bill—I do not think that any person could seriously doubt that Rothwell ought to be in Leeds.
I hope very much that on this matter the Government will go back to what was their own view. The change was made in the other place at the last moment, in rather peculiar circumstances, and I am quite sure that if the Government are conscientious about this matter they will agree that their own first thoughts were right and will reverse the change made at a very late stage, and will recognise that their duty, as it is our duty, is to secure the best possible administration in this area. Looked at from that point of view, I do not think there can be any doubt whatever.
On the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Popplewell, I am not in the same position to judge. I do not pretend to know the area with a great degree of intimacy, and he himself has admitted that perhaps South Milford is not of the same mind. So perhaps that is a matter which might be reconsidered later. But on the main contention of my noble friend Lady Bacon, I vet much hope—and I make the most serious plea—that the Government will agree that their own first thoughts were the right ones.
11.2 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to consider and deal at the same time with both Amendments which affect the boundary of the City of Leeds, though they raise rather different issues. Our error—if we have made one—in the case of Rothwell is in being too flexible and too responsive to local opinion. Although there is no doubt at all that Rothwell has close links with Leeds—and nobody is better qualified to expound on those than the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, and the noble Lord who spoke in support of the Amendment—the council of Rothwell, supported by several authorities in the Wakefield district, want to be in Wakefield. There is also no doubt that they have links in that direction, strong as their links with Leeds may be. Certainly, when one compares the population of Wakefield with the population of Leeds, the district of Wakefield could well do with the accession of the 28,000 people who live in Rothwell, whereas the addition or sub-

1261
traction of that number in the case of Leeds, with its 708,000 people, would make very little difference. Those two arguments, the fact that the people of Rothwell—both through the expressed view of the urban district council itself and that of a considerable majority of people who voted in favour of the transfer to the Wakefield district—plus the benefit to a local authority which will not be any too large for the functions which it has to discharge, have led the Government to take and maintain the view that on balance, it will be better for Rothwell to be in the new district of Wakefield.
To turn to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, once again he has put forward persuasive arguments for these three parishes to be moved out of the rural district of Tadcaster into the metropolitan district of Leeds. But up to this moment no desire has been expressed by any of these parishes to move in that direction, and we have had no representations from them. The only comments expressed up to now on the White Paper's proposals have been that Sherburn expressed a preference to go to the Wakefield District (e), while the Tadcaster rural district felt that the parishes should be in North Yorkshire. Since the noble Lord tabled his Amendment I have received telegrams from the South Milford parish council, totally opposing the Amendment; from the Huddleston with Newthorpe parish council, strongly opposing being connected with Metropolitan District 6(b); and from the Tadcaster Rural District Council, opposing the Amendment. It is perfectly true that I have not received a telegram from Sherburn, and the Committee must form a view as to what weight it gives to the previously expressed opinion of Sherburn that they wish to be in the Wakefield district and the view now expressed by the noble Lord that they wish to be with Leeds. But on this particular issue I would say that these parishes can certainly be reviewed by the Boundary Commission when it is in a position to do so after April 1. 1974, to see how their views can be reconciled and effect given to them. The awkward fact is that the two parishes which are opposed to this move lie between the parish of Sherburn and the City of Leeds, so it is difficult to see how it is possible—
LORD POPPLEWELL: Huddleston with Newthorpe appears as a wedge. Sherburn also touches the Parlington area of Leeds. I accept at once that in the discussions which have taken place as to whether it should be the Wakefield catchment area or the Leeds district they have indicated that they would like to be linked up with the metropolitan area.
LORD SANDFORD: But I think the noble Lord would agree that to accept the proposition that Sherburn should be connected with Leeds, and that Huddleston with Newthorpe and South Milford should not, would lead to the oddest possible boundary shape that we have anywhere on any map so far.
For those reasons, I advise the Committee to reject the Amendments: first, because the urban district council and people of Rothwell have expressed a clear wish to join the Wakefield district, and the Wakefield district could well do with that increase in their population; and, second, because we have by no means a clear indication that all concerned are in favour of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. In any event, there will be an opportunity for the Boundary Commission to look into the matter and make a change if there is a clear balance of opinion in favour of it.
BARONESS BACON: I must say that I find the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, very disappointing and unconvincing.
BARONESS WHITE: And inadequate.
BARONESS BACON: And inadequate. It gives two reasons alone why this Amendment cannot be accepted. One is because he says, the people and the council of Rothwell have expressed a wish. I have already said something about that; but we have been sitting here all day to-day listening to Amendments and speeches by noble Lords from areas where they have expressed a wish to go into one area rather than into another, and in every case the Government have resisted those wishes of the people in the areas concerned. Morley, which is a borough in the Leeds area, expressed a wish—but the Government did not accede to that Otley expressed a wish, but the Government did not accede to that. It is only in

1263
the case of Rothwell that the Government have acceded to what they call the wishes of the people, although, as I have said, it is not quite clear that there was the overwhelming vote that has been suggested.
The other excuse that has been given is that the Leeds area is big and the Wakefield area is smaller. I said something last week about the way in which the West Riding of Yorkshire had been divided up into a large number of little areas, but this is the way the Government divided it up; and I should have thought that if it was desired to make Leeds smaller and Wakefield bigger, the very last thing that should have been done was to
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.17 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 213, line 31, after ("Parlington") insert ("Sherburn-in-Elmet, South Milford and Huddleston").—(Lord Popplewell.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
take Rothwell out of Leeds. There are other ways of doing this. I am hoping, even now, that the noble Lord will say that the Government will reconsider this between now and the Report stage. But in the absence of such an undertaking, I must divide the Committee, late as it is and knowing that many noble Lords have gone home. I would appeal to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee to join me in the Lobby.
11.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 17) be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Diamond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Simon, V.

Bacon, Bs.

Hemingford, L.

Somers, L.

Barrington, V.

Henderson, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Beaumont, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, Bs.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Blyton, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Terrington, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Middleton, L.

White, Bs.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Wigram, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Popplewell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Seear, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Abinger, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balfour, E.

Dulverton, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Elles, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Sudeley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Limerick, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Ward of Witley, V.

Davidson, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Young, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

LORD ABERDARE: I think we have had enough geography for one day. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES AND THUNDERSTORMS
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES AND THUNDERSTORMS
  SCOTTISH WATER RESOURCES
  SCOTTISH WATER RESOURCES
  M.4 MOTORWAY SURFACING
  M.4 MOTORWAY SURFACING
  THE NATIONAL THEATRE AND MUSEUM OF LONDON
  THE NATIONAL THEATRE AND MUSEUM OF LONDON