Sitting of 1 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BATH CORPORATION BILL
    To be read a Second time tomorrow
    BATH SIDE BAY DEVELOPMENT BILL
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
    CORNWALL RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    DERBY CORPORATION BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    DEVON RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
    LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL
    To be read a Second tune upon Tuesday next.
    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
    MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    MILFORD DOCKS BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
    REIGATE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH BILL
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    SELNEC (MANCHESTER CENTRAL AREA RAILWAY, ETC.) BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.
    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    THAMES BARRIER AND FLOOD PREVENTION BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
    WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    National Insurance Commissioner (Appeals)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the regulations dealing with appeals from local tribunals to the National Insurance Commissioner with a view to allowing an automatic right of appeal in more cases.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I am not clear what cases the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Existing legislation already provides for an automatic right of appeal from any decision of a local tribunal to the National Insurance Commissioner.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport and General Workers Union has recently been in correspondence with the National Insurance Commissioner about certain cases which reflect a sense of injustice on the part of its members, particularly with reference to the holding of oral hearings? Would he look at the correspondence to see whether there is any need to review the arrangements?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Kinnock: After the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the correspondence, will he undertake to have conversations with the Commissioner with a view to having more oral hearings, since there is a widespread feeling among appellants and trade union representatives that their cases are not getting a thorough hearing by having only written appeals?
    Sir K. Joseph: I will hear that in mind when I read the correspondence, but I will give no undertakings.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will reconsider the rule by which a recipient of retirement pension or other national insurance benefit forfeits a portion of this benefit after a period in a National Health Service hospital.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. Reductions of benefits after a beneficiary has been receiving free in-patient treatment in a hospital for some time have been a feature of the national insurance scheme since its inception and seem to me to be fully justified.
    Mr. Jay: Although up to the present all Governments have maintained this rule, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously reconsider this matter because it is, after all, a contributory pension? Would not recipients of a private pension or a public service pension be indignant if their pension were cut because they were in hospital?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir, I cannot undertake to do that. It seems to have been generally accepted that public funds should not provide twice for the same contingency; and if a change were made it would, even though marginally, affect the level of contributions, which would have to be charged.
    Mrs. Castle: But has not the situation changed radically since the principle was introduced and since it was last reviewed in 1960? Can it be said today that the level of national insurance benefits is so lavish that such deductions are justified? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his advisory committee to have another look at this matter sympathetically, and will he convey to that committee the views of the House?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am not sure the right hon. Lady is right, because I believe the National Insurance Advisory Committee has looked at this matter more recently than 1960. The fact remains that people are getting their keep while they are in-patients in hospital, and the adjustment is made sensitively in the light of their continuing commitments at home.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: When we speak of the contributory principle, is it not fair to bear in mind that a person who retires today will probably have paid for about a tenth of the benefits he receives from national insurance?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is true, but the bulk of the cost of the retirement pention is borne by contributors, with a large contribution from the taxpayer. One generation subsidises another.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a precise date when he proposes to commence the review of the rates of retirement pensions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to begin the review of retirement pensions.
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he anticipates that the next review of retirement pensions will be started.
    Sir K. Joseph: As I have already announced, the next uprating will be in October. The review will be timed accordingly and the details announced in due course.
    Mr. Dempsey: But is the Secretary of State aware that recently I bought a pound of boiled gammon which cost 12 shillings, and that, coming to the slices, it worked out at nine old pence per slice? Would the Secretary of State agree that this, together with the soaring prices of other necessities, is beyond the purse of retirement pensioners at present? Would he agree that what is required is a substantial increase in retirement pensions now?
    Sir K. Joseph: Despite the price mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, both the general price index and the pensioners' price index show that the pension increase given in September more than restored the purchasing power of the pensioner and added a marginal increase. Therefore the Government have brought great comfort to millions of pensioners in announcing—this was something that the previous Government were unable to do—that we are moving to annual upratings instead of biennial upratings.
    Mr. Ewing: Would the Secretary of State accept that the announcement today that pensions are not to be reviewed until October this year will be received with great dismay by the people of this country? Will he ensure that when this review is undertaken, those pensioners who, as a result of the last review. finished up being worse off than they were before the review, will not be the victims of the same policy?
    Sir K. Joseph: I rejoice to remind the House that now that we are moving to annual upratings for both retirement pensions and supplementary benefits, there will no longer be any cause for the misunderstandings that have accompanied the biennial review of one and the annual review of the other.
    Mr. Ridsdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking probably one of the greatest steps taken by any pensions Minister in bringing forward an annual review, which has given great satisfaction to many pensioners. Under the annual review, will my right hon. Friend consider the question of concessionary fares for elderly people in rural areas? At present, concessionary fares are being given in urban areas, backed by wealthy councils, whereas in rural areas the local councils cannot afford to back them.
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is tireless in his advocacy of benefits for the elderly. Therefore, I take his kind tribute very warmly. I will discuss his suggestion with my right hon. Friend, but I do not consider that upratings and reviews are normally the occasion for such a policy declaration.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government would never have introduced the annual review had it not been for the exceptional situation of the grotesque increase in prices caused by the Government's policy? As a result of that inflationary pressure, has not the whole value of the last increase been whittled away, and does not that mean that any further increase in prices between now and October will result in a systematic and steady reduction in the value of pensions that are already inadequate? Will he not take exceptional measures to deal with this situation?
    Sir K. Joseph: The value of pensions always erodes between upratings and did so even when the Labour Government were in office. In fact, the buying power of the pension now, four months after the last unrating, is greater than it was four months after the last Labour up-rating in 1969.
    Secondly, the rate of inflation that we expect over the next year, roughly—no one can be absolutely sure—is of about the same order of magnitude as the

    217
    Labour Government expected when they statutorily bound themselves to review pensions only every two years.

    Constant Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received regarding the scrutiny of applications for the attendance allowance.
    Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware, however, that the question whether anyone satisfies the statutory conditions relating to the need for attendance is entirely a matter for the Attendance Allowance Board.
    Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial proportion of those whose applications are turned down do not apply for a review? Bearing in mind that a very high proportion of those who apply for a review are ultimately successful, is he satisfied that sufficient is being done to get the people who are at first turned down to apply for a review?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that there is a case for revising the letter of decision to emphasise the right of review. That will be done.
    Mr. Waddington: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many advertisements about the scheme tend to raise people's expectations rather high, with consequent disillusionment, if not anger, when their applications are later turned down? Will he, therefore, either tone down the advertisements or broaden the scheme so that those who do not at present qualify will qualify?
    Sir K. Joseph: I take seriously the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. But we shall be shown to have proceeded on lines which will have brought the award to well over the number we originally anticipated, and to a handsome proportion of those who have applied.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tens of thousands of very hard-pressed disabled people have been refused this allowance? Will he reconsider his reply as a matter of urgency and tell us what further consideration his Department has given to a two-tier arrangement? Why should
    218
    we have an all-or-nothing payment which means that many severely disabled people are excluded altogether?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is a limit to the amount that can be done at one go both financially and, above all, administratively. I have told the House time and again that the Government intend to move forward at the right time, and that time will be as soon as practicable.

    Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now able to make a statement on his investigations into the practicability of producing a three-wheeled vehicle suitable for a disabled person and one passenger.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 30th November.—[Vol. 827, c. 43.]
    Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was yet another non-reply? He has been talking for some time about a review, for which we are all waiting, of the invalid vehicle scheme. Does he agree that he must first find out whether this kind of vehicle is mechanically possible and how much it would cost before bringing forth the conclusions in his review?
    Mr. Alison: No. It would be a mistake to incur costs in designing or investigating a vehicle before the eligibility for it has been determined.
    Sir R. Thompson: Has my hon. Friend satisfied himself that one of the mass-produced small cars fitted with automatic gears—for instance, a mini—could not be fairly cheaply adapted to a wide range of disability? It would not only meet the point made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) but it would be vastly cheaper to service and to provide spares for it.
    Mr. Alison: Small cars are already issued by my Department to those who are eligible for them. The question whether there should be wider eligibility is precisely what we are considering.

    Supplementary Benefits
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied

    219
    that the October increase to people living on supplementary benefits has given them a compensatory increase; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): Yes, Sir. The increase in supplementary benefit rates in September, 1971, more than restored the purchasing power of the previous rates at the time of their introduction in November, 1970.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that if the value of the single person's supplementary allowance is plotted against the average industrial wage, increases granted over the past two years have left the recipients poorer than at any time since supplementary benefits were introduced in 1966? If that is not bad enough, old-age pensioners drawing supplementary benefits have part of their pension increase clawed back by the S.B.C.
    Mr. Dean: That particular point will be dealt with completely as a result of the annual review of pensions announced by my right hon. Friend before Chirstmas.
    On the first point, the purchasing power of the pension has been more than restored, and for those supplementary pensioners who are over 80 there was an additional benefit over and above the scale rates.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the Minister aware that those on supplementary benefits and old-age pensions cannot possibly live on the miserable pittance allowed them by the State, because of the abnormal rise in prices fostered by the Government? It is no use whatever waiting until October, when some of them will probably have died from hypothermia. Will he do the decent thing and peg the allowance to the cost of living so that it rises when the cost of living rises?
    Mr. Dean: I do not think the hon. Gentleman helps by making these emotive remarks. The increase provided last September more than restored the purchasing power of the pension. None the less, my right hon. Friend is very conscious of the needs of supplementary pensioners, and we are doing our utmost to improve the scheme all the time.
    Mr. Boscawen: When will my hon. Friend be able to announce an increase
    220
    in the additional coal allowance to the supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Dean: A large number of those who are eligible for additional special allowances are now getting them. The scheme has been improved. Each allowance book is being looked at on review to see whether more people might be eligible for these special additions.

    Old Persons' Register
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give advice to local authorities on the desirability of compiling a register of old persons living alone.
    Mr. Alison: Advice on the value of registers of the elderly and handicapped was given in Departmental circulars 19/71 and 45/71 issued last year, of which I am sending copies to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Johnson: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Is he aware that many thousands of old people who are living alone are unaware of the welfare services available to them? Surely a register, which can be compiled properly only by a local authority, is the way to deal with this situation. I am glad that the Minister is thinking along these lines. Will he please follow it up?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. We are particularly conscious of the 8,000 severely handicapped elderly people living alone whom we are making a special attempt to identify and locate. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that an effective register has to be continually updated, and not all elderly folk like to be pried upon the whole time.
    Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend reconsider introducing free or reduced telephone rentals for old people living alone, because for such people telephones are not a convenience or luxury but a matter of life or death?
    Mr. Alison: That is another question, but I certainly note what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present methods for compiling such registers are satisfactory? In Bradford, an old man aged 79 had

    221
    been dead for a week before that was discovered. He was unknown to the welfare department. Although that particular welfare department is most thorough in compiling its register, it admits that there are many such cases unknown to it. How does the Minister hope to cure that situation?
    Mr. Alison: I should like details of that case. Registration is not a 100 per cent. foolproof system.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will the Minister bear in mind that several local authorities, including the Bedworth Urban District Council in my constituency, are investigating the possibilities of compiling such registers? Will he tell the House what the circulars said about the need to preserve confidentiality of this information in certain categories?
    Mr. Alison: I think that the best course would be for me to send both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend copies of the circulars.

    Benefits (Advice to Claimants)
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are taken or contemplated by his Department to ensure that those who are or may be entitled to industrial disablement benefit or special hardship allowance are made aware of their rights.
    Mr. Dean: It is standard procedure to include advice in the covering letters sent to claimants with their first and final injury benefit payments about possible title to disablement benefit and where they can obtain further information and claim forms. Further, claim forms for both disablement benefit and special hardship allowance are sent, without request, to a claimant who is still receiving injury benefit 19 weeks after his accident and in certain other cases where injury benefit ceases earlier and there is clear title to disablement benefit.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that certain offices are not restricting their notification of entitlement to disablement benefits to those who have been away from work for at least 20 weeks? Does not he consider that the probability is that a great many more are entitled to disablement benefit and special hardship allowance than are
    222
    receiving them, and that this explains why only one-fifth of those who receive industrial injury benefit receive disablement benefit?
    Mr. Dean: No, the reason for that is largely that many injuries, fortunately, clear up within a comparatively short time and those concerned are able to return to work. There was a case, about which the hon. Gentleman has corresponded with me, in which I freely admit that our local office did not carry out the full procedures, and I am taking steps to ensure that that does not happen again.

    Electricity Boards (Demands for Payment)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to make a study of the number of cases of hardship, qualifying for benefit, which can be attributed to the system, whereby they demand quarterly payments, rather than weekly, fortnightly, or monthly payment.
    Mr. Dean: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to issue directions to electricity boards. But the Supplementary Benefits Commission maintains close contact with the boards about the problems which sometimes arise in this field and about practicable ways of avoiding hardship.
    Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well to talk about the problems sometimes arising, but often the existence of a heavy quarter's bill is a source of debt starting.
    Mr. Dean: I realise that this is a problem, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been discussing this with the Gas Council and Electricity Council and with representatives from local authorities. I hope it will be possible for an agreed method of avoiding these difficulties to be arrived at soon. It may well be that the fixed sum at monthly intervals arrangement will be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the total unsuitability for elderly people of quarterly billing based on internal electricity meters, which was the cause recently of the

    223
    suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway of Coventry on receipt of a deliberately inflated electricity bill?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, we are very concerned about these matters. That is why the Commission is having discussions with the proper authorities to see whether we can arrive at more satisfactory arrangements.
    Mr. Eadie: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong case for re-examination of this position? For example, it is contradicting the Government's policy on the movement of population from older areas into new towns. Why should those who decide to move to new towns be punished and penalised because of these restrictions, put forward by electricity boards or any other boards?
    Mr. Dean: I hope that the assurances I have given to the House about the discussions which are taking place are felt to be satisfactory. I must reiterate that my right hon. Friend has no power to dictate to the electricity boards in this matter.

    Population
    Sir G. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the forecasting of the population of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Government rely upon the profesional advice and services of the Government Actuary and the Registrars General in preparing population projections. These are prepared and published annually on the basis of what seems the best single set of assumptions to make about demographic trends.
    Sir G. Longden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that it is no reflection on him that I put down this Question several weeks ago to the Prime Minister, who passed it to the Lord President of the Council, who passed it to my right hon. Friend? Does not the prospect of over-population of these islands in the very near future pose a great threat, not only to our environment but also to our very existence? Does not this threat demand the urgent attention of the head of the Government and of the whole Cabinet?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is immensely experienced in the ways of the House, but the way that he framed his Question puts it firmly in my field, as I am responsible for the procedure and calculations that lie behind population predictions. The implications of those are either for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or for my right hon. Friend the Lord President.
    Mr. Molloy: To avoid an excessive burden on his Department, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to drop his ridiculous Housing Finance Bill so that the housing position can be tackled in readiness for the increased population?
    Sir K. Joseph: If I were to contact my right hon. Friend, it would be to encourage him in his policies.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are very anxious to see a sensible population policy adopted and that we should support him if he were to set up an investigation in his Department about this matter? If he would make representations to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see that this responsibility was given either to himself or to some other of his right hon. Friends, as a start, and if he were to indicate to the House that he would be prepared to make provision for family planning to be freely available on the National Health Service, would not make that a very valuable start in this direction?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is another question, but I am sure that my right hon. Friends will note the views of hon. Members.

    Group Practices (Patients' Medical Records)
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that in group practices the confidential nature of the patients' medical records is being respected; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: The preservation of the confidentiality of patients' medical records is a cardinal point of medical ethics and I am sure that, whatever the

    225
    form of practice organisation, all general practitioners are fully aware of their responsibilities in this respect.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the traditional privacy of the doctor-patient relationship must be preserved in the increasing number of group practices which are now being built up in which large teams of staff have access to medical record cards, and will he take steps to safeguard the privacy of the patient?
    Sir Joseph: I certainly agree on the importance of confidentiality, but I am sure that the medical profession and general practitioners are fully alive to its importance and will take the essential steps to maintain the confidentiality of their records.

    Polluted Soil
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will hold an inquiry into the effect of polluted soil on the health of those whose homes are built upon it.
    Mr. Alison: No, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the researches of a Dr. Pinsent of the Royal College of General Practitioners, there appears to be no information available about the long-term effects on life and health of living on toxic soil? In view of the grave public concern about pollution, will he initiate research into this important subject?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. and learned Gentlemen I think knows that there is a good deal of current resarch into all aspects of environmental pollution, and we are very closely into touch with the research.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: If my hon. Friend should have to consider this matter again, will he distinguish between objections that are put forward on genuine health grounds and objections that are put forward to prevent private housing development either because of party dogma or because it appears to change the party political pattern in a constituency?
    Mr. Alison: I note my hon. Friend's Intervention. He will note that my Departmental Medical Adviser's advice
    226
    was encouraging from the point of view of housing.

    Contraception
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation which will permit partners in a marriage to obtain contraceptive medicines and devices without the written consent of their spouses.
    Mr. Alison: No, Sir.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are several general practitioners who, if they proffer contraceptive assistance, take the risk of being prosecuted for conspiracy? Will he not reconsider his answer in an attempt to emancipate doctors and wives from this insidious limitation of their freedom?
    Mr. Alison: Strictly speaking, these are ethical matters between general practitioners and their patients, and there is no statutory provision requiring consent.

    Coal Miners' Dispute (Payments)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost to date to public funds of supplementary benefit paid to those involved in the miners' strike, and their dependants, respectively; and what estimate he has made of the extent to which this outlay would have been increased in the absence of the provisions of the Social Security Act, 1971.
    Mr. Dean: From the beginning of the strike until 25th January, £3,070 was paid for strikers and £1,018,888 for dependants. Since income tax refunds and strike pay are not generally available in this strike, the provisions of the Social Security Act relating to these payments will not have a great deal of effect. In Scotland, however, where income tax refunds are being paid, the average payment has been £5·90 whereas in England where tax refunds are not generally available the average payment is £7·18.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Since the one certain consequence of the strike will be additional pit closures and redundancies concentrated in areas of high unemployment such as Scotland and the north of England, is it justifiable that tax payers should be obliged, at the rate of

    227
    about £1 million a week, to subsidise the creation of additional unemployment? Will my hon. Friend look again at the workings of the 1971 Act and consider the case for returning to the Labour Government's 1948 Act and the provision for the establishment of need?
    Mr. Dean: We intend to keep the working of the 1971 Act under close review, but I must remind my hon. Friend that, because in most cases there is no strike pay or tax refund, the main part of the Act does not apply. The part which will apply in a few months' time, namely, no payment after people have gone back to work, is also not relevant to the figures I have given because the men are still on strike.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge on the position of single miners who are on strike, particularly those whose parents are retired and who are receiving no income although they have previously paid a substantial proportion of their wages in tax? Will he give an assurance that single miners who are suffering genuine hardship will receive assistance and not be told to become strike breakers and go back to work?
    Mr. Dean: The law for many years now, administered by Governments of all political colours, has been that money should not be available to single men who are on strike unless hardship is proved. Where hardship is proved, money is available, and I quoted a figure of over £3,000 which has already been paid during this strike under that category.
    Mr. Hiley: Will my hon. Friend consider the means by which this money can be repaid after the strike is over?
    Mr. Dean: The 1971 Act has considerably tightened the conditions on which money can be made available. Before any further review, I think we should wait a little longer to see how the Act works.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there has never been a miners' strike which has had such public support as this one has and that he must turn a deaf ear to his hon. and right hon. Friends who would like to repeat the experience of 1926? The
    228
    miners will not go back until they get justice, and it is up to the hon. Gentleman to see that they get as generous treatment as anyone else from the Supplementary Benefits Commmission.
    Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman will not draw me into discussing the merits of the strike. The job of my Department is to administer the law, and I am sure the whole House will agree that the officers of my Department have been doing a very effective job under difficult circumstances in administering the law and giving the due assistance to the wives and children of strikers.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that other sections of his Department are not being mobilised to help strike breaking? Is he aware that local medical committees have been informed by his Department that regional medical officers are to speed up the scrutiny of claims for sickness benefit from miners as a group, and that they will call miner's for medical examination without waiting for a report from the miner's own doctor? Is not this an intolerable interference in the clinical judgment of doctors and the rights of miners under the health service in support of a policy designed to break the strike?
    Mr. Dean: That is an entirely different question. I will of course consider what the right hon. Lady said, but I hope that she will agree that the special arrangements we have made to administer the law and to see that strikers' families receive their due benefit under the law are deserving of tribute to the officers concerned.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. In view of the terms of my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to arrange for the provision of facilities for emergency dental treatment over holiday periods.
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to provide funds for the operation of an emergency dental service in Bradford.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir: I know of no evidence that demand for emergency dental treatment at week-ends and public holidays is sufficient to justify the cost of maintaining a standby service.
    Mr. Dormand: That is a disappointing reply. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is illogical that doctors, chemists and others are required to operate an emergency service but that dentists are not? Is he aware that dentists are willing to undertake such a service provided they receive financial assistance from the National Health Service?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence that there is an acute need, particularly since I understand that most dentists are willing to give emergency treatment, if approached, at their homes.
    Mr. Lyons: Is the Minister aware that that is not the case in Bradford, that there have been complaints of an inability to obtain treatment over holiday periods, and that dentists in Bradford are willing to work such a service, for which premises are available? In those circumstances, and in view of the small amount of money involved, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am aware that proposals for a standby service in Bradford foundered on a question of finance, but I am not satisfied that the need for such a service in Bradford is great enough to justify public expenditure. However, if the hon. Gentleman cares to send me details I will study them.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister bear in mind the serious situation caused not only by a shortage of dentists throughout the country but by the increasing number who are opting out of the National Health Service? Will he take urgent steps to discover why they are opting out and to remedy the situation?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I am studying the allegations about deficiencies in the service in certain areas. But I must emphasise that over the bulk of the country it is providing more treatment than ever for the public. If the hon. Lady has any particular point in mind, perhaps she will send the information to me.

    Homeless Persons
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to amend the definition of homelessness in the National Assistance Act, 1948.
    Mr. Dean: We have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Davis: That answer is profoundly unsatisfactory. The present definition of "homelessness" is totally inadequate, and results in a good deal of hardship. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain local authorities are not implementing even the present definition? For example, the London Borough of Richmond is refusing to supply Part III accommodation to evicted people, on the ground that their predicament could have been foreseen. Will the hon. Gentleman take action on that?
    Mr. Dean: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the single homeless, it would be premature to redefine the term, because working parties are now considering the Greve Report and the Glastonbury Report. If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about homeless people with children, I can tell him that the working party set up to consider the Greve Report has reported to the Government, who have accepted its report. We now await a report from the London Boroughs Association on the implementation of the working party's recommendations. Therefore it can be seen that we have taken action already in this respect.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how the number of homeless families in temporary accommodation in London compares with the numbers in the rest of England and Wales.
    Mr. Dean: At 30th September last there were 3,182 families in temporary accommodation in Greater London and 2,351 in the rest of England and Wales.
    Mr. Jenkins: In view of the serious problem in London shown by those figures, what action is the hon. Gentleman taking to enable London local authorities to deal with it more effectively, recognising, as I am sure he will, that if the homeless are to be housed, they will be

    231
    housed by local authorities, not by Shelter or any similar organisation?
    Mr. Dean: One of the main recommendations of the working party we set up following the Greve Report is that the problem should be the responsibility of the housing authorities. As I said in reply to an earlier Question, the Government have accepted the working party's report. We now await a report from the London Boroughs Association on the implementation of the recommendations.

    Poverty
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of his policies for the reduction of poverty.
    Sir K. Joseph: Retirement pensions and related benefits were substantially increased in September, without any increase in national insurance contributions by the low paid, and we have introduced the Family Income Supplement, selective improvements for the chronic sick and the over-80s, the attendance allowance and pensions for younger widows. The Family Income Supplement will go up in April, and we are now committed to review pensions and benefits every year, beginning next October.
    Mr. Meacher: Despite that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that almost none of the families in receipt of family income supplement has even been brought up to the poverty line, and that amongst all the other poverty groups, entirely contrary to the Prime Minister's election commitments, there are now more than 250,000 more people in poverty than at the election? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the scandal of this rapidly deteriorating position?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish when he says that 250,000 more people are in poverty. What has happened is that there are more elderly people and more unemployed than there were 18 months ago, and for these reasons more people are receiving supplementary benefit. But the last Government did not regard, nor do the present Government regard, those on supplementary benefit as falling in the category of family poverty, which both parties have undertaken to tackle. Judged by that standard,
    232
    the number living below the supplementary benefit level is now less than it was.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Sir A. Meyerasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to organise an exhibition to celebrate British entry into the European Economic Community.
  Mr. David Watkinsasked the Prime Minister if he will announce a day's national holiday to celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Her Majesty's Government are considering ways in which our entry into the European Communities might be celebrated. It is too early for me to be specific about the form the celebrations might take: but I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their suggestions.
  Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an exhibition would be by far the best way of arousing the interest and enthusiasm of the man in the street for the great opportunities that will open to this country when we join the Common Market? In choosing a site, will my right hon. Friend consider a place that really needs cheering up, like North Battersea or South-West Wolverhampton?
  The Prime Minister: There have been a number of proposals for such an exhibition to be held so that Britain should be able to demonstrate the products of British industry in the most effective way to our European colleagues, and those proposals are being examined by the Government.
  Mr. Watkins: In view of the nature of the terms to which the right hon. Gentleman has appended his signature, might not it be more appropriate to consider a day of national mourning?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to be capable of contradicting himself between the time he put down his Question and the time he asked his supplementary question. If he wants a day of national mourning, why he put

  233
  down a Question asking for a national holiday is difficult to understand. When we enter the Community the great majority of people in this country will certainly want to show what Britain can do in the best possible way.
  Mr. Onslow: If such an exhibition is held, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it contains a copy of the Labour Government's White Paper of May, 1967, even if it is not possible to obtain and put on display the actual coat that the Leader of the Opposition has since turned?
  The Prime Minister: The contents of that White Paper and its support for entry into the Community are well known. It is in many ways an historic document.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman point to any section of that White Paper or any statement subsequently made in which we said that if suitable terms were obtained Parliament would have no ability whatsoever to change legislation enacted in this Parliament except by order of the Community?
  The Prime Minister:
  "The constitutional innovation would lie in the acceptance in advance as part of the law of the United Kingdom of provisions to be made in the future by instruments issued by the Community institutions—a situation for which there is no precedent in this country."
  Those are not my words. They are the words of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of membership, all of which the right hon. Gentleman accepted.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: And the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we said that this had to be done by full legislation of this House, where any legislation on the Statute Book which has been subject to legislative procedure, should be subject to legislative procedure now. The right hon. Gentleman, who pledged himself not to sign the agreement without the wholehearted consent of the British people, must now at least allow Parliament to have its way.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged his retreat from responsibility once again.

  SCOTLAND (INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL)
  Q.2. Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry on the realisation of Scotland's industrial potential; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The two Departments already work closely together to promote industrial development and economic growth in Scotland.
  Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that it would be churlish not to acknowledge the significance of yesterday's announcement about the ore terminal at Hunterston? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that if this investment is to make the maximum contribution to the Scottish economy, the Government must take a political decision to go ahead with a new steel works at Hunterston and to implement the Ocean-span idea? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that both these developments are still on the cards for Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in his introductory words. He will recall that he asked me the other week to indicate that one of the three developments which he mentioned would go ahead. Yesterday, the British Steel Corporation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were able to make an announcement about Hunterston. This is of enormous importance for Scotland. When the Scottish Council saw me, its representatives said that one of the things that they believed would give most confidence to Scotland was an announcement of this kind. I hope that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, and the Scottish Council, will be able to use this to the best advantage to Scotland.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's other two points, I can give him an assurance that both these matters are under consideration. However, the question of a steel works is not a political decision for the Government. We are waiting for the B.S.C. to make its final decision about the future demand that it will have to meet and the nature of the plant in which it wishes to invest.

  RHODESIA
  Q.3. Miss Lestorasked the Prime Minister whether he will visit Southern Rhodesia while the Pearce Commission is there.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Rhodesia.
  Miss Lestor: Despite the fact that I might have difficulty in accompanying the right hon. Gentleman to Southern Rhodesia, will he reconsider that reply? Does not he consider it important that, before the Pearce Commission returns to this country, he should discuss with it the possibility of leaving behind machinery to safeguard the lives and liberty of those people who have publicly identified themselves with opposing the Smith regime and the proposed settlement?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is necessary for me to make a visit to Rhodesia to discuss a matter of that kind with the Pearce Commission. Lord Pearce has made a statement about immunity, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the hon. Lady knows, is in contact with Lord Pearce over this matter.
  Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister take comfort from the fact that he would probably pass Mr. Smith's test of acceptability for Members of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that he can give moral support to Lord Pearce in this way, since it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the test of acceptability shall be carried out while sanctions are still being applied, they having been approved by this House without a Division, may we at least take it that, in support of Lord Pearce, the right hon. Gentleman has made the strongest possible representations to the American Government about the decision of President Nixon to lift the sanctions on chrome imports from Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first question, Lord Pearce and his Commission have the full confidence of Her Majesty's Government. On the right hon. Gentleman's second question concerning chrome imports, this, of course, is a matter for the American Administration on which they must
  236
  answer for themselves to the United Nations, which is responsible for sanctions.

  SCOTTISH COUNCIL (DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRY)
  Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the meeting he had with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on Thursday 13th January.
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 20th January to a Question from the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie).—[Vol. 829, c. 250.]
  Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister recognise that I heard and read the reply to which he has just referred? Will he recognise also that we appreciate the announcement yesterday about the iron ore terminal? However, will he consider what Lord Melchett said about the terminal being a necessity for the continuation of the existing steel industry in Scotland and that that in itself is not a solution to the Scottish problem? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to his meeting with the Scottish Council, at which its representative put forward certain proposals. Will he make a categorical statement on those proposals and tell us, either now or in the forthcoming Budget Statement, that the Government have changed their policy on investment grants?
  The Prime Minister: I told the Scottish Council that each of its points would be examined. The deep water terminal at Hunterston was one of them, and an announcement has been made. In the future, it has great importance as a deep water port, and not only as an ore terminal.
  Mr. Dalyell: Do the urban conservation schemes which have been put to the Prime Minister and the employment that they would provide have his support?
  The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in urban conservation, especially in terms of

  237
  historic buildings, and I believe that he is to meet my hon. Friend to have further discussions about this matter. I do not under-estimate the importance of this in its own right, quite apart from providing employment. However, the housing improvement grant arrangements provide much more employment in the construction industry, and certainly advantage is being taken of them.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the Prime Minister now take the opportunity to pay tribute also to the workers of the Upper Clyde and Plessey who, despite the actions of his Government, have preserved jobs and industry in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman also make it clear that if any offer is made for the fourth yard on Clydeside, finance will come from his Government over and above the Local Employments Acts finance?
  The Prime Minister: I said when I met the shop stewards, in the early stages of the U.C.S. problem, that the Government were determined to provide employment on the Upper Clyde in a viable shipbuilding industry. They have known that all along. From the point of view of future industry in Scotland, I am sure that the best results could be achieved by co-operation between unions and employers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT
  Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if, in view of further rises in unemployment, he remains satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments on economic problems; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is already close co-ordination between all Departments concerned with economic policy in its various aspects. In my speech in the House on 24th January I set out the reasons underlying the growth in unemployment over recent years; and outlined the range of measures taken by the Government, including an unprecedentedly powerful stimulus to demand, aimed at bringing down the level of unemployment.—[Vol. 829, c. 1024–42.]
  Mr. Sheldon: We have heard a great deal about the powerful stimulus created by the £1,400 million. However, despite the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of his Budget State-
  238
  ment summarising the purpose of the spending of this £1,400 million as being for incentives—the words he used were "creating the spirit of endeavour "—is not the real cause of unemployment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent this money wrongly for political reasons and so failed to bring about an increase in demand which would have led to investment and a reduction in the number of unemployed?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can argue that the additional expenditure on infrastructure and increased investment in the nationalised industries and bringing investment of that kind forward, is mistaken policy or that the policy is limited solely to a reduction in taxation. The encouragement of investment both in infrastructure and in the nationalised industries, as well as in the naval shipbuilding programme, deny the hon. Gentleman's thesis.
  Mr. Bidwell: We all know how distressed any Prime Minister must be with the present level of unemployment. Can he tell us by how much it should be reduced this year?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not customary to make forecasts of the movement of unemployment. At the same time, we all agree that unemployment is much too high, and the measures which are being taken are, of course, taken with the intention of reducing it.
  Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister read this morning's report by the Industrial Policy Group? Is he aware that that body's view of investment conflicts directly with the view of his Government? Will he tell us who is wrong—his Ministers here or his mates outside?
  The Prime Minister: There are sometimes differences in estimates of what is likely to happen about the future of investment. Every Government have to make the best judgment they can. We have been trying to increase public investment at the moment, when the capacity exists, but at the same time to see that the economy does not become overloaded when there is a subsequent increase in private investment.

UNPARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT
Mr. Speaker: I want to make a short statement to the House.
I have considered what happened yesterday. When strong feelings exist or are aroused there are times when the Chair can appropriately be deaf or indeed blind. In my view I went to the absolute limits of tolerance yesterday, perhaps beyond them. What I now want to make clear is that if an hon. Member uses unparliamentary language or acts in an unparliamentary manner and when ordered to refuses to withdraw or desist, I will not hesitate to act in accordance with the Standing Orders.
The reputation of the House and the position of the Chair are now at risk. That is something which I, so long as I am Speaker, cannot tolerate.
Later—
Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the event which occurred following Question Time yesterday. Are you aware, Sir, that the hon. Lady concerned is reported to have said that she made no apology for her action but that, on the contrary, she proposed to repeat the action.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he is commenting on the conduct of another Member, it must be by substantive Motion.
Mr. Paget: With respect, Mr. Speaker, whether this be a question of order or privilege—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down. You are stirring the pot"] That is precisely what I am doing. Whether this be a question of order or privilege, Mr. Speaker, comment on the conduct of another Member with regard to the order of this House is a matter to be made to you, Sir. This lady is reported as having said she did not apologise for her conduct, but proposed to repeat it. In those circumstances are we to tolerate this, and indeed are we to submit to this kind of violence by giving her priority of audience?
Mr. Speaker: So far as the future is concerned, the hon. and learned Member must be content with the statement I have made.
Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to prolong this
240
matter, but the statement which was made obviously will be written into the precedents of this House, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said that he hoped that you would add a footnote to Erskine May. May I point out that when a somewhat similar incident to yesterday's took place in May, 1938, Mr. Speaker Fitzroy on that occasion turned a blind eye and said he took into account the fact that Mr. Shinwell, as he then was, had apologised. I was wondering whether any indication had been given to you, Sir, of an apology by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin).
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue further the statement I made.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask you to acquaint the House whether, in view of the mandatory terms in which Standing Order No. 23 is cast, there is any precedent for not putting them into operation where no apology has been vouchsafed?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I must regard that as a comment on the conduct of the Chair. The way to deal with the matter is by Motion.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Though some of us in the past have incurred the displeasure of your predecessors—and I am by no means innocent in this regard—nevertheless, yesterday's performance was something which, had it been perpetrated outside the House, would have fully justified the police apprehending the offender. In this instance I know that you, Sir, have exercised a tolerance which has won the respect of us all, but may I say that we all have very much in mind the traditions of this House to ensure that there is freedom of debate, and we rely greatly on you to uphold that freedom. A procedure such as occurred yesterday inevitably will make grave inroads into that great tradition.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said. I have indicated the attitude I shall take in future. I hope in that I will have the support of the whole House.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the inquiry to be held

241
into the events on Sunday, 30th January which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.
The Government have decided that this inquiry should be a tribunal established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. The necessary resolution was tabled last night, and the House will be asked to approve it this evening, after the conclusion of the debate on Northern Ireland.
In order to ensure that the powers vested in the Tribunal extend to transferred matters under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as well as to matters reserved to Westminster, the Northern Ireland Government will table a similar resolution in the Northern Ireland Parliament.
The House will be glad to know that the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery, has consented to undertake the inquiry. He will sit alone.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I and I am sure other hon. Members would wish to reserve any comment about the circumstances which have led to the establishment of this inquiry until the debate later this afternoon. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad that he has moved with speed to bring this Motion before the House?
Speaking for myself, and I think many of my hon. Friends, I welcome the fact that the Lord Chief Justice has consented to undertake the inquiry. Is the right hon. Gentleman wise to suggest that Lord Widgery should sit alone? We have had a lot of difficulties about one-man inquiries under both Governments. Would it not be better for the inquiry to be more representative? Is he aware that in the Scarman inquiry there have so far been 180 volumes of evidence on what are, I agree, rather wider terms of reference? Would it not be of help to Lord Widgery to have colleagues to help him sift this evidence and assist in giving the necessary authority that a three-man inquiry—or more—would have as compared with a one-man inquiry?
When the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider this—I do not press for an answer now—will he consider
242
whether—and I know that this would be wholly exceptional with a tribunal of inquiry—he should consult with other parties in the House about the other personnel for the inquiry, because it is essential, not so much in this House as in Northern Ireland, for there to be the fullest confidence in this inquiry? Will he undertake, on receipt of the report of the inquiry, to publish it as quickly as possible? Will the Prime Minister say whether he has yet received the Scarman report—I understand that he has not. Will he say when he expects to receive it as the inquiry has been sitting since autumn, 1969.
The Prime Minister: We have not yet received the Scarman report. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right about the length of time it has taken in its proceedings. We hope to receive it soon, but I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date. On the question of the Lord Chief Justice sitting alone, this is a matter to which we have given careful consideration. It is a matter which naturally I felt it necessary to discuss with the Lord Chief Justice. We came to the conclusion in the circumstances of this inquiry that the Lord Chief Justice should sit alone. There are precedents under the 1921 Act for the tribunal to consist of only one person, precedents including an occasion in 1943 when the then Lord Chief Justice sat alone. We gave the matter careful consideration and we took into account the various views expressed in the House yesterday, and which have been expressed to me by public personalities, on the nature of this inquiry. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us oppose the setting up of another tribunal, whose findings have been rejected in advance by the Republicans, as detrimental to military morale when yet another illegal march is threatened next Sunday at Newry? Is he not also aware that the Derry affair is all in the urban guerrilla manual—from street marches, snipers, to lying reports, leading to demoralising explanations by the authorities?
The Prime Minister: I do not wish to comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question since I have announced the setting up of the

243
tribunal providing that the House accepts the Motion. As to the need for it, obviously whenever a Government consider setting up a tribunal they have to examine carefully the various factors to be taken into account. Her Majesty's Government have done this. I recognise that some have said—I hope in the heat of the moment—that they would not be prepared to accept the findings of the tribunal or to appear before it. On the other hand, I believe there are many people who may wish to give evidence to this inquiry. On the advice I have there is no indication that this is likely to undermine the position of Her Majesty's Forces.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that this tribunal will be warmly welcomed? May we take it that this represents the overt expression of concern of Her Majesty's Government which perhaps in the heat of the moment was not as manifest as some of us would have wished yesterday? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] May I ask one question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on both personal and legal grounds no one could have a higher regard for the Lord Chief Justice than I have? Is he further aware that his appointment will guarantee a full, impartial, judicial inquiry? But would he accept that it is important that the inquiry should have the most widespread political acceptance before starting its work? Would he therefore, in fairness to the Lord Chief Justice and arising out of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, reconsider the question of appointing two assessors drawn from this country, from Europe or the Commonwealth?
The Prime Minister: These are views which the right hon. Gentleman expressed yesterday and which we took into account in considering this matter. As for the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in opening his statement yesterday, expressed the natural anxiety which the Government had. The loss of a single life in Northern Ireland, whether civilian or military, must surely be of the utmost concern to everyone.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does it follow from my right hon. Friend's earlier answer that the Lord Chief Justice could
244
have had the assistance of two assessors, as is more often done, had he in the circumstances of the case thought it necessary or desirable? Dealing with the mechanics of the inquiry, can the Prime Minister give the terms of reference of the tribunal and, for the guidance of the media, is he able to say whether the position over contempt will be in the words of the statute or in the modification recommended by the Salmon Committee?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of my right hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question is that if the Lord Chief Justice asks for facilities of any kind for the carrying out of his task, Her Majesty's Government will do their utmost to meet them.
The terms of reference are as set out on the Order Paper:
"That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30th January which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day."
To answer the second part, the question of contempt, my right hon. and learned Friend will know full well the view of the inter-departmental committee under Lord Justice Salmon; that the law of contempt applies to tribunals of inquiry from the date when a tribunal is appointed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, therefore, make a formal announcement, if the House proceeds to pass the Motion tonight, that the tribunal has been appointed, and from then the law of contempt will run.
Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, arising out of the supplementary question asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party, that concern expressed for those who are attacking our troops may be most Christian, but is hardly encouraging to our troops?
The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree—and certainly to my knowledge this is the view of the troops—that they are just as much concerned with the loss of life as is any hon. Member in this House.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say where the tribunal is likely to sit? Is he aware

245
that, according to the most recent reports, Londonderry is in the grip of the most appalling I.R.A. intimidation, even to the extent that old age pensioners are unable to collect their pensions from sub-offices because the postal services are on strike as a result of intimidation? Does he think it desirable for it to sit in Londonderry?
The Prime Minister: This must be a matter for the Lord Chief Justice himself to decide. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to but one of the many difficulties which will be encountered by the Lord Chief Justice in the course of carrying out his task. I wish to pay tribute to him for the public spirit which he is showing in undertaking this task.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Having regard to our request that it should be a public inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be for the Lord Chief Justice to decide how much of it is held in public and how much in private?
The right hon. Gentleman quoted a precedent of 1943, which, though I may be wrong, was probably the inquiry into the ships that escaped through the Channel and thus involved enormous questions of military security.
Has he decided that it should be Lord Widgery sitting alone, on the ground that, being a Privy Councillor, he can be given Privy Council-type information from the troops? If so, will he consider providing other Privy Councillors to sit on the tribunal?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what is intended for the legal servicing of the tribunal? Is a Law Officer of the Crown to be made available, as has been the case on some occasions in the past, although we know that the Salmon Inquiry recommended that the amicus curiae should be someone other than the Attorney-General? May we have an assurance that it will not be a Law Officer from Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct when referring to the question of the tribunal sitting in public or in private, and this is stipulated under the 1921 Act. I think it should be in public unless the tribunal itself decides, for reasons specified under the Act, that it should hear part of the
246
proceedings in private, but that is a matter for the tribunal to decide.
The particular case in 1943—it was not the one the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—is set out in Appendix C to the Salmon Report. There have been four or five cases under the Tribunals Act of one member comprising the tribunal. It was not because a Privy Councillor was required that it was decided that the Lord Chief Justice should sit alone. It is open to the tribunal under the Act to take whatever measures it believes to be necessary to meet security considerations.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that although the Salmon Commission came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the Attorney-General should not take part in such tribunals, the last two have asked the Attorney-General to do so. It is, therefore, a matter for the Lord Chief Justice himself to decide.
Sir G. Longden: Further to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), would my right hon. Friend agree that if the British Army cared as little for its victims as the I.R.A. cares about its, the casualties last Sunday would have been much heavier and would be daily occurrences?
The Prime Minister: I do not wish to comment now on the events of last Sunday.
Mr. C. Pannell: With great respect to the Prime Minister, may I ask him to think again on this issue? One can think of the precedent of the Denning Inquiry into the Profumo affair. That seemed all right at the time, but on consideration—bearing in mind the eminence of Lord Denning, which was probably comparable with that of the Lord Chief Justice—in the light of history, that does not seem to have been satisfactory. One is also concerned not only about the reputation of the Lord Chief Justice but about the political acceptance of this report at the end of the day. May I express my misgivings on this score and hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again?
The Prime Minister: Criticisms have of course, been expressed since the Denning Report. Those criticisms were not over the fact that Lord Chief Justice

247
Denning carried out the inquiry as a one-man inquiry but because it was carried out privately and in confidence, without necessarily being under oath.
In this case we have an entirely different situation. The Lord Chief Justice will have all the powers granted to him under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to secure political acceptance elsewhere, that is, of course, an important factor, but those who have said that they will not accept the tribunal have said that they will not accept any tribunal set up by the United Kingdom Government or Parliament, and that is quite separate from the particular question he raised.
Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the existence of the tribunal will in no way mean an alteration in the orders or directives to the troops in the meantime and that the security forces will in no way be inhibited in carrying out their duty to maintain law and order, particularly in my constituency next weekend?
The Prime Minister: The security forces are under very strict orders. It is, of course, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and of the Secretary of State for Defence in particular, to see that those orders are appropriate and are carried out. That will remain the situation.
Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had the approval of the Northern Ireland Government for setting up this tribunal. Has he consulted any of the minority opinion in Northern Ireland or the leaders of that minority opinion, and particularly the people of Derry? Will he take into account the strong reservations that have been expressed? Will he supplement the tribunal's personnel with an international jurist or judge—[Interruption.]—which would make its findings—this is particularly important in the context of this inquiry—more acceptable to those who lost sons and husbands in the murders of last Sunday?
The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say that the Northern Ireland Government had been consulted in the matter.
248
This is a decision of the United Kingdom Government at Westminster. I said that in order that all legal powers should be available to the tribunal, a similar Motion would be placed before the Northern Ireland Parliament by their Government. It will be moved tomorrow, Wednesday.
The answer to the second part of his question is that under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act the presumption is that the tribunal will hear its evidence in public, so that people will be able to judge for themselves, except where the tribunal decides, for specific reasons, to hear it in private.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Bearing in mind the appalling burden which our troops have been bearing throughout these operations in Northern Ireland, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that if, when people appear before the tribunal they are allowed to have legal representation and advice, we may rest assured that any British troops who are called before the tribunal will be given equal rights?
The Prime Minister: The question of legal representation is a matter to be decided by the tribunal. This has always been the case in the past and it will certainly apply to the Lord Chief Justice's tribunal. It will be for him to decide, and if Her Majesty's Forces ask for appropriate legal representation and the request is granted by the tribunal. Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to provide it.
Mr. Orme: Following the other questions about independent assessors, surely this is most important, because it looks at the moment as if the minority may not participate, which would be a disaster under these circumstances. How long will this inquiry take? Scarman was set up in 1969 and has not yet reported. It has been overtaken by events. Could not the Prime Minister consider a time limit? Will it be possible for people other than citizens of the United Kingdom to appear before this tribunal? I am thinking particularly of international journalists and television people who were present on this occasion.
The Prime Minister: The tribunal will be established, if the House passes the Motion, to inquire into the events on

249
Sunday, 30th January. It will therefore be for the tribunal to decide whether those who wish to give evidence have evidence to give relevant to the terms of the inquiry. It is entirely open to them to offer evidence, as I hope they will, and for the inquiry to decide whether it is relevant, and then to hear it.
On the first point, naturally the question of assessors was considered at the time and this view was taken into account. The decision was taken, as I have said, that the Lord Chief Justice should sit alone in this case. As for timing, great emphasis was placed on this in the House yesterday, from both sides. The Lord Chief Justice is well aware of this, and the Government have taken steps already—last night—to find accommodation in which the tribunal will be able to sit. I know that the Lord Chief Justice is already considering the procedures under which his tribunal should operate. He will at the earliest opportunity—that will be very early—announce those procedures and discuss them with all concerned.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members will feel that the Government have acted properly and swiftly in appointing a tribunal of this importance and stature, but since, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, Ireland cannot wait for a tribunal, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not be deterred by the sombre and tragic events of this week-end from pressing ahead in Ireland for a political settlement which is just and fair and which is the only alternative to continued bloodshed?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that assurance fully.
Mr. Speaker: I will now call on the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement. To relieve the feelings of the House I would point out that the three hours for the Adjournment debate do not begin to run until the debate on the Adjournment begins.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I have published today a document entitled "Training for the Future: A Plan for Discussion". This
250
sets out the Government's plans for implementing their commitments to expand the facilities for retraining together with the results of my promised review of the work of the industrial training boards.
The Government have decided to introduce a training opportunities scheme which will bring in a massive expansion of Government-sponsored training for individual men and women. In 1970 the number of people receiving training for this kind was fewer than 17,000. "Training for the Future" announces that this will be raised to 100,000 a year as quickly as possible and as a first step to at least 60,000 to 70,000 by 1975. I recognise that to achieve this expansion we shall need determined action to provide the necessary facilities and also to inform people of the new scale of opportunities open to them and of the benefits of taking advantage of them.
"Training for the Future" also reports the conclusions of the review of the work of the industrial training boards. The boards have great achievements to their credit in changing the attitudes of industry to training and in raising the standard of training generally. We need to build on what has been achieved, but we must also recognise and acknowledge the defects in the system and seek to remove them.
For this purpose it is proposed that, while compulsory levy-grant should be phased out after 1973, the industrial training boards should in general be retained in order to concentrate on the development of their work in the identification of particular training needs of their industries, on the setting of standards and on the provision of advisory services. This proposal is in line with the direction already being taken by a number of the boards.
It is further proposed to establish an agency to co-ordinate the work of the boards and to fill the gaps in the present system. This agency would be given funds of the order of £25 million to £40 million a year to provide advisory services and grants in order to stimulate key training to meet national needs—for example, to meet the shortfall in the apprentice intake last summer or to provide any support which might be necessary for activities such as group training

251
schemes and off-the-job training of apprentices and technicians.
Since it will be necessary to unify responsibility if we are to achieve as quickly as possible the 100,000 target of Government-sponsored training, and since the training plans and programmes of employers and Government also need to be looked at as a whole and to be closely co-ordinated, it seems sensible to make the agency responsible for both sectors. It is therefore proposed to establish a National Training Agency which will be hived off from my Department.
I should like to make clear the status of this document. The expansion of Government-sponsored training which the document announces—that is, the 100,000 target—represents a firm decision with which the Government are proceeding urgently. On the other hand, the proposals relating to the future rôle of the training boards and the establishment of a single National Training Agency are for consultation on the widest basis.
The Government intend to introduce such legislation as may be necessary to implement these proposals in the next Session of Parliament. The document therefore asks all those who wish to comment to do so not later than the end of May so that this timetable can be kept.
We believe that the programme contained in this document will ensure the supply of trained manpower which is vital if this country is to achieve sustained economic growth—growth that is of particular importance in terms both of regional policy and of our forthcoming entry into Europe. Training also has a strong social purpose, for it gives people a chance to improve their economic prospects and to achieve greater satisfaction as they progress through their working lives.
Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State has announced an expansion of the work of the Government training centres which we would all welcome. Would he confirm that this is likely to have very little impact in 1972 on the present 1 million unemployed? Does it not follow that the Prime Minister grossly oversold this policy last week when he made this announcement one of the main items in his reply to a censure debate on the
252
problems of having 1 million unemployed?
Even taking the long-term view, would the right hon. Gentleman accept from us that whereas the expansion of training may be a useful part of a strategy for full employment it is no substitute for the rest of the strategy and that if he gets the expansion of Government training by 1975 which he is aiming at the whole thing will go sour and will be worse than useless unless there is an expansion of job opportunities to go along with it?
On the right hon. Gentleman's proposals about the future of the industrial training boards, clearly we shall all want time to study the consultative document. But could I react straight away to what seems to me to be the worst part of these suggestions, that the levy-grant system is to be phased out from 1973? Is it not clear that this has been the mainspring of the expansion and improvement of industrial training in recent years?
If this system is now to be abandoned, will it not immediately make a gift to those firms that do no training? Will not the right hon. Gentleman then take us back to a situation in which it will be cheaper for many firms to avoid their training duty but to try instead, by paying a little over the rates, to poach skilled workers trained by other firms? In other words, is not that suggestion likely more than to cancel out the expansion in the Government training schemes?
It seems to many people that on this point the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to the pressure that he has been under for some time from some of the most reactionary and anti-social employers in the country, who have attacked the whole basis of the work of the hoards and have wanted to avoid doing their share of the training in their own industries.
Mr. Carr: Of course training plans are only part of the strategy for achieving and maintaining full employment in a modern economy, but they are a vital brick in the total structure. If the right hon. Gentleman re-reads the speeches which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I made in last week's debate he will see that the training expansion was presented

253
as part of a strategy. But we believe that it is an immensely important part. Of course the provision of training facilities does not of itself create new jobs, but it is surprising how, even in a time of very slack labour demand, one can still place people with requisite skills and how even today in some parts of the country—and it is becoming perhaps most obvious in the construction industry—there are shortages of skilled people.
Mr. Carter: Where?
Mr. Carr: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) took any interest in the economy, he would know where the shortages are and would not need to shout from a sedentary position. There are shortages of bricklayers, for example, in many parts of the country. But I want to reply to the questions put by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) instead of sedentary interruptions. These shortages—of bricklayers, for example, and of some other skills—are a sign that if we are not careful shortage of skills could, as has happened before in this country, prove a bottleneck in the economic expansion, and we are determined to try to make sure that no such bottleneck arises. I do not accept that we are exaggerating the importance of training expansion. I believe that we are giving it its appropriate place in our strategy.
I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the industrial training boards and the need to consider their situation. I emphasise that we genuinely want consultation. I would welcome a debate on the subject. I believe that the boards have achieved great success and that in the early stages the levy-grant system was a very valuable and perhaps essential shock treatment to produce the effects that we have seen. But I think there is growing evidence in an increasing number of industries that the effects of the levy-grant system on a compulsory basis are showing rapidly the results of the law of diminishing returns. I think anyone who studies the matter will agree with that. But I repeat that many of the boards have been moving in the direction of my proposals of their own free will and free judgment.
The House should bear in mind that one of the original ideas of the levy-
254
grant system—to redistribute income from those who were not training to those who were—has been becoming steadily weaker year by year because, for example, not only are an increasing number of small firms being excluded from the scheme because of various difficulties but an increasing number of the boards are setting maxima for the percentage of grants which can be earned, and therefore the degree of redistribution is becoming very small.
Dame Irene Ward: I express our appreciation of the Government's plans for the future of training, which will be very valuable to the economy. In the Northern area we are expecting an immediate expansion of training for the skills that are necessary for the area and we have been led to understand that it is to be put into operation. Is the situation of our training centres being examined in view of the need to establish a quick, special training for the skills needed in the North-East? We want quick action in training now as well as arrangements for the future.
Mr. Carr: I assure my hon. Friend that we are getting on with the expansion following our decision. I am glad to say that the occupancy rate of training centres throughout the country has risen from 80 to about 90 per cent. over the last year There are also bottlenecks in some courses which we are urgently seeking to remove. We are also seeking to supplement facilities available in Government training centres themselves by identifying and bringing into use, on a proper payment basis, spare training facilities which exist in industry. I assure my hon. Friend that action is going on and not just planning.
Mr. Albu: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree from his own experience that before the introduction of the Industrial Training Act the level of industrial training, both in quantity and in quality, was deplorably low in this country by any comparable standards? Does he not feel it extremely dangerous to give up the system of deterrents and incentives involved in grants and levies which has encouraged or forced industries to make the rapid improvement we have seen over the last few years? Shall we not see now a slipping back into the old complacency based on the non-interventionist policies of right hon. Members opposite?
Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this is one of the central matters about which we have to form a judgment. Our judgment is that the levy-grant system was a valuable—perhaps indispensable—shock treatment. We believe that, now, however, there is evidence of diminishing returns. We also believe that there really has been a "sea change" and that training has been raised in quantity and quality and also in status to a new level of importance in industry from which it will not slip back.
Moreover, our plans involve a training agency, which never existed before 1964. The agency will be given a sum of £25 million to £40 million; that is the best estimate we can make at the moment. We believe that this is equivalent in total to the net degree of redistribution of resources currently being brought about in the levy-grant system. In other words, we are giving the agency what we believe to be the equivalent amount of resources to stimulate re-training wherever the need appears to arise.
Mr. Emery: Many of us are pleased that the Government training and the industrial training are to be brought together under one agency, a course which has been advocated by many people. First, what is to be done with the specialised knowledge of the Central Training Council, which has given a great deal of assistance overall in training matters? Secondly, what proportion of the £25 million to £40 million does my right hon. Friend envisage being applied to the industrial side rather than to the Government's retraining factor? Thirdly, how will this scheme be particularly beneficial to small companies, which have frequently suffered under the levy-grant system but are very often among those which need the greatest support?
Mr. Carr: The Central Training Council has played a valuable part, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to it. The document suggests that the time has come when the council should perhaps be replaced by an overall employment policy advisory council to advise me not only on training but on all other aspects of employment and manpower policy. This is one of the proposals put up for consultation in the document.
My hon. Friend asks me about the £25 million to £40 million. This is apart
256
from the cost of running the greatly expanded Government-sponsored scheme. The cost of running the Government-sponsored scheme will probably be about £60 million a year when we reach the 60,000 level and considerably more when we reach the 100,000 level. The £25 million to £40 million is for the agency to use outside the Government-sponsored training scheme.
My hon. Friend also referred to small companies. I hope that the advisory services which the boards will be encouraged to develop will be of great advantage to the small companies in those industries covered by the boards. With the agency, there will in future be an instrument for giving advice where necessary to all those many companies which do not fall under any training board at the moment and which it is almost impossible to envisage as ever coming under any training board in the present system.
Mr. Pardoe: While welcoming this considerable expansion of the Government-sponsored training service, for which we have been pressing for many years, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there is a desperate need to ensure that jobs are available to those who are trained? Will he also bear in mind the pattern of bad forecasting of labour in the regions and the immobility of labour between the regions. Is he satisfied that his manpower forecasting will be satisfactory to ensure that the training is for jobs which are available and that the jobs are obviously there for those who are trained?
Mr. Carr: The Leader of the Liberal Party raised this question in last week's debate. We have found that manpower forecasting is a very difficult problem and is far, alas, from being solved. We believe that this development of training must run hand-in-hand with development of employment services and the establishment of local labour market areas with sophisticated, adequate staffing for discovering the real state of manpower needs present and future in local areas, and that integrating the local information into a national picture is the most hopeful way of going about this difficult problem. But that we are going to build up urgently in parallel with training development. We cannot see the future manpower needs very clearly at the

257
moment, and, therefore, there is a great body of guesswork in all the training facilities that one provides, but I hope that as years go on we shall see this more clearly than we do at the moment.
Mr. Scott: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at the rather grudging welcome given to these proposals by the Opposition? In view of the fact that the proposals will bring both social and economic benefits to a much larger proportion of the work force, does he not agree—although I welcome the phasing out of the levy—that effective standards will not be possible unless there is some carrot or stick which can be applied by the agency? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the success of this whole policy is to making training attractive not simply to the unemployed but also to people who are in employment who could widen their horizons and improve their prospects thereby?
Mr. Carr: As to the question of some carrot or stick, I agree that that is necessary. I believe we have reached the point where a carrot is more effective than a stick. The carrot here is £25 million to £40 million, which is a rough estimate of what the agency will have available for small activities. In addition, the individual boards working under the agency umbrella will, I believe, set a standard at least as good as it has been before.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that as we expand facilities it will be necessary, as I said in my opening statement, to make an equal effort to inform people about the existence of the extra opportunities and the benefits to be obtained from them. If I may use jargon, there is as much need for a marketing agreement as for a production agreement in this field.
Mr. Mark Hughes: May I ask about the position of residential training schools and colleges, such as Finchale Abbey, and so forth, which at the moment rely very heavily on private capital for giving training opportunities to the disabled, and whether the overlapping between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Department of Health and Social Security will be looked into especially in the expansion—a very sorely needed expansion—of help to the disabled?
Mr. Carr: This is a very important point which is not dealt with in specific terms in this document. I can say that the whole question of the disabled and future policy is under consideration in my Department and there is consultation about this at the moment. I should like to make clear that there is nothing in this document which would in any way make it more difficult for a firm employing disabled persons; on the contrary it will make it easier.
Miss Quennell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will wish to study the document and to be given an opportunity to welcome these proposals, but is he also aware that in the retraining of mature persons much of his excellent announcement could be undermined unless the social and domestic problems associated with retraining, of married men particularly, are borne in mind and unless his right hon. Friends keep under constant review the grants and allowances available while retraining?
Mr. Carr: Of course this is so. For that reason last July I announced a specific increase in training allowances, which at least makes it financially better for a person or a family to undergo training than to be unemployed.
Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as has been said by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, this will not solve the immediate problem of long-term unemployment which we have at present? Perhaps I might suggest to him two suitable cases for consideration. Would he suggest to Derek Ezra, who does not seem to understand that the job of the miner is a rotten, lousy job, that he should have six months' training underground? May I also suggest that he might get on a course in which he could find the price of butter? While we are about it, perhaps the Government Front Bench, particularly the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should take a training course on deficit financing of nationalised industries to find ways and means of reconstructing the capital finances of the National Coal Board so that the miners could get a decent increase in response to the claim they have made.
Hon. Members: Answer!
Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, regarding the programme for the training in Government centres of 100,000, which is to be welcomed, and following what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell), that it is the attitudes of certain people who have skills, and in particular old and obsolete skills, that have to be changed, and I agree with hon. Members opposite that those attitudes cannot be changed quickly? Will he bear this in mind in considering this policy which includes training for definite new employment opportunities which is to be welcomed?
Turning to the consultative document, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of the smaller industries—particularly in building and amongst motor agents—have been overcome by the damp hand of bureaucracy?
Mr. Carr: In so far as there has been "the damp hand of bureaucracy", I think there is no doubt that my proposals will reduce that. This has been one of the real problems, but we are trying to operate a levy-grant system among very large numbers of individual undertakings, and when doing so in an industry where there are large numbers of small undertakings it is virtually impossible to do so except by bureaucratic methods. This is one of the reasons why it has become counter-productive, but I am sure that we shall reduce that so far as it exists.
On the first point, of course I agree. We have a long task ahead of us as a country and we are starting late compared with other countries in developing the concept of training and retraining throughout working life in the sort of skills that we are beginning to talk about. We are informing and persuading people about the benefits of this, which is at least as important as training for industry.
Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everybody concerned about industrial training will welcome his proposals, which will mean more training and, we hope, more jobs? But would he not agree that he has a further responsibility in the matter of jobs and training, and does he not think it is time that he made a statement at the Dispatch Box on the fact that 280,000 miners are now on strike and that it looks as though many people will freeze because of power
260
cuts? Although on the one hand he produces a responsible statement such as he has made today, is it not the height of irresponsibility for him not to make such a statement on the miners' strike?
Mr. Carr: At the moment I am making a statement about training and am answering questions thereon, and I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about that. As for the second part of his remarks, if I thought it right today to make a statement about the other subject I would do so.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very much in the hands of the House. I do not want to close this discussion, but I hope that hon. Members will direct their questions to the statement.
Mr. John E. B. Hill: In the proposed reorganisation, does the Secretary of State expect local education authorities to make a bigger contribution, particularly through institutes of further education?
Mr. Carr: Yes, I think this is very important. One of the most important parts of the consultation that we now have to undertake is with the education authorities because in the last year or two we have been making greater use of vocational training centres and colleges of further education. There has been close co-operation in this matter, and it is important that it should be made closer in the next few months.
Mr. Dalyell: What reputable evidence has the right hon. Gentleman of any diminishing returns? I declare a constituency interest in regard to the multi-occupational training centre in Livingston, where many people are extremely worried about cutting down on the levy system and do not wish the boards to be dependent on Government sources for total finance. Are they to have the same opportunity to protect their interests in the Press as the publicly paid employees of Science have done in defending themselves against the Rothschild proposals?
Mr. Carr: I do not think I can go into the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he reads the report, which includes as an appendix a fairly detailed assessment of the work of the training boards, I think he will agree

261
that it would be better to deal with those matters on another occasion. The fact that boards have in recent years, without any pressure from the Government, been finding it necessary to exclude the smaller companies and also have been finding it necessary to limit the percentage of grant—and some boards such as the petroleum training board, the food and drink training board and the iron and steel training board have gone virtually the whole way oil these proposals—is an indication that the proposals are in the same direction as the tide is naturally flowing.
Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most serious aspects of the unemployment position is the effect on white collar workers? Would he agree that in the context of the whole situation they require special treatment? Is there any possibility of something being done for them in the very near future?
Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the inherent difficulties about the training board system as we know it. There are areas of occupation—and perhaps the white collar workers are such a case—which are spread across the whole area of employment and it does not seem sensible to try to deal with those under 27 different boards. Therefore, I believe that the sort of structure proposed today will give a better opportunity for dealing with the sort of problems my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. McGuire: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, as a miners' sponsored Member, am delighted that he has got away from the stick and has indicated that he believes in the carrot policy? We shall expect a statement on the miners' dispute in line with that attitude. Could I put a narrow, chauvinistic constituency point: will he in considering the enlarged training programme bear in mind the needs of Skelmersdale? Will he see to it that at the end of the day we shall not train men only to see them become skilled unemployed workers rather than unskilled unemployed workers, and that the jobs will follow the training?
Mr. Carr: Yes, of course. The important point to realise is that this goes back to the beginning. It is a central
262
part of the strategy, but is no good on its own. I can assure the hon. Member on that matter. I take note of what he said in the first part of his remarks. I only hope everybody will stop using sticks.

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT AND EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.;[Mr. John Davies.]

GROUND RENTS (COLLECTION)
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory apportionment of existing ground rent charges, and to make new provision for the collection and payment of such charges.
This will not be a Ten-Minute Rule Bill; it will be a two-minute rule Bill.
The purpose of the proposed Bill is to put an end to an antiquated and complicated system of land tenure, particularly common in Lancashire, by which the owner of the freehold of his house is obliged, without consultation and reward, to collect rent charges from several of his neighbours, submit them to the rent owner, and, if the neighbours do not pay, to make up any deficiency himself. This is not only a tedious burden, but can cause bad feeling among those living near each other in that the person being asked to pay the money may not be responsible. He may be merely a tenant or sub-tenant; the person responsible may, in fact, live in a different part of the country and be unaware of any obligation on his part to pay.
The original rent charges were frequently created in the last century. It is an antiquated and archaic system, and the Law Commission has severely criticised it.
The present method by which a person can get his rent apportioned and get rid of the burden is also costly and time-consuming. Though the Department of the Environment is most helpful, the amount of work involved is out of all proportion to the sum, which is usually about £2 a year.
The Bill seeks to make it the responsibility of the rent owner to collect and

263
to provide that the landowner should be merely liable to pay his own rent charge. I therefore ask the leave of the House to present the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Maurice Orbach, Mr. Walder, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Tom Pendry, and Mr. David Waddington.

GROUND RENTS (COLLECTION)
Bill to provide for the compulsory apportionment of existing ground rent charges, and to make new provision for the collection and payment of such charges, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th June and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

NORTHERN IRELAND
4.32 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
What is clear from the events in Northern Ireland over the years is that there is no military solution to the problems there. Sunday's events are recent proof, and they are part of a continuing story. Since 1969, 232 people have been killed. In January this year the figure was 26 killed: 18 civilians, 4 police, 3 soldiers and 1 member of the U.D.F. Since internment, 169 people have been killed.
Sunday's events have been traumatic. To some it has been an explosion in a pub; to others a gunman coming in and shooting down a father; and to others it is girls who have been permanently scarred as a result of a bomb in an electricity headquarters. Scars are left on the minds and hearts of Protestants and Catholics. The more Protestants killed by the I.R.A., the more Protestants are determined to remain firm. The more Catholics who are killed by security forces, the more Catholics are determined to get the British out. There is no military solution. There must be a political solution; it will have to be found. That was the view of the Labour Party when in Government. It is still our view today.
Concerning the inquiry which has been announced today, which stems from the events on Sunday. I simply say that the Opposition asked for it before the announcement was made. We hope that all those who are making allegations will attend.
I notice in the Press today that Cardinal Heenan, in a letter to the Prime Minister, said:
"The latest reports from Northern Ireland will have shocked all in this country, irrespective of their political or religious views. Without further information, I would not be prepared to judge the degree of responsibility of those involved in yesterday's tragedy. Without further information, it is impossible to know the truth of the allegations against the soldiers or to what extent they were provoked.
If, indeed, several unarmed citizens have been killed by our soldiers, the rôle of the British Army as a peace-keeping force will be suspect. I hope you will order an official

265
and independent inquiry into this tragedy with the least possible delay."
The Government have done that. It is our hope, and I am sure the hope of the whole House, that all those who have made allegations will offer their evidence in the appropriate place. Even the Financial Times today, which is further evidence that this inquiry is necessary, states that neither official version is true. The only way to clear this up is by an inquiry, and it must be speedy. Unless there is speed attached to it, with due care for the judicial side, it will not remove what we want to remove in Derry.
Another aspect which has arisen as a result of Sunday's events is the banning of marches. This was introduced in the days when the Government were concerned about the Orange marches going through parts of Belfast which were provocative. If this is broken by the Civil Rights Movement, will it be broken by the Orangemen? In particular, we should like the Government clearly to state their views—we are trying to be helpful in this matter—concerning the march which is to take place at Newry on Saturday. Is it the case—this is not an Orange march—that there is selection by the security forces who state that people may march so far, but not beyond? It is important to get this absolutely clear, because this form of political Russian roulette which results from marches is extremely dangerous. I hope that the Government will give their view.
In the Motion I refer to
"the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement."
I think that we can take the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in November as the turning point. He then made a series of proposals which, it was agreed on all sides, raised the level of the discussion. It broadened the political horizon. One often finds it being quoted, even by Members on the Government benches.
There is no need to go into all that my right hon. Friend said, but I should mention that, when he said that he sought a political solution not by violence and that the violence should be rooted out before the proposals were put into effect, he did not mean there should not be
266
discussions straightaway which could be implemented at the right moment.
We accept that a list of proposals is not enough. Policy implementation is for the Government. It is where the politician who has the levers of Government at his control comes in. Only members of the Government can take political initiatives. Of course, all the points of a policy need to be fully orchestrated. It is not just a package deal; it is the way in which the policy is outlined.
It would be a mistake to have policy decisions coming out in dribs and drabs reacting to events. It is important that security should be transferred to West minster. It is important that, from a part of the United Kingdom, there should be this transference to Westminster.
This is not new. My right hon.
Friend, on 25th November, stated:
"…I believe that as part of the task of reconciliation, of the removal of bitterness from Northern Ireland politics and institutions, Her Majesty's Government, with their responsibility to this House, should take over Ministerial responsibility for all aspects of security". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th Nov., 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1586–7.]
How is security control exercised now? That is important and relevant in the context of Sunday. As I understand it, from the statement of the Prime Minister in October, there is a Committee chaired by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. The members are the Minister of State and the senior Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, the G.O.C., the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Secretary of the Northern Ireland Cabinet, the Government security adviser and the United Kingdom representative. We are interested to know because it is relevant, despite the inquiry—because it is a policy decision with which we are concerned—as to what happened on Sunday.
Was a decision made at Westminster before Sunday that the troops should go into the Bogside and into the Creggan, where there has been practically no movement by the security forces for some time? In the law and order sense of the term, it has been a no man's land. Was a decision taken to go into an area where Government writ does not run? Was the opportunity taken because of the march, which had arisen obviously for other reasons, to begin moving into the Bogside

267
to deal with that area in the way that similar areas had already been dealt with in Belfast? This is important and will be important in relation to the events that took place on the day. It is the belief of many in Londonderry that this is so. I have a telegram from a very eminent Catholic who played a major part in the life of the city until internment. The telegram states:
"Can assure you Army shooting was planned. Indiscriminate. Designed to teach Bogside a lesson."
It is important that if feelings and beliefs like that are not true, people should be disabused of them.
Mr. F. A. Burden: Did the hon. Gentleman say that that telegram came from a person who is now interned? If so, how did he know?
Mr. Rees: I did not say that. I said that until internment he played a major part in the life of the city.
In the context of security, I ask the Minister to explain to us again the rôle of the Army. I have attempted to put my mind to this matter. I have been on patrol with the paratroopers in Belfast, with three other hon. Members, at night—I am very glad that it was at night. It is a job that I should not want. But the responsibility—not in the technical sense of the term in which I have been asking about security—ultimately is ours. As far as I can see, with limited military knowledge, in the strictly military sense of the term the Army could stay there for years. But in the internal security rôle played by the Army in Ulster—not in a colonial territory where the terrain is different; it is impossible enough there—it seems that we give the Army a task almost impossible to perform.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: You sent them there.
Mr. Rees: I agree that the Government of the day sent them there. I do not seek to play clever stuff on this matter. The Army was sent there by the previous Administration, and all of us have a responsibility in this sense. So we seek information from the Government about the Army's rôle.
I come to policy generally. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the
268
Opposition made his speech, he made certain proposals that were received well by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Why has there been a delay of nine weeks in the inter-party talks at Westminster?
Captain Orr: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but this is an important point. I am trying to understand the argument about the transfer of security. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that subject, can he say whether he envisages in that proposition that, for example, control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should now become the responsibility of the Home Secretary rather than a police authority?
Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will deal with that point and develop the point I have already made.
Turning to the talks, why was there a delay of nine weeks, when even in the months before November there was talk and eventually the recall of Parliament. The Home Secretary has made it clear on a number of occasions that all matters can be discussed; the new rôle for the minority, and the economic development, about which not nearly enough has been said. The Prime Minister is reported to have said in Paris that the Northern Ireland troubles would be far, far less if we had gone in to the E.E.C. in 1961. With the Government's enthusiasm for the E.E.C., I am wondering whether any thought has been given to co-operation between Eire and the United Kingdom and the Northern Ireland part of it, especially in the context of regional development. This is most important. All of us could get involved with it.
When we see two countries close together, with the need for regional development on either side, and with an artificial border laid down 50 years ago having an effect on the economy—this is true of Londonderry—at the very least the Governments could get together economically and make an eventual improvement in the relationship between the two sides of the border. I agree that that is a long-term suggestion.
Internment is an important issue. We debated this in November. The Government have said that internment can be part of the discussion. But, in advance of this, the Government should have

269
responded to all the various ideas that were put forward by lawyers and others for bringing internment, as it is, within the rule of law. Many suggestions were put forward in November. The Northern Ireland Labour Party has put forward its proposals. But unless something is done about the rule of law and internment, it will be impossible for many people in Northern Ireland—and we sometimes forget the emotion on that side of the water—to play a part in any discussions. If the Government have given thought to this, with all the difficulties of internment, it would have been possible, and still is possible, to find a means of dealing with this and of bringing the S.D.L.P. in this instance into the talks.
When talking about Northern Ireland, there is always a tendency for all of us to state the obvious. One such obvious statement is that there is no easy or clear cut logical solution at hand. We are used to compromise in our political relationships. That seems to have gone altogether in Northern Ireland. I do not underrate the difficulties. But given this situation, the Government have been dilatory. We criticise the Government. They have not responded to the gravity of events. Our concern is still for a peaceful settlement. We reject the rule of the gun on either side.
Too often moderate opinion on either side is polarised to a degree that one wonders whether one will ever be able to move it back to moderation. Even in this country among people of all political parties there has been a renewal of the attitude, "Let them get on with it; we have had enough". That is the polarisation on this side of the water that one finds on the other side as well. We criticise the Government's lack of urgency and, in the words of the Motion—
"The deteriorating situation …and the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement."
We want to hear this afternoon, not just because of Sunday which, tragic though it is, is one of a series of tragic events, that the Government will take a political initiative.
4.50 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I begin by saying how very much I appreciate the general tone
270
and manner of the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
There has been widespread distress, anxiety and emotion over the events in Londonderry last Sunday. The reports of events conflict wildly. My right hon. Friend explained yesterday that the march had been organised in deliberate defiance of the legal order which banned it. It culminated in an exchange of fire that led to a number of people being killed and injured, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced today the Government's decision to set up a highly authoritative independent inquiry into the circumstances of the march and the casualties which resulted. Our broad purpose is to establish as impartially and as speedily as possible the facts of the situation. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, South, that we very much hope that all who have made allegations will find it possible to attend and give evidence before this impartial inquiry.
In normal circumstances one could well claim that, since an inquiry is to be set up, it would be better that nothing should be said at this stage which might seem to prejudge what the findings of the inquiry will be. But, as the House knows, there has been a series of reports involving the most serious allegations against the Army's conduct. It is conceivable, although I much hope that it will not prove to be the case, that these allegations will be given further currency during the course of the debate.
I think, therefore, that it is right for me to set out in good faith the facts as I know them, although I realise that the facts as I know them conflict with the statements which have been made by other people. It is right because, however urgently the inquiry is conducted, some time is bound to elapse before the evidence can be collected and weighed. It is not right that the Army's case should go by default when bitter, intemperate and, to the best of my belief, inaccurate or untrue statements have been made against it. It would be grossly unfair to the Forces who are in Northern Ireland. We must also recognise that the I.R.A. is waging a war, not only of bullets and bombs but of words. It is waging a highly skilled war of propaganda, in which

271
corpses, the unutterable sadness of relatives, the confusion, the gullibility and the downright lies are all brought into play. If the I.R.A. is allowed to win this war I shudder to think what will be the future of the people living in Northern Ireland.
To allow the Army's case to go by default would be to allow to go by default the case of the very people whose sole purpose is to prevent Northern Ireland sliding into civil war.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The whole House will respect and understand the noble Lord's wish to see that the Army's case is put forward so that to use his own words, "its case should not go by default". I ask him to be cautious in the next stage of his speech. The Lord Chief Justice of England has been appointed, as announced by the Prime Minister, took into these events. Does the noble Lord realise that if he, with the best will in the world, puts forward one case, this will be bound to spark off somebody else to put a contrary view. There may be some who might be thought to do a disservice in prejudging and being irresponsible in so doing, but we expect from the tribunal the highest possible judicial standards.
Lord Balniel: I fully appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Allegations have been made which must be looked into by the inquiry. I have explained why, after the most careful consideration, I have felt it right not to allow the factual statement—and I will put it in as temperate and careful terms as I can—to go by default. I consider that it is my duty to put forward the facts. The security forces are trying to fulfil their task—
Mr. Leo Abse rose—
Lord Balniel: I have given way once. The security forces—
Mr. Abse: The noble Lord, apparently, is going to give what he claims is a factual account of the knowledge in his possession. Does he not appreciate that, inevitably, once the announcement is made about the tribunal, everybody by the law of contempt would be silent? His statement now, pre-empting the situation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that the tribunal has not yet been set up. I hope also that the whole House will realise the shortness of time available for this debate and will allow the debate to continue. Lord Balniel.
Mr. Abse rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Abse: The noble Lord gave way to me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hoped that I had made clear to the hon. Gentleman that the point which he was on was not in order. Lord Balniel.
Mr. Abse: I was putting to the noble Lord the fact that once it has been announced that there is to be a tribunal everybody will be silenced. Does not the noble Lord appreciate that in making a statement now he will spread the impression throughout the world that the Government are pre-empting the situation and giving a direction to the Lord Chief Justice as to what are the facts? Is not this a disastrous course to take?
Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. No one is silenced, anyone can express his views in the debate, and the Motion has not yet been put before the House. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to put the facts as I know them.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Under the law a tribunal is not a court of justice and no one is precluded from making any comment he wishes to make. whether or not the tribunal is set up.
Lord Balniel: The security forces are trying to fulfil their task in incredibly difficult circumstances under orders to use no more force than is necessary to preserve law and order. In the process of using minimum force they have suffered many casualties and death. This weekend, for instance, another soldier died of his wounds.
The pattern of events in recent months has shown the continued ability of I.R.A. terrorists to wreak havoc and destruction. However, if we analyse the recent activities of bombers and gunners we do not see a picture of growing strength but

273
rather one of growing desperation. The continuing build-up of information has enabled the security forces to form a clearer picture of the organisations, tactics and whereabouts of the I.R.A. This in turn has led to a significant increase in the number of arrests of wanted men and in the finds of arms, ammunition and explosives. Some areas of Belfast which were previously largely under terrorist domination have now become nearly trouble-free. In other areas where the I.R.A. has been particularly active in the past its command structure has been disrupted.
So the I.R.A. has changed its tactics. It has recently concentrated its efforts on what are described as the "soft", the "easy" targets; the police, or the Ulster Defence Regiment man in his home. Three policemen were murdered at the end of last week—one in Londonderry. Another policeman had his leg amputated today as a result of an explosion. The I.R.A. has also concentrated on hit-and-run attacks and ambushes from the safe haven across the border. We saw another attempt only last night. I.R.A. men have developed the deliberate use of crowd cover, either mixing themselves amongst demonstrations or causing explosions among the general public in shopping areas. From behind the general public, who are, of course, often quite innocent of any evil intention, they mount attacks against the security forces. This is a new pattern of I.R.A. techniques.
Civil rights marches suit the I.R.A.'s tactics and purposes well—not just because of their propaganda value but also because they give it a chance to create trouble. After repeated appeals by Catholic leaders, from both North and South of the border, a six-month ban on marches was imposed by the Northern Ireland Government. The decision was taken with the full approval of the British Government. The Northern Ireland Government, again with the full approval of the British Government, have announced their intention to extend the ban. The reasons for the ban are obvious. Marches by whichever community are likely to be provocative, as we have seen in the past. They stir up counter-demonstrations and lead to outbreaks of inter-communal strife. The task of controlling marches diverts the security forces from what I regard as their priority task of hunting
274
down the terrorists, and marches can be used as a screen behind which gunmen can operate.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Lord Balniel: I would rather get on with my speech, because this is a short debate.
It was known in advance that two attempts at marches were to be made during the past weekend. A statement issued by Army headquarters in Northern Ireland on Saturday emphasised the illegality of such attempts and that the responsibility rested with the organisers for any violence which resulted from them. The same afternoon, one attempt at an illegal march took place between Dungannon and Coalisland. The security forces used barriers to prevent the demonstrators from carrying out a successful march, and, mercifully, there were no serious disturbances.
I turn now to the events of Sunday afternoon in Londonderry. Intelligence information had given the security forces good reason to believe that the I.R.A. would exploit the opportunities afforded by the march and subsequent rioting to mount attacks on the security forces. Marchers began to gather in the Creggan, at about 2 p.m. By about 2.45, when they numbered about 800, they set off on a tour of the Creggan and Bogside, gradually building up their strength to about 3,000. The march was well marshalled at this stage.
Troops from the three resident Londonderry battalions were manning a number of barriers inside the edge of a Catholic area, and in particular in the area of William Street. The decision precisely when and where to intervene in an illegal march in order to frustrate it is a matter for the commander on the spot. In this case, no action was to be taken against the marchers unless they tried to break through barriers or to direct violence against the troops.
The marchers reached the barrier in William Street, east of the junction with Rossville Street, just before 3.40. There was a brief discussion between the march leaders, the Army and the R.U.C. The leaders began to move off, but stewards were unable to keep control and large groups of trouble-makers started to throw stones, bottles, steel bars, and other

275
Missiles—including canisters of CS—at the troops manning the barriers in the area. Water cannon were used, and the bulk of the crowd moved back to the open ground around Rossville Street, leaving behind a hooligan element still attacking troops at the barriers. At this stage troops used CS and rubber bullets against the rioters.
By five minutes past four the crowd in Rossville Street was largely dispersing. There was clear separation between the rioters at the barricades and the remaining marchers in the area. There had, however, already been two incidents foreshadowing the terrorist violence which was to come. At 3.55 a high-velocity round was fired across William Street from the direction of the Rossville Flats, striking a drainpipe four feet above the heads of a party of soldiers. A few moments later, a man was seen preparing to light a nail bomb in William Street; he was shot as he prepared to throw, was seen to fall, and was dragged away by his fellows.
Between 4.5 and 4.10, the brigade commander ordered the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, to launch an arrest operation against the rioters, who, as I have said, were well separated from the marchers. These rioters were flagrantly breaking the law; hurling missiles at the troops and establishing a degree of violence which was quite unacceptable. The level of their violence was highly dangerous to the police and the Army.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about the responsibility for the decision to arrest. The arrest operation was discussed by the Joint Security Council after decisions had been taken by Ministers here. Where the barricades are actually placed is a matter for the operational commanders on the spot.
The Parachute Regiment, the Belfast reserve battalion, had been deployed to Londonderry as a precaution, and had been kept behind the line of barriers for use in this way in case it was needed. Three companies of soldiers therefore came through the barriers in William Street at about 4.15 p.m. They fired rubber bullets when necessary. It is the noise of these rubber-bullet firings which, incidentally, I believe is the reason why many of the marchers who were well
276
away from the area believed that the Army opened fire first.
Two companies made a number of arrests. One company found the rioters it intended to arrest withdrawing towards Rossville flats and followed them in armoured vehicles towards those buildings. On the way, three rounds struck one vehicle, and a burst of about 15 rounds from a sub-machine gun struck the ground just a few yards away from a group of soldiers as they got out of their vehicle.
The soldiers continued to arrest the rioters whom they had chased. They arrested about 28 in a matter of a few minutes. At the same time, they came under fire from gunmen, nail bombers and petrol bombers, some in the flats and some at ground level. Between 4.17 and 4.35 p.m., a number of these men were engaged. Some gunmen and bombers were certainly hit and some almost certainly killed. In each case, soldiers fired aimed shots at men identified as gunmen or bombers. They fired in self-defence or in defence of their comrades who were threatened. I reject entirely the suggestion that they fired indiscriminately or that they fired into a peaceful and innocent crowd—[Interruption.] I also reject—
Mr. Paul B. Rose rose—
Lord Balniel: I also reject utterly the slurs made on the Parachute Regiment—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that it must be clear to hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman has not given way.
Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to you, a tribunal of inquiry has been set up. Is not the Minister entirely preempting—[Interruption.] Perhaps right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear the truth from the tribunal of inquiry—[Interruption.] I shall not sit down until I have made my point of order, so perhaps right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be quiet. Is not the right hon. Gentleman entirely pre-empting that tribunal of inquiry by giving his own highly coloured account, which is quite contrary to the

277
accounts published by independent observers in at least 12 newspapers on this side and on the other side of the Irish Sea?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) will have heard that, technically, the tribunal to which he has referred will be set up by this House presumably later tonight. I hope that the House will wish to hear whatever expressions of opinion may be called during this very short debate.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House wants to get on with this short debate, and I know that many hon. Members want to speak. But may I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? Whether or not the tribunal has been technically set up, if its report is to carry any conviction—and it is vitally important to save more lives that it does—is not it essential that the right hon. Gentleman brings this part of his speech to an end as quickly as possible?
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas rose—
Lord Balniel: I do not accept the hypothesis on which—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are having a debate on this subject at all, surely it cannot be out of order for us to have a full factual statement from the Minister responsible for the Army. If we cannot have that, we cannot have a debate.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman is giving us the Army's version, will he include the statement that General Ford made on the 9 o'clock news on Sunday night and the statement of a lieutenant-colonel of the Parachute Regiment which contradict what the right hon. Gentleman has said today?
Lord Balniel: With respect, these continual points of order are stopping me from concluding my speech, which I was about to do in literally a moment or two.
I thought it right to refer to the slurs which have been made on the Parachute Regiment—
Mr. Frank McManus: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is giving the Government's view of the events in Derry. Does he accept, when he does that, that most hon. Members on this side of the House will wonder why the Government have set up a tribunal of inquiry at all?
Lord Balniel: In the past week or two, we have heard suggestions that the Parachute Regiment is rather rougher and less sensitive to the needs of the situation than other soldiers—
Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear from the announcement which has been made that a tribunal is to be set up. We have heard that evidence is to be submitted to it. Is not the action of the Minister of State totally discrediting belief in that tribunal, when a definitive Government statement is put forward about these events? This is the way to ruin—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) knows that that is not a point of order.
Lord Balniel: Clearly, the tribunal will examine all the evidence that it considers necessary for the conclusion of its task.
I was about to say that there has been a sustained campaign against the Parachute Regiment in the last week or two. Suggestions have been made that soldiers in that regiment are less sensitive to the needs of the situation than other troops. We have heard suggestions that their discipline broke down over the weekend. I believe both those suggestions to be totally without foundation. In fact, they are part of a deliberate propaganda campaign to vilify individual regiments. At one time, the vilification campaign was directed against the Scottish regiments. At the moment, it is being directed against the Parachute Regiment.
The soldiers in that regiment are in fact a very experienced battalion, having been in Northern Ireland since September, 1970. They have nearly completed their tour of duty as one of the resident battalions. They are more experienced than most soldiers in Northern Ireland, and they are very well versed in the circumstances under which troops may open fire.

279
They are well-disciplined, and their commander and the Government have every confidence in them.
In a debate on very serious matters of this sort, it is worth mentioning, although it may sound trivial, that this battalion has an excellent reputation for establishing good community relations—
Mr. Rose: Nonsense.
Lord Balniel: Its soldiers are, for example, paying out of their own savings for a holiday abroad for a hundred poor Protestant and Catholic children. That may sound trivial, but it reflects great credit on the men concerned.
I end by repeating what my colleagues and I have said repeatedly. The Government do not believe that a purely military solution is possible to the problems of Northern Ireland. We must get on with the talking, and the key to talks lies in the hands of leaders of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. When they are ready to enter into discussions without rigid preconditions, we are ready likewise to do so.
Meanwhile, the Services have the unenviable and dangerous task of helping to restore law and order. I believe that almost everyone in the country recognises that amongst all the horror, death and misery, amongst all the confusion and hatred, the Army has conducted itself with great skill and restraint in one of the saddest phases in the history of Northern Ireland.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I intend to be very brief and raise only two points, one dealing with the tribunal, the other with the current political situation. If there is one thing which should unite the whole House it is the statement that we should dispassionately and impartially establish the true facts about what happened on Sunday last.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: And back the Army.
Mr. Thorpe: I repeat what I said for the edification of the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and I hope that he will subscribe to it. We should impartially and dispassionately establish what happened last Sunday. By that I mean that we
280
should not pass judgment or counter-judgment on any particular group of persons involved. If there are any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who believe that the facts are established beyond any doubt I hope that they will vote against the setting up of an inquiry tonight. That is the logic of their belief. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all the authority of the 1922 Committee behind him can already say with complete certitude what happened on that Sunday, and what conclusions may be drawn I hope that he will dissociate himself with the conviction and sincerity we know he practices, and I mean that genuinely, from the Prime Minister and his other hon. and right hon. Friends in setting up this inquiry.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Having had a son who was deeply involved in an incident in Cyprus some years ago called the Gunyeli incident I think I know why it is necessary in this instance to set up an inquiry. In the meantime, let us back the Army.
Mr. Thorpe: I do not want to continue—[Interruption.] At least in regard to Rhodesia my loyalty to the Crown has never been in doubt, nor in Northern
Ireland. For once in my life may I recommend that in preference to the position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, hon. Member's should adhere to the position taken by the Prime Minister this afternoon—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) would contain himself for a moment it would assist. The position of the Prime Minister was if I may say so wholly correct. When he was asked to express an opinion on certain charges or counter-charges he said—I am paraphrasing him and if I am inaccurate I withdraw and apologise:
"These are matters which it would be better to leave to the inquiry".
I would respectfully agree and I believe that should be the tenor of this debate. If it happened that one side or another has been wrongly blamed and charges have been made which are unsubstantiated then there is no person in whom I have greater confidence than the Lord Chief Justice of England. I hope that in the debate we will not follow the example of the Minister of State whose motives, however, I can

281
completely understand, and we will not use this as an occasion for giving evidence on a matter which should more properly be left to the inquiry.
May I make two technical points on the inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), whose period of retirement from the Bar is of even longer duration than mine, has, as perhaps one would expect, allowed his prejudice to overcome his legal knowledge. If we look at the 1921 Act there is no question that the tribunal under Section 1:
"…shall have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court, or in Scotland the Court of Session, or a judge of either such court, on…the following matters."
Those matters are then set out and I will not rehearse them, but in effect they give the powers of a Court of Record to it in regard to subpoenaing witnesses and the law of contempt. To say that the tribunal is not on all fours with the High Court is something about which I hope at the end of this debate only the hon. and learned Member will have any doubt.
Mr. Paget: It is perfectly true that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act gives the tribunal, whether or not it includes a judge, powers to subpoena, to inquire and call upon witnesses. It provides nothing whatever which precludes anyone from commenting on matters which are the subject of the inquiry during the inquiry. It has happened constantly during other inquiries and will doubtless continue during this one.
Mr. Thorpe: I do not want to delay the House. I will only refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to Section 1(2)(c):
"If any person does any other thing which would, if the tribunal had been a court of law having power to permit contempt, have been contempt of that court…the chairman of the tribunal may certify the offence of that person under his hand to the High Court…"
It is therefore on all fours with the High Court and it is just as impossible to make comment on these matters when the matter is sub judice as if it were before an ordinary High Court judge.
The second point I wish to make—and the only other one about the tribunal—is that those who refuse to give evidence to the tribunal may be subpoenaed. They may be subject to all the same
282
penalties as any witness who has so refused before a High Court judge. If a large section of the community decides to boycott this tribunal, and I hope it does not, the tribunal will be possessed of powers which it will be impossible to implement and therefore it will itself come into contempt.
It is for that reason, because I believe the tribunal is the proper way to approach the matter, because I have the highest respect for and confidence in the Lord Chief Justice who is not only a distinguished judge but a person who comes from my part of the world and indeed takes his territorial designation from my constituency, that I believe it is important that he should be so supplemented in the judicial task which he has to discharge as to give the widest possible confidence to the world at large and to make it virtually impossible for anyone in good conscience to refuse to appear before the tribunal. It is no good the Government saying that they will leave it to the Lord Chief Justice. The Government have recently manifested this new-found passion for shelving off, pushing on to the shoulders of eminent judges, what are basically political decisions, whether it be Lord Pearce or now Lord Widgery.
The only point I wish to make about the tribunal is that it seems of the very essence that there should be two assessors, not because Lord Widgery is unable to discharge this task but because politically the tribunal has to be widely accepted. If the Government should on reflection change their view we will not say. "We told you so, why did you not do it the first time?" I want this tribunal to be a success and I honestly believe that unless we have those outside assessors the chances of acceptance are greatly reduced. I do not want to see those chances reduced, I want to see them enhanced.
There is no doubt that we have to take the political initiative in Ireland. It is no good saying today that it ought to have been done 5, 10 or 50 years ago, however tempting. We all know that, and collectively this House must bear the responsibility and some, alas, must bear it more than others. Nor should we bring forward political initiatives merely in response to particular acts of violence or cases of bloodshed. But I do get the feeling that the Government have

283
ploughed into the sand. The most difficult thing is to suggest what new initiative could be taken.
I want to put forward one or two things which I hope the Government will consider. First I do not believe that in a situation in which United Kingdom troops are permanently stationed in part of the United Kingdom any other group of persons should be responsible for what is happening other than the United Kingdom Parliament. The problem of security must be transferred to this House. It is fair to the Army to do so, and indeed I do not believe that it is fair to the Stormont Government to continue the present situation. Secondly if there is a Secretary of State for Wales and one for Scotland I cannot believe that it is right that there is no Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is full-time charged with responsibilities for the Province. With the best will in the world, the Home Secretary has multifarious responsibilities, and there should be a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with an advisory committee representative of all shades of opinion both in Northern Ireland and in this House.
If there are those left in Northern Ireland who are prepared to make a system of parliamentary government work, and that is a big "if", then I believe that in the present crisis situation we must consider the idea of having an all-party government in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] It is all very well for some hon. Members to say "Oh dear", but at a time when people are being shot and we have virtually a state of civil war in a part of the United Kingdom, anything must be tried, particularly when everything else has so far failed.
Only one country has tried this. In Switzerland there is a guaranteed percentage of places for each of the major political interests represented in the Confederation. To a lesser extent it happens in the Lebanon, where certain religious interests have a guaranteed right of representation. I trust that this idea will not be turned down out of hand.
I further believe that we must have a system in which minorities have a guaranteed right of representation in relation to their strength in the Province. It is no
284
coincidence that a system of proportional representation was written into the 1920 Constitution. It is no surprise that the predominantly Protestant Shankill area regularly returned two Protestants and one Catholic at the local government level and that in the Catholic Falls Road area there were returned two Catholics and one Protestant at the local government level. This occurred because minorities had rights and there was an interaction between the two communities. These are the sort of political initiatives that we must consider immediately.
I support what the Prime Minister said in his speech at the Guildhall—though it has received too little publicity—that we should not rule out the possibility that one day there may be a move towards a united Ireland but that that could not come about without the wholehearted consent of the Protestant minority in the North—I am, of course, speaking of "minority" in an all-Ireland sense—and without the conscious will of the majorities in both halves of the country.
I would not recommend someone in Northern Ireland to vote for unity unless he or she could see a rising standard of living in the South, with social legislation comparable to that enjoyed in the North. These things provide a challenge to both halves of the country.
I say to the civil rights movement, with whose objectives I have very much sympathy, just as much as I say to the extreme Protestant organisations, that whatever may be the feelings of political repression, I cannot believe that in this situation the right to march is one of the basic fundamental issues that must be defended at all costs, particularly when it involves an escalation of force and an increase in tension between the two communities. I would have thought that that was perhaps one aspect of political life which we could temporarily do without.
I conclude by again making it clear that I want this tribunal to be a success. I therefore want it to be able to approach its deliberations in a judicial atmosphere, and not after this House has put the case for or against one side or the other. I want it to be accepted and therefore I want the Lord Chief Justice to have the advantage of two assessors.
We must take the political initiative. I want to see the idea of talks, which was

285
put forward by the Leader of the Opposition—his idea does not seem to have made much progress after nine weeks—fully examined and I do not want to see any political initiative turned down on the old English basis that it has not been tried or thought of before. This is the time for ingenuity and initiative and for people of goodwill. Whatever the initiative, it may fail, but at least we can say that we tried.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: If all the speeches that are made in this debate from the benches opposite are conducted with such studied moderation as that made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), this debate will do no harm and may do some good.
However, I wish to make it clear in all humility that when one begins to think that one understands the position in Northern Ireland, that is the time to start all over again. Although I am of Northern Ireland, I have started all over again many times.
Earlier this afternoon I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister where the tribunal was likely to sit. I asked that question because I have today received from constituents a number of messages which give me great cause for concern. They are to the effect that Londonderry is today in the grip of terror and intimidation on a scale it has never before known, though I am bound to say that there has been terror and intimidation there before. I repeat, however, that it has not existed to the extent that it prevails this afternoon.
I am told that anyone who opens his shop there is threatened, that many Roman Catholics who are trying to get to work are being intimated by the I.R.A., that the banks are closed, that many post offices have also shut their doors—possibly all of them have closed; I have not had an opportunity to check—that the telephone exchange has closed, that old age pensioners have been unable to collect their pensions because the money has not been delivered to the sub-offices, and that the Crown buildings closed early yesterday. That follows the state of intimidation which I saw for myself last weekend in Londonderry but which is even worse now.
286
I therefore wonder whether the House really believes that an inquiry of this kind can be conducted in such an atmosphere and whether witnesses will be safe from intimidation. This is an extremely important matter which I trust will receive the urgent attention of the Government.
Speed in this case is essential. This inquiry is quite different from the Scarman Tribunal. It is true that that has taken a very long time and I agree that Mr. Justice Scarman is acting alone, a point that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. However, he has been dealing with many aspects and inquiring into many different occasions and events over a number of years.
In this case Lord Widgery will be inquiring into one event which occurred on one particular day, although there may be occasion for him to inquire into some things that happened a few days before. I therefore do not anticipate the same sort of delay in this case.
I have not had time to examine the Act, but I earnestly hope that the evidence will not be reproduced in the newspapers, because from such publicity in the case of the Scarman Commission came the most sectarian business, and the delay in that case has produced a great deal of bitterness, so that when we finally get the findings they will be largely irrelevant to the present situation and will only recall many unpleasant memories for many people.
I do not wish to anticipate the next debate, though it may help to economise on time if I ask now how far, if the tribunal is held in private, those giving evidence will be entitled, as it were unilaterally, to publish their evidence. This is an important question for the reasons I have given.
I do not know whether this applies to this tribunal or to some other investigation, but I should like to be assured that a full inquiry will take place not only into the motives of the marchers but into why an illegal march was planned and executed in defiance of a ban imposed on all marches and which I understand had the backing of all three sides of the political spectrum in this country, and presumably of Dublin as well. It is a fair question, especially when one is being asked about the transfer of security from

287
Stormont to this House, to ask the Opposition, since they have approved an overall ban on all parties over this period, and given the situation in Londonderry on Sunday, what their orders would have been to the troops—what they would have expected the troops to do in those circumstances.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my Friend explain why it is, when marches are illegal, that they are advertised in the public Press?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is a point well worth looking into. I am afraid that I could not tell my hon. Friend—[Laughter.]' Hon. Members may laugh, but this is clearly a very serious matter. I did not see any of these marches advertised in the public Press, but this is something which should be looked into. I hope that the Civil Rights Association, as it was formerly called, will be examined to see just how far it has been infiltrated and how far the same personnel exists in it as in the leadership of the I.R.A.
Will the tribunal have sufficient powers to consider the evidence of certainly carefully selected reporters who were bidden to a Press conference given by both wings of the I.R.A. subsequent to the events of Sunday? They were called to the Bogside, where the Press conference was held in a room which, according to one newspaper report at least, was stacked with rifles. I hope that that will be taken into account by the tribunal as well.
I accept that, when death occurs on such a tragic scale—these were my constituents—an inquiry is inevitable, but I would also point out that all inquiries of such a nature must have some effect at least upon the morale of the soldiers—not just of those involved in the particular incident, but of all soldiers in Northern Ireland.
Also, perhaps, one needs a little more detailed assurance than the Prime Minister was able to give this afternoon in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that it will not affect the orders that the troops will have about, say, next Saturday's march in Newry, which is a very worrying occasion, that no amendment has been made to their orders or to the form that those orders took up
288
to last Sunday. We need an assurance that our troops will not be inhibited in defending themselves and law-abiding citizens. Nor must they be prevented from taking the initiative in the struggle against the I.R.A. when opportunity offers, if it does.
Whatever may come of this inquiry, there are thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland who will never, as long as they live, forget the courage and humanity shown by both the police and the troops in the last two years or more. Most of them feel that they owe a debt of gratitude to the security forces in general which can never properly be repaid.
Nor have they forgotten—I hope that I will not be called contentious for saying this—that it was one of those same paratroopers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) reminded us yesterday, who was posthumously awarded the George Cross for saving the lives of Ulster children.
Mr. Orme: Having said that, could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in 1969, he advocated the British Army going into Northern Ireland at the behest of the Labour Government to protect the people of the Bogside?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: So far as I remember—I remember it pretty well, because I was pretty deeply involved—the Army went in at the request of the Northern Ireland Government, to aid the civil power. Those are the facts of the situation.
There is one question that one is bound to ask about Sunday's events. Enormous numbers of allegations have been made, in some cases by eye witnesses and in some cases by journalists, who seem to have been almost exclusively on the civil rights side of the barricade. Was there really none or virtually none on the troops' side behind the barricades, to see what was going on there? I can see that this would be difficult to arrange. Naturally, troops do not want journalists and reporters in among them at a difficult time like this when there is danger to life.
Mr. Simon Mahon: We appreciate the point—we have read the newspaper reports—but did not the hon. Gentleman see that the television cameras

289
of the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. were obviously behind the barricades? We saw the whole of the action from behind the barricades: we could not have seen it more clearly.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I did not see an enormous amount of television; I was listening to the radio on the particular day—but from many quarters I heard that the difference between the version shown on Independent Television and that shown by the British Broadcasting Corporation was very marked indeed. I will not elaborate that any further. Most of my hon. Friends know what I am talking about.
I should have thought that this was something which the authorities could have foreseen, that they could have arranged adequate coverage by reporters with the troops—
Mr. Rose: There were.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I wish that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who has a considerable responsibility for what has happened in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will not give way.
Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman has made a personal attack—
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am not giving way.
Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order.
Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman made an attack—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that all hon. Gentlemen will remember that very many people hope to take part in this very short debate.
Mr. Chichester-Clark rose—
Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I give way very freely in this House. If I am allowed to finish my speech, the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity.
Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman made a personal attack.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have been attacked by the hon. Gentleman many times, so he need not—
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order for an hon. Member who makes a personal attack on another hon. Member to give way? On the occasion of the last debate, the hon. Member in question made a personal attack on the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I had to intervene then on the hon. Gentleman's behalf. I intervene now on behalf of my hon. Friend—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that hon. Members will know that it rests with the hon. Members concerned.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: In the circumstances, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Mr. Rose: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. He knows that I have a very deep respect for him. That is said in all sincerity, because he is one of those people who has been very concerned about this. But the hon. Gentleman knows that, when we raised these matters seven years ago, he and his hon. Friends told us, "There is nothing wrong in Northern Ireland. The responsibility is not ours. They will not listen to us."
Did not the hon. Gentleman see the report in The Times yesterday by Brian Cashinella and John Chartres, which said:
"A photographer who was directly behind the parachutists when they jumped down from their armoured cars said, 'I was appalled. They opened up into a group of people. As far as I could see, they did not fire over people's heads at all.'"?
The hon. Gentleman should watch television and read the Press—all of it.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member should read some of my speeches in 1964 and 1965. I was the first person and the most frequent to say over and over again that the answer to discrimination in Northern Ireland was to provide houses and jobs, that, while there was a shortage of both, there would never be an end to discrimination. The words that I used earlier—carefully—were not

291
that there were no journalists with the troops but that they seemed to be almost exclusively on the other side of the barricades, and I adhere to that belief.
I am sorry that that happened. I should have thought that, with the lessons of 1968 behind us, what happened to the morale of the R.U.C. as a result of the persistent vilification and propaganda against them might have been taken on board now, and that we might have expected the same thing to have happened to the Army as happened to the R.U.C.
We have heard something about talks and I dare say that we shall be hearing more. The Home Secretary has said more than once how much he would welcome round table talks. The Northern Ireland Government have announced over and over again that they wish that everyone concerned, in the Opposition in particular, would come to the conference table. Indeed, they have said that it is in the paramount interest of saving life to do so, and I echo that.
If such talks are held, I am very willing to take part. I should go into them making it clear that I was not interested in any solution which meant that the citizens of Northern Ireland should no longer eventually find themselves part of the United Kingdom. I should go into the talks saying so, and I have no doubt that I should come out of them saying the same thing. I make that clear. But that does not preclude my taking part in talks; nor does it preclude my hon. Friends. That seems to me a not unreasonable attitude, which might perhaps set an example to other quarters.
There is an ample list which needs to be talked about in relation to the whole Northern Ireland situation. We all have our own solutions. I have my own ideas of what the solution might be. But these are ideas that I should be hesistant to put in public now because I know what happens to ideas when they are put out in public now. They are seized upon by one person or another—particularly one whom I shall not name—to take up a new political posture in order to escalate their demands, so any initiative is almost immediately smothered as soon as it is made. There
292
are great dangers—not for me but for some other people—in making public pronouncements.
One remembers what came to be known as "that programme" just after Christmas. I refused to take part because I did not believe in instant political postures taken up for the benefit of a television public. Nor do I believe it now. I have never felt more amply justified than when I watched that programme and saw the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pinned like a butterfly to a board in a posture from which he will find great difficulty in extricating himself.
That is why in my view talks are so vital in private, even if—I say this advisedly—in taking part in them some of those who do take part incur the distrust of some of their following. I think that they have in these circumstances to be responsible enough to be prepared to incur that distrust, if necessary it is.
Who is to go to these talks? I make it clear that it is ludicrous, although it has got abroad to a great extent, of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to claim that his party represents 40 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. It does not—there can be no doubt about that. There is great distrust of his party among the minority. We hear very often the phrase, "The silent majority". I think this House should be reminded that in Northern Ireland there is also a silent minority, and it may be that if we can get them past the barriers of intimidation they have a great deal more to offer than all the mob orators from whom we have heard so far. I say again to those who really want to save life in Northern Ireland that they have a duty to enter into private talks at once. I for my part am very willing to do so.
6.53 p.m.
Miss Bernadette Devlin: When opening the debate for the Government, the Minister of State for Defence produced what he said was a statement. Many hon. Members were annoyed that he should make a statement of fact and at the same time set up a tribunal. Nevertheless, he put forward the Army's view point as fact. He was not in the City of Derry on Sunday. I was. I therefore make no apology for putting my side of the story beside the story of

293
the people who took part in the march and for questioning a number of the facts put forward by the Minister today.
The Minister said, presumably on the authority of the Army, that approximately at 2 o'clock some 800 people gathered in the Bishopfields and that when they started to make their way down towards Rossville Street there might have been 3,000 of them. I know that it is against the rules of order to call a Minister a liar, and I do not propose to do so, but I wish to say that anyone watching either the B.B.C. or I.T.A. news broadcasts, which showed only a section of that crowd making its way down Creggan Hill, would be hard put to it to take at face value what the right hon. Gentleman has said and would ask whether a man entrusted with such a responsibility would not be better off learning to count before coming to this House with such a statement.
There were at least 15,000 unarmed, peaceful civilians at the demonstration on Sunday on the Creggan. Those 15,000 people were the friends, relatives or neighbours of 600 people interned in three concentration camps in the north of Ireland; they were the friends, relatives or neighbours of over 1,000 people held without trial in the gaols of the north of Ireland; they were perfectly well aware that there was a ban on parades and they did not pay any attention to it. Many of them had defied it before. All of them were prepared, if singled out by the authorities and convicted and sentenced, to face the six months' mandatory gaol sentence. None of them had been informed that overnight the death penalty had been imposed for breaking the ban on marches in Northern Ireland.
The march proceeded for a distance of between two and three miles before it was stopped by the Army. It was stopped in William Street, having come from the area known as Rossville Street corner. They came down the length of the street approaching William Street. There they were confronted by the usual Army barricade and there the usual confrontation broke out at the front.
The marchers were once again informed that the march was illegal. The organisers, as is the practice, went into consultation with the Army. A number of youths at the front threw stones and bricks at the Army, which was preventing them
294
from going along William Street, All of that had become a normal daily occurrence in William Street, as is admitted by every section of the British Press. What the authorities call a riot but was, if anything. a confrontation was on a smaller scale than usual and certainly much smaller than would have been expected with a crowd of from 15,000 to 20,000 people. The reason for that was equally simple—there were so many people in the street that it was difficult at times to find where to put one's feet, never mind use one's arms to take any concerted action against the Army.
After several minutes of stone-throwing to and fro, the Army decided to disperse the crowd. This it did, once again in its usual fashion. Rubber bullets were fired into the crowd; CS gas was fired into the crowd. Then a water cannon spraying purple dye was brought up. People immediately panicked and ran. No one hangs around, as hon. Members know from their personal experience, when CS gas arrives on the scene. People know what it is like.
People flooded back into the Bogside down Rossville Street. The organisers decided to hold the meeting at Free Derry Corner at the opposite end of Rossville Street. A lorry to serve as a platform was drawn up against Free Derry wall, a white wall with the slogan "You are now entering Free Derry". Those members of the platform who intended to speak climbed on the lorry. The organisers then moved through the crowd calling on the people to assemble at that point and attend the meeting.
Several thousand, possibly 7,000 or 8,000, people were standing at the base of the lorry. The rest of the people were making their way towards that point. The number of people left in William Street was very small and still consisted mainly of young people, but there were several older people who were continuing to throw stones and bricks at the soldiers and running down the street when CS gas was fired and possibly running up again once the air had cleared.
The majority of the people had ceased marching and were making their way, as best as could 15,000 or 20,000, along the street to the meeting. There were no shots fired at the British Army. That will be the subject of an inquiry and there will

295
be those who will not be members of either side, the Army or the Catholic population, but people representing the Press who were so appalled that they too were calling for an inquiry. They have stated their willingness to go before that inquiry and to tell what they saw, that the first shot fired came from the British Army, wounding a civilian below the knee.
That civilian was taken into a house where he was followed by a photographer. The photographer did not manage to get into the house before the Parachute Regiment came storming into the Bogside led by Saracen tanks from which they were firing and from behind which they were firing. At that time I was standing on a platform, as I said, at Derry Corner. Several people were standing in front of me. The meeting had just been opened and the chairman had passed the microphone to me, informing the crowd that I would be the first speaker.
The Minister of State for Defence has said that the rubber bullets might have been what caused the people to panic. We have heard so many of the CS gas canisters going off and so many shots being fired that a five-year-old child can tell not only what is a real bullet and what is a rubber bullet, but almost the calibre by the sound of the shot, so accustomed have the children become to the noise of the firing of guns. So what they heard and what we saw was not rubber bullets but the Parachute Regiment invading from the far end of Rossville Street, the Bogside area, and those people in front of me fleeing in panic and falling.
It was a sight I never want to see again: thousands and thousands of people lying flat on their faces on the ground. Immediately Mr. Ivan Cooper, a Member of Parliament in Stormont, threw Lord Brockway—who was also a speaker on the platform—to the ground and we all dived for cover. I was lying on my mouth and nose, and with the assistance of Mr. Cooper we continued as calmly as we could—which was not easy in the circumstances—to tell the people to keep their heads down and on no account to rise any higher than their knees but to crawl, crawl on the streets of their own city, on their hands and knees, out of the line of fire. That is what they did.
296
When I next raised my head to see what was happening, the people in front of us had dispersed, moved up the Lecky Road to the safety of the Meenan Gardens area, and the street in front of me was clear except for soldiers and scattered bodies of people, who probably never rose again but were carried away. We then got off the lorry, taking Lord Brockway first to safety, and then tried to calm and reassure hysterical women. Mr. Cooper then made his way back down to us where he himself became a target for the paratroopers as he attempted to move the wounded.
Whatever the reasons may be—and the permutations may be endless—I personally do not believe that the paratroops went berserk. I do not believe that a regiment like the British Parachute Regiment is trained and then goes berserk. It was a normal ordinary exercise to those men. I do not think they lost any night's sleep over it, but they fired into a crowd of unarmed civilians and thousands lay there.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Devlin: The hon. Lady will not give way.
A young girl, no older than myself, asked if I had seen her brother. I had just been running to the hospital to find the list of the dead. I have done many things in my life, but I was not able to face that young girl and say "Your brother is lying in the morgue of Altnagelvin Hospital and you have to identify him". The Minister of State tells us that the paratroopers opened fire when shots were fired at them. Major-General Ford was heard and seen by millions watching television last night to say that 200 shots were fired on the British Army before the British Army opened fire. We shall hear from all the reporters of newspapers and sound radio and from civil liberties observers—[Laughter.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not laugh."] We shall hear this and we are talking about intimidation. We shall hope to hear from those in the British Army who are not paratroopers about when 200 shots were fired. We shall hear from the B.B.C. that there were no 200 shots fired and we shall see that on that newsreel.
The British Army stated that they fired only at identifiable objects, targets

297
and people, people who were about to fire on them, snipers from the Rossville Street flats. Hon. Members may not be aware that the Rossville Street flats are 12 storeys high. If a British soldier shot at a sniper on the roof of those flats, that sniper would now be lying in hospital with multiple fractures, but there is not one body with such injuries as would indicate that the person had fallen from such a height. If those people were all snipers as the Minister of State for Defence says, or people throwing petrol bombs at the British Army, how does it come about that the majority happened to be shot in the back or in the back of the head?
I have had my disagreements with a certain reporter on The Guardian whose writings I criticised and made the subject of a discussion in this House. Quite recently he wrote an article in The Guardian about British paratroopers. Did they think that he was a sniper or that he was Simon Winchester who had done them down and that they might get him when they were at it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may talk as they like, but I hope hon. Members will bear with me because 13 people are 13 human beings.
The point might be made in this House that I should say who they were. This comes to another point made by the Minister of State for Defence. They were Gerald McKinney, John Young, Michael McDaid, William Nash, Hugh Gilmore, Bernard McGuigan, Jack Duddy, Michael Kelly, William McKinney, James Wray, Kevin McIlhenney, Gerald Donaghy and Patrick Doherty. The British Army killed every last one of them. They tell us that four of those men were on the British Army's wanted list. Let the Minister of State for Defence say which four—[Interruption.]
Mr. Michael McGuire: Listen.
Miss Devlin: —were on that list. The employed men on that list went to their work every day and the unemployed on that list have been drawing their unemployment pay every week at precisely the same time. Where were they supposed to be skulking and hiding away if they could not be found unless they were dead? Tell us who are the four now dead on that list.
It has been said that Derry City today is in the grip of the worst intimidation
298
it has ever seen. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House, having a better idea of human beings than the people who sit on the Government side, will know the difference between a general strike and intimidation. Nobody went to work in Derry. Children did not go to school and in many of the schools in other parts of Northern Ireland the children walked out. And this was not only confined to Ireland. I had a letter today from an English family with no Irish connections and the mother said she sat and watched the B.B.C. news and cried right through it when she felt that such things could be done in the name of her family and her country.
All through the whole of the North of Ireland, throughout the 32 counties, people are outraged and indignant, and the Conservative Government by their activities on Sunday may well have lit a fire in Ireland the flames of which may not die out until the last vestige of British rule has ended in that country, until the last trace of British domination has gone. [Interruption.] Thirteen people died and 17 people were injured all in the space of 10 minutes, but they were not the first 13 people. We remember Barney Watt, Annette McGavigan and Eamonn McDevitt. The list goes on for ever of people who have been accused after their death. After accusations have been blazoned in the newspapers they have been found innocent but never cleared.
This is not our first bloody Sunday at the hands of the British Army. But we will be in Newry on Saturday and we will be marching. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We have been kicked and batoned by the police, we have been imprisoned and interned and finally we have been slaughtered by the British Army. But we have yet to be defeated. I would say, not so much to the British Government on the benches opposite, but to the people who strengthen their nerve and stiffen their resolve at home and to their friends in this country, that the paratroopers may have had their day on our bloody Sunday, but we have a saying in Ireland that there is another day coming.
6.12 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is to be regretted that there is not more time in this House for us to discuss this

299
matter, since this is a vitally important matter not only for this House and for the people of Scotland, England and Wales, but especially for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that perhaps in the dark shadows of the past events this House will come to real grips with the reality of the serious situation with which we are now faced in Northern Ireland.
I would say to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) that everybody I would claim to speak for certainly values human life, but I would say that there should be no discrimination in respect of the value of those lives. I have failed to hear from her any lament when British soldiers have been killed. I have failed to hear from her any lament when any members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the very City of Londonderry last week were brutally murdered.
In the Daily Mail today there is a report of a statement made by the hon. Lady in which she said:
"The official and the provisional I.R.A. have each said they will kill 13 paratroopers in vengence for those who died on Sunday. That is 26 coffins coming home to England, and I won't shed a tear for any one of them."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] All of us who heard the hon. Lady today will realise that we have seen on the Floor of this House something of the hatred and real terror with which Northern Ireland is being gripped.
Let us make no mistake about it, there is a war on in Northern Ireland. The object of the Irish Republican Army, clearly spelt out in all its manifestoes, is for a United Ireland. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are determined to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom. Because those people have borne with great patience, albeit with much frustration, the actions of the past days, let no Member of this House think that there is any weakening in the determination of the Ulster people to refuse any deals with the South of Ireland. So far as they are concerned a United Ireland is definitely out.
When we hear the leader of the S.D.L.P. in Londonderry, Mr. John Hume, say that it is a United Ireland or nothing, we learn the real objective behind this present state of agitation and riot and revolution in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland cannot accept that the only poli-
300
tical solution to the problem is a United Ireland.
I come to a point to which many of those who have supported me so far will object, but I must say what I feel is the reality of the situation. It is all very well for hon. Members in this House to sit here and listen to a statement at the Dispatch Box that there will be a blanket ban on parades and to feel that that is a solution of the problem. This blanket ban is unworkable among both sections of the community. The section of the community represented by the hon. Lady refuses to abide by the ban. The loyalist people feel they have every right to parade in their own districts.
The spokesman for the Opposition today said that the ban was brought in to deal with the Orangemen of Northern Ireland. Nobody could control the situation in Northern Ireland if either side took it into its head to go on parade. The whole of the British Army could not do it. Therefore, the blanket ban is unworkable. The sooner the Government take a hard look at the point and are prepared to allow sections of the community to parade in their own areas, the better for everybody concerned. It takes far more troops to stop a parade than to look after a well-marshalled parade; it takes far more troops to attempt to stop a parade than it would take to deal with a parade which was legal. We in this House must recognise this fact. These are the facts of the situation.
The matter of internment lies at the heart of the present problems in Northern Ireland. I have taken an entirely different line from many people on this side of the House who say they are loyalists. I believe that the House must look at internment and say why it is that if certain people can be charged, put through the courts and be found guilty—and this applies to 200 people who have gone through the courts in the proper way—others cannot also go through the courts in this way.
It is all very well for those who say "There will be threats." Yes, there will be threats. There are threats now. A friend of mine was shot in his own home. He was a Crown witness. He asked for protection, did not receive it and was gunned down in his own home. It is the duty of the authorities to see that men

301
who are accused are properly tried and put away.
It seems that parliamentary representatives on both sides of the House have a serious responsibility. Those of us who represent constituencies in another place have a serious responsibility. It is no use our saying "It is not my responsibility to make a move." I suggest that the Government should say to Mr. Faulkner's Government: "We believe that you should set up a Select Committee of your own House under whose authority internment is enacted to look into the problem of internment." I believe that all parliamentary representatives would then have a responsibility to look at this problem and that those Members at Stormont who object to internment would have the right to ask questions in a proper parliamentary forum and get the answers they should receive. Until we are prepared to look at the problem of internment, we shall go from bad to worse in this situation.
I have been accused by hon. Members on this side of wanting to open the gates of Long Kesh and to set loose the street gunmen. I want to do no such thing. I want the gunman and the murderers to be tried properly and put away. Until we are prepared to look at the matter, we shall have serious difficulties in Northern Ireland.
Let us face the situation. The murders, the buntings and the shootings go on. We have found today, even in this House, that there is reluctance by hon. Members to listen to a defence of their own soldiers in Londonderry. It is a sad commentary for an Ulsterman to come to the British House of Commons and find a reluctance by hon. Members to listen to a defence of their own troops in Northern Ireland.
I am reminded that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the City of Londonderry were brutally attacked with petrol bombs, and hon. Members saw fit to take sides with those who maligned them. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was practically discredited. Now there has been a complete turn of the wheel. The same attacks are being made on the British Army. I do not believe that every member of the British Army—
Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is blaming hon. Members on this
302
side of the House for attacks on the British Army. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said precisely that. There are hon. Members on this side of the House who have served their country as loyally as anybody who ever lived in Ulster. The hon. Gentleman has maligned not only us, but members of the British Army.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I made no such reference. I said that there were hon. Members in this House who were not prepared to listen to a defence of the British Army. I said that it was a sad commentary for an Ulsterman to come to the British House of Commons and see that hon. Members were not even going to allow the Minister at the Dispatch Box to defend his own troops.
I do not believe that every member of the British Army is an angel. Nor is every hon. Member of this House an angel. I do not believe that every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Special Constabulary is an angel. However, I believe that, in the main, these forces want to do what is right. Individual soldiers in Northern Ireland have done things which no hon. Member could justify. I have personally taken the evidence, the photographs, to the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am not here to defend every individual member of the British Army but I must in fairness say that the Army has been seriously maligned. The Parachute Regiment has been slurred and slandered. It is only right that someone should stand up and defend the Army. Hon. Members should be prepared to listen to its defence just as they have been prepared to listen to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster make very serious charges against these men who are serving their Queen and country in Northern Ireland.
All the debates in this House will not settle this problem. The only thing which will settle it is for Ulster men and women to realise that there will be nothing left for them if they are not prepared to sit round the table and, as reasonable people, discuss the problem. Once again I say that the people and party I represent are prepared to sit down and talk about these matters. I have suggested a Select Committee to consider the problem of internment.
Finally, the majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that our solution

303
lies in the context of a United Kingdom, never in the context of a united Ireland.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: When I have spoken previously on Irish matters I have paid tribute to the conduct of the British Army in an extremely difficult and dangerous situation. I do so again.
Regarding the events of Sunday, we have certainly had differing accounts from the Minister of State for Defence, from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and from a number of Press and television observers. Because of this it was right to have an inquiry. I trust that everybody on either side who has allegations of any character to make will make them in evidence before the inquiry and that differences of opinion about the type or personnel of the inquiry will not deter them from giving information which could be valuable.
Yet even if the Lord Chief Justice is able, with the best combination of speed and thoroughness, to provide us with a most admirable report, at the end of which we may be able to say "This statement is true, that one is false blame must be apportioned for this to so-and-so and for that to somebody else ", how much further forward are we to getting peace in Ireland and Britain extricating herself and her soldiers from an increasingly intolerable situation?
The real lesson is that last Sunday's events were the most spectacular of a long line of bloodshed and cruelty which demonstrate more and more that we have reached a deadlock which cannot be resolved within the dimensions in which we have so far tried to resolve it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) put a question to the Government which the noble Lord did not answer: was it the fact that it was the intention of the Armed Forces to enter the Bogside, march or no march, and that this was an act of policy, to use my hon. Friend's phrase, to teach the Bogsiders a lesson? That question was not answered by the noble Lord. We shall want an answer to it.
I quite see that a military case might be made for doing so. An Army com-
304
mander might say, "In view of my duty to carry out the instructions given to me by my political superiors and at the same time to be as careful as possible for the lives of my men, it may be necessary in military terms, if I believe that irreconcilable armed enemies are in a particular district, to deal with that situation". But that means that a military commander would be being driven for sound military reasons to do something that would inevitably worsen the situation politically. My anxiety is that that is the position into which both the Army and the civil power are being driven in Northern Ireland, a situation in which, as far as we can see, there is no right answer. If marches are not banned, evidence can be produced that this will produce widespread disorder. If they are banned, we run the risk of a repetition of last Sunday's events.
We have been told repeatedly by the Government that if we do not intern people we cannot repress terrorism. It has been stated from another part of the Government benches that if we intern people we are interfering with the rule of law and making the whole problem very difficult to solve. The trouble is that in these and other confrontations both sides can produce apparently unanswerable arguments for their point of view. Why is that? It is because a large section of the population of Northern Ireland have now no confidence whatever in not merely the Stormont Government but the whole constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland.
In consequence, people who in normal circumstances would be thoroughly law-abiding citizens no longer have that sense of obligation to keep the peace which normally holds together human society. It is no good judging people who are in this frame of mind as if they were common criminals. It sometimes happens, when an impossible political situation exists, that people who in normal times and proper circumstances would have every respect for law, order and decency firmly come to the conclusion that they have no further obligation to keep the peace and no obligation to help the Army to deal with the I.R.A.
The Minister of State put the whole problem in terms of whether the power of the I.R.A. can be broken. He gave us an account of how progress was being

305
made in breaking it. His speech was followed by that of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who described the conditions in that town. It transpired from exchanges that apparently an illegal march can be advertised in the newspapers. It does not look as if the progressive victory of the forces of law and order over the I.R.A., in which the Minister of State has put his faith, is an accurate description of what is happening. It is not happening, because so many of the people of Northern Ireland may be deeply distressed, in heart and conscience, with the ruthless methods employed by the I.R.A. but are none the less not prepared to help the civil power against the I.R.A. and are increasingly prepared to help the I.R.A. in what it is doing.
In those circumstances it is no use simply continuing to abuse people for being or for aiding terrorists. One has to ask why the situation has arisen that so large a section of the population is in this frame of mind that we are faced with a series of administrative military questions, such as whether we should or should not allow marches and whether we should intern, and we find that all these are insoluble and unanswerable.
I believe, therefore, that that is why so many have come to the conclusion that what is called a political solution is necessary. This does not mean that one has to work out an elaborate political solution and carry it all through before one can hope to restore peace in Ireland. But one has to begin it, and it has to be begun with such a sense of reality and emergency that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland who now feel no sort of obligation to help in the task of keeping the peace will feel that there is some such obligation because there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
What kind of a political solution should there be? Here I disagree most profoundly with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He said that a united Ireland is out of the question. I would say that no political solution has any chance of being a basis on which peace in Ireland can be restored if it does not contain the clear objective of a united Ireland. I beg those of our fellow citizens in the province of Northern Ireland who now reject that
306
intensely to wonder for how long the present situation is to continue. When I first expressed these views in the House, when the House was recalled during the last Summer Recess, they were dismissed by many hon. Members as impossible, outrageous and encouragement to terrorists, and hon. Members said that the real job was to restore law and order.
I invite those who took that view to look back over the events of the past eight or nine months and to ask themselves whether they still have the same absolute confidence in rejecting this idea. I am glad to find that it is an idea that has made progress. We all know perfectly well that the best platform on which we can build anything was that set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I was glad to find that the Government did not look with entire disfavour on this. I had thought at one time—it must have been from a mistaken report—that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was not entirely averse to what my right hon. Friend had proposed. I wish that that had been so.
I do not underestimate the enormous difficulty of creating a united Ireland. Many problems will have to be solved on the way and it will take a considerable time. I am quite certain that all parties have got to say "This is what we are working for".
Mr. Rafton Pounder rose—
Mr. Stewart: I shall not give way. I am speaking only briefly and hon. Members will be able to express their disagreements with me in their speeches.
Without that solution, I do not believe that we shall make any real advance. Our ground of criticism against the Government is that there has not been the intensity of imagination nor the sense of urgency that the situation requires in taking what my right hon. Friend has put forward and helping to fashion it into a policy on which hope for peace in this unhappy country could be built.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I rise to make a brief contribution to this most important debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) did not make a very helpful contribution to our discussions today but it was a

307
significant contribution, because it is only by listening to her words that one can plumb the depths of bitterness and hatred that are rampant amongst the minority in Northern Ireland today.
In his own way, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was equally significant—his was a rather more skilful speech because he is a more sophisticated politician than the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—but his speech had a moment of truth in it, too, when he said that this was a quarrel between the two communities in Northern Ireland and one which the British could not solve. This is a situation in which British troops are playing the unenviable rôle of keeping the two communities from destroying each other and being vilified in the process. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence was right today, as the Minister responsible for the Army, to put on record his statement of fact on what he believes to have taken place.
It is nonsense to say that we should await the findings of the tribunal. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Ireland will not wait for the tribunal, nor will Britain. Is it reasonable to ask the Minister of State to put on himself a self-denying ordinance which nobody else in this controversy will observe? Is the Prime Minister of Ireland doing it? Is Senator Kennedy keeping quiet? Will the Sunday Times Insight team be silent next Sunday? Will anyone in the House be silent and conceal his opinions until the Lord Chief Justice reports?
Mr. McMaster: I know my hon. Friend's great regard for the truth. Will he not reconsider what he said about the rôle of the Army being to keep the two communities apart? Is he aware that in the last two years, and particularly last weekend in Londonderry, there has been no confrontation between Protestants and Catholics? The 230 people who have been killed in the last two years have been killed entirely as a result of action by the I.R.A. As long as we foster this error we shall not get to the root of the problem, which is that there is a small, vicious, militant group which wants to impose its will upon the majority and is prepared to go to any lengths to do so. As to keeping the two communities apart,
308
the Protestant community is right out of the picture.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend must analyse the situation in his own way and I will analyse it in mine. I was referring specifically to the rôle of the British Army. My right hon. Friend was right to make his statement today; not to have done so would have been a dereliction of his duty. Whilst I certainly do not subscribe to the doctrine "my country right or wrong", I do not subscribe either to the doctrine "my country always wrong"
Mr. Abse: Is it not a fact that the Minister does not speak for the Army but for the Government and that, in making a statement giving his set of facts, he makes a Government statement at a time when the Government are appointing a tribunal? Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that that inevitably will make the tribunal lack credibility and be unacceptable to many people? Is not the intervention of the noble Lord disastrous and will it not discredit the tribunal?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that the hon. Member holds that view strongly; he has already expressed it once in the debate. I do not believe that it is true. The statement which the Minister made to the House is one of the statements which the tribunal will have to take into account in coming to its conclusion. It is no less and no more than that.
What we are debating this afternoon comes down to the fact that 13 citizens of the United Kingdom have lost their lives, 13 families today are bereaved. That personal tragedy, which we should never forget, is the basis of our debate. If one asks who is responsible, one is perhaps entitled to ask another question: what do the dead care? They are dead; they are the people who have made the biggest sacrifice of all. The House of Commons should, therefore, today record its sympathy with the relations of those who have died and also our shame that, whoever is responsible. this could happen in a civilised country like our own in the second half of the 20th century. We must follow that up by a determination to do all we can to ensure that this never happens again, and that means taking not only security measures but political measures as well

309
to change the circumstances which produced this situation.
My final point is on the question of the political solution. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) mentioned the prospect of a united Ireland. I do not believe that is a possible immediate solution to the problem, but I certainly do not rule it out. The dividing line which the House should draw is not between those who favour a united Ireland and those who favour a link with the United Kingdom, but between those who favour attaining that end by persuasion and those who are prepared to use force. Those who are prepared to use persuasion should be listened to, whether their views are popular or unpopular. Those who are prepared to use force should not be listened to.
I do not want to go into the details of a political solution. We have heard some details from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. He mentioned the transfer of security to this House. There is much to be said for that, but we must recognise that it would not have made the slightest difference. We cannot run an Army from this House. It has to be run operationally on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman made a plea for constitutional reform. I agree with much of what he said, but I do not want to peddle paper constitutions at this point in our debate. My point, which is concerned not with the small print but with the capital letters, is that we must not lose our nerve, we must not despair and say that there is no solution. We must continually, even in our blackest moments—and this is surely one of them—be determined to pursue a political solution because this is the only ultimate solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. We must not be defeated by wickedness or folly or by any combination of the two.
The Government must persevere, and the Leader of the Opposition must persevere in putting forward his solutions, so that we can get a rational solution to the Irish problem. The darkest hour is the hour before the dawn, and I think that this is the darkest hour in the long and shadowed history of Ireland. We should create a chink of light in this darkness
310
and do everything we can both to create it and to take advantage of it.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: On many occasions I have not found myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). Today I wish to put on record with all the vehemence at my command, that I agree with every single sentiment she uttered. What happened last Sunday in Derry has dramatically changed the whole political outlook. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in the House a few months ago that men of moderation have nothing to hope for but that men of violence have everything to hope for. Until last Sunday I regarded myself as a man of moderation. I have consistently condemned violence. I have condemned every life that was unnecessarily taken, every shot that was fired and every explosion that has taken place. But I am consistent with my own conscience, with the fact that I was born and reared, and will be until the day I die, an Irishman. If I condemn the violence of anyone in Northern Ireland I must condemn the violence of the British Army that was meted out to the Irish people in the City of Derry last Sunday.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Nonsense.
Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman may think it is nonsense. Never did I realise more in my life, in the debate today and yesterday, but particularly during this afternoon's debate, that I am an Irishman and the hon. Gentleman is an Englishman. That is where the difference lies. The hon. Gentleman has no sympathy, no understanding, no conscience for the people who live in Derry who are Irish.
Another hon. Member, who has now left the Chamber, said during the speech of one of my hon. Friends, "Back the Army. Why do you not back the Army?" He meant that the Army must be backed, right or wrong—and the Army was disastrously wrong in Derry last Saturday and Sunday.
We are talking of settlements, of political solutions. The political solution that would have been acceptable last Saturday is not acceptable today. I tell the Home Secretary with all the seriousness at my command, so that he and the

311
Government will know, the British Army and those on the Conservative benches will know, and my hon. Friends will know, what is happening in Ireland. There is a national fervour throughout the 32 counties of Ireland that has not existed since the years 1916 and 1921. The disaster committed by the British Government in 1916, when they executed the 12 leaders of the Irish rebellion, eventually led to a national uprising, which eventually brought about the 26-county Republic. The events in Derry on Sunday exactly parallel that. Thirteen more innocent people who were not engaged in rebellion, who never used firearms, were shot in the back by the British Army.
An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend has seen the bodies.
Mr. Fitt: I am not worried in the least by the fools on the Government benches.
It is for the reasons I have given that there is now a national fervour and national awareness throughout the 32 counties of Ireland that has not been evident since our country was unnaturally partitioned in 1921.
I make no apologies for what I say, because I know that I shall be proved right within the next 24 hours, the next 48 hours, the next week and the next month. I remember saying in this House that it would be a disaster if the British troops were taken out of Northern Ireland, because that would leave the Catholic community open to a backlash from the majority community, and there might be untold fatalities. But people in Derry, Belfast and my constituency now ask, "What is the difference between a backlash from the extreme Unionists and from the loyal regiment of paratroops? There might not have been so many casualties from a Protestant-Catholic confrontation in Derry, because the Unionists might not be so well armed.
Whether we like it or not, the British Army is no longer acceptable in Belfast, Derry or anywhere in Northern Ireland. It is seen as acting in support of a discredited and corrupt Unionist Government, and as such it is no longer welcome.
312
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. People who were involved in the civil rights demonstration believed they were supporting the cause of 600 men who were incarcerated in prison and internment camps throughout Northern Ireland because they had expressed their opposition towards the Unionist Government. They regarded it as a major civil right that before a person could be interned or imprisoned charges must be proved against him. They say that they will continue to march until the internees are released or brought to trial. I am not saying whether or not they should be brought to trial; I am saying that at present in my mind they are innocent, because they have been proved guilty of nothing.
I tell the Home Secretary, in words he will clearly understand, that the marches will continue. They will continue next weekend in Newry, and then the following week and the week after that, until the internment problem is tackled by the Westminster Government, because it is the only Government that can tackle it. Brian Faulkner and the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland would commit political suicide if they admitted at this point that they made a disastrous political mistake in introducing internment. Therefore, the internment problem can be examined only by the Government here, because it is a security problem. I agree that responsibility for security must be taken from the Stormont authorities and placed in the hands of this House. Whatever confidence we may have in this House—and it has been sadly shaken by the apologies put forward by the Minister of State this afternoon—confidence in the Northern Ireland Parliament is nonexistent.
I saw the Minister of State on "Panorama" last night. He acted as a judge and found the paratroops not guilty of any charge levelled against them. If the inquiry or tribunal is set up, and it is found that the Parachute Regiment was guilty of a dereliction of duty in Derry last Sunday, will the noble Lord resign? He should be called upon to resign, because he has passed a verdict. He has completely exonerated the paratroops, whereas that is not the verdict of other people, particularly in Derry, but throughout the island of Ireland—indeed

313
throughout the world among those who are uncommitted, who are impartial, such as the people who were doing a job in Derry on Sunday as television and Press reporters. Had they anything to gain by making such charges against the paratroops?
It is reported in this morning's Irish Times that an Italian reporter who was there said he saw a paratrooper shooting a young boy dead from a range of one yard. What will Tory Members say about that? It will be said that that reporter is a "Wop", a foreigner, a continental with no love for the British Government, and that he is biased in his reporting. Yet the Government are falling over themselves to be in the Common Market, where the Italians will be their partners.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is two minutes to 7 o'clock.
Mr. Fitt: If the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister or the Minister of State for Defence are thinking of stopping the march in Newry next week, employing the same tactics as were employed in Derry last Sunday, I can give them a little advance notice that I will be in Newry next Saturday, and I will bring as many constituents as I can. If there are lives to be lost, Ireland has a long history of suffering and injustice at the hands of Tory Governments. We may have been conquered on occasions, but we were never beaten. The only way to solve the immediate problem is to stop internment, which will stop the marches, take responsibility for security to this House, and in the final analysis suspend Stormont and take the British Army out of Ireland. There will never be peace until those things are done.
6.59 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I am reluctant to intervene, just as the House is reluctant to see the debate brought to an end. We shall soon need a longer debate so that we can make a fuller contribution to examining the problems of Northern Ireland.
I begin, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) yesterday in asking his question about Northern Ireland, by expressing sympathy with the relatives of all those who lost their lives in the tragedy on
314
Sunday and all those, including the soldiers, who sustained wounds. The quality of sympathy that the House extends is not strained by considerations of the religious, political or communal views of those afflicted. It is extended not to the victims of one act or another act, however committed by one man or another, but to the victims of a wider tragedy, that of Northern Ireland today, which begins to become greater and more remorseless than any of the men, whoever they are, who act as its instruments.
That period of 20 minutes or so last Sunday which killed 13 human beings—and some allege more—by its nature creates a new situation. It is yet one more tragic point of no return. Once again in this deepening tragedy it will be said, and said rightly, that whatever the merits, wherever lies the blame, nothing will ever be the same again. As I said on 25th November, we have reached a point now where reality is not what is but what is believed to be. Londonderry, 30th January, 1972, in that sense has passed into history and will itself play its part in determining the unfolding of future history.
Yet this House realises that 13 deaths in a few minutes are also to be set against week after week where equal numbers have been killed regardless, as was last Sunday, of guilty or innocence, whatever that may be, of Catholic or Protestant. More have been killed over a number of incidents in a single week or less. More have been killed in one tragic explosion in a bar in Belfast. There have been the murders of British soldiers off duty, of Defence Regiment members, of police and public men, in some cases brutally struck down in the presence of their families. This tragedy is now becoming greater than the actors who play their willing or unwilling rôle in it.
What we have to prove is whether it is to become greater than the ability of those who in this House—and I emphasise that here in this House is the ultimate responsibility—have to show their ability to command and not be commanded by it.
I welcome the inquiry. It is essential. All of us have been deeply disturbed by the reports of independent witnesses. All of us have heard or read the categorical statements of the Commander,

315
Land Forces. All of us know the uniquely difficult conditions in which the troops are operating, not by their own decision but by political decision. They are operating in conditions of guerrilla warfare for which no troops in history have been trained. They are operating in conditions and under orders for which politicians and not soldiers—politicians here, no less than in Stormont—ultimately have responsibility. I understand the sincerity of those who have given their accounts in this House, first-hand or second-hand, of what happened last Sunday. But I am not willing to countenance any effort in this House to judge the conduct of Her Majesty's Forces last Sunday until the inquiry has unfolded facts not yet known, adjudged between competing and fundamentally incompatible statements.
It is rather for us here to take a sense of grip and resolve—grip that we do not let passions, however natural, override wisdom and judgment, and resolve that we deal with this situation with authority, with no dragging of feet and with no competitive attribution of blame, excuses that it is the fault of others, even the responsibility of another Parliament, because in the last resort the responsibility, even the responsibility of continued delegation, must be ours.
Even now I remain of the view that the assertion of direct rule, which is within the competence of this House to decide, would be an action of last resort. I still take the view that it would be a confession of failure—on the part of ourselves and others—and manifestly not an easy way out; for who can be sure that the result would not be still greater carnage and anarchy?
I do not intend to go over the ground of my speech of 25th November. Nearly 10 weeks have passed. It was urgent then. Some thought that what I said then was perilously late. Today, let us simply draw the lessons not for the purposes of debate and division but for action and urgent action now.
The first lesson must relate to the position in which our troops were put, and day by day are put. It is a position immeasurably worsened by last Sunday, whatever the facts, whatever the truth, whatever the inquiry may reveal.
316
Her Majesty's Forces act not by their voluntary decision but under a political decision, if not a series of political decisions. If it is theirs not to reason why, we here have to reason why. We have to lay down the political ambience and we have to define the political parameters in which those political decisions are taken. The relevant political decisions in this case are taken not by this House but for this House. We have not been able to establish whether the two previous decisions which caused the deterioration in the situation and in the position of our troops—namely, the events of 7th July, 1970. and the internment decision—were taken by Ministers here or by Ministers there. We have still not got an answer to that question. Despite our urgent plea for information about the acceptance of Ministerial responsibility, this House has not been told.
Yet we in this House know that those two decisions and now this tragic third event have caused not a deterioration of degree but a deterioration of kind. It is Britsh soldiers, acting in the last resort as the agents or the instruments of the policies of this House, who are carrying the burden, and this House has no means of asserting its responsibility.
I take full responsibility for the order to British troops to take over full control of all aspects of internal security. I told the House in 1969—I have repeated it, and the House has approved—the political conditions in which the troops went in. In November I told the House how the troops were cheered in the Falls Road and in Derry as they marched in. They marched in as the assertion not of an Imperial Power but of the authority and insistence of Downing Street and of this House that they were going in to hold the ring, to protect any who needed protection from any threat, no matter whence that threat might come.
It was inevitable that the minority's fears of the majority at that time, real or imagined, should lead many Catholics to believe that our troops were sent in for their protection. But no one, tragically, believes that today. Over 18 months, our troops have been seen increasingly to be the agents of a political authority which is certainly the legal custodian of law and order but which is accepted as acting in a spirit not of neutrality but

317
of sectarianism—a political authority whose responsibility to this House is at best tenuous and undefined and at worst surrounded by confusion and an obscurantist blurring of responsibility.
We here have to insist, at whatever the cost, that the political orders given to the Armed Forces for whom we are responsible and internationally responsible are matters for which we have the accountability and the control. The enforcement of security without responsibility is the prerogative of the mercenary throughout the ages, and our Armed Forces neither want to be mercenaries nor can be allowed to be capable of being represesented as mercenaries. Neither is it any longer a question of their being deployed in aid of the civil power.
In September, 1970, I suggested that there should be a Minister of State stationed in Northern Ireland. That was dismissed out of hand at the time. I believe that the solution of some of the problems now and the decision which had to be taken before last Saturday might have been easier if there had been a Minister there to give a political view, because the only political view there is given by Northern Ireland Ministers.
On 25th November I felt that even that was not enough. A key proposal in the points that I laid before the House was the transfer of responsibility for security from Stormont to Westminster so that British troops would act under the direction of Ministers responsible to this House and so that decisions as cataclysmic as internment, if they were to be taken, would be taken under our ultimate control with a consideration of political as well as military and security consequences. If any special powers were needed they should be taken not by a stroke of a Ministerial pen but under the rigid conditions which this House has jealously preserved. As far as I am aware this proposed transfer has not yet been considered. Regardless of whether consideration of the remaining 14 points is to be expedited or frustrated, this decision about security should in our view be taken now. It is minimum condition for enabling British troops to be, and appear to be, impartial as between those members of both communities who forswear the use of violence for political aims.
318
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has reminded the House of what I said in November: that if men have nothing to hope for, men of violence have something to shoot for, to bomb for, to murder for—and increasingly tens of thousands who would hold to a moderate, non-violent posture are being driven, not by the individual behaviour of the troops but by the orders under which our troops operate, first into an unwilling but increasingly determined tolerance and then into support for violence.
Hon. Members will have read reports of reactions south of the Border. Some may have been given reports at first hand as I have. We may deplore those reactions but we should be foolish to ignore them. Last week Mr. Lynch, who has been criticised greatly by hon. Members opposite, arrested gunmen. Were he to do so today he would be driven from office. Last Sunday's events throw grave doubts on whether any jury would convict. This is now in a very real sense an all-Ireland problem.
The House must realise, averse though we are to it, that this is 1911, 1912 and 1913 again. God grant that it is not 1920 and 1921. It is those pre-war years with all that that could mean, and in one sense it is worse in that the right hon. Gentleman, unlike Asquith, has no apparent right of direct intervention.
On 25th November I referred to the power of legend, to the history books which the Catholic and Unionist children read, so different as they are, in their individual schools. By 6 p.m. last Sunday there were already two histories of what happened in William Street and we have heard them in this House today. God grant that the inquiry may help to produce the truth, but let us recognise that the two legends will outlive the truth.
I have told the House of the realities of the internment decision. The reality is that, whatever the gains, as one gunman is caught two more spring up, as from dragon's teeth. We are still not told on whose initiative and orders the internment decision was taken. Last Sunday was of its kind another such event, part of history before the blood was even dry on the pavement. History will record it as the creation of a further unpaid recruiting sergeant for the I.R.A. What was created last Sunday was a still more

319
efficient recruiting officer, not for the guerrilla lines of today but for the guerrilla lines of the 1980s and 1990s.
Before sitting down I must record my deep concern about the long delay in setting up the all-party talks for which I called on 25th November. On 28th November, nine weeks ago yesterday, I understood that both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister welcomed and accepted my proposals for discussion. My concern today is first that weeks have passed and secondly that the two right hon. Gentlemen have hardened their hearts about the form and purpose of the talks.
Dealing with delay, I took my share of the responsibility. Admittedly I was out of the country for four days in December. The Prime Minister and I empowered the Home Secreary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to work out in detail what we had discussed. That meeting took place on 17th December. It was the subject of a letter from my right hon. Friend on 30th December. All of this has been published in the Press so there is no breach of Privy Council privilege. There was no reply to that letter until 14th January. I cannot indicate how far the proposal was then changed because this was what we discussed, but two things are clear.
First, the Home Secretary has spent much more time trying to censor the B.B.C. than in getting the talks mounted. Secondly, he was too ready to assume their failure because of public statements by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and therefore he is against proceeding. For over a week the Government have briefed publicly their insistence on Privy Council terms. In this afternoon's paper before this debate this has been put out, and I cannot accept this limitation.
Our proposal is for inter-party talks here designed to move as quickly as possible to all-party talks between Westminster and Stormont and as quickly as may be three-Parliament talks. In the interests of speed we were prepared to bypass the Westminster talks and go straight to Stormont. All we are offered today are Privy Council talks at Westminster level not directed to working out the basis on which they can be extended
320
to Stormont and Dublin. If many weeks late we have open-ended talks with no limits on subject matters, any specially sensitive question can be referred to a sub-committee of Privy Councillors who can then report back to the Westminster talks.
This is urgent and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to go on dragging his feet. The Home Secretary has produced no policy for Northern Ireland since his announcement last September that he was willing to hear the views of different Ulster parties and interests. That got us no further because of internment. Even so, very full reports of my own talks, taken by a Cabinet official have been available to the right hon. Gentleman. He knows what the parties in Northern Ireland think. He does not have to wait for those particular talks. Why is it that we have this falling away from what I thought was an agreed position? Is it a veto from Stormont? Is it Mr. Faulkner? Is it not that the right hon. Gentleman really believed that we were within days of a military solution? We had a lot of this in the Press just before Christmas. Does anyone believe there is a military solution without a corresponding and simultaneous effort to secure—although not of course until the right conditions obtain—a political solution?
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will announce today that after all these weeks he accepts the 25th November programme in full. If not we shall have to go ahead with those who will talk, and this will in consequence identify those who refuse to talk. I do not disguise from the House that the events of last weekend, like internment, make all our tasks harder. Time is not on our side. I said that in November. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes appears—perhaps he will clear this up—to carry on as though time was his ally in Northern Ireland. It is working remorsely against us.
Our vote tonight will not involve any expression of opinion or judgment about the conduct of the troops. We shall await the report of the tribunal. What it does is to record our disapproval of the continued procrastination over the talks. What it does is to demand urgent action to begin the all-party talks on the 15-point plan and any other proposals which

321
any party desires to make. Above all, in advance of these talks, our vote calls on the Government to take immediate measures, to transfer de jure and de facto responsibility for all aspects of security, for all orders under which our forces operate, to the United Kingdom Government and to this House.
I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I say that this week's events and those of the week before re-emphasise that there can be no future, no military solution, without a political solution. I believe increasingly that there can be no political solution without a united Ireland, with proper safeguards for the Ulster majority at the end of the road. This I believe is what history, looking back, will record. The responsibility falling on this House today and the speed and power and wisdom of our reaction to last week's events may be our last opportunity. Our responsibility is to do all in our power to ensure that that history is not written in blood.
7.19 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): This has been a debate of great sadness. Even while we were talking another British soldier was shot in Belfast this afternoon. No one in this House lacks either awareness of the tragedy of the situation or the goodwill to try to achieve a settlement. All of us really want to see the people of Northern Ireland living together in peace—an ambition on a major scale. If I can ever make a small contribution to that I would feel that I had done something useful. I am afraid that this debate, lasting only three hours, cannot carry us far in this tangled problem. I fear that it has illustrated the depth of division there is in this House about the solution of this problem—the division between, for example, the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Both strongly hold their own points of view, totally opposed as to what is the right solution—[Interruption.]—for the people of Northern Ireland; whether the Protestant majority should be brought into a united Ireland or whether they should be entitled to exercise their right to stay out. This fundamental difference has come out clearly today.
322
I fear that I shall have to spend a certain amount of time answering the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to do this because I wish to deal with some of the other comments that have been made in the debate. However, I must do so because I gather that he and his party intend to divide the House tonight and that the main reason for this is that, in their view, we have been dilatory in holding all-party talks—
Mr. Harold Wilson indicated dissent.
Mr. Maudling:—but this is totally incorrect.
I welcome what the Leader of the Opposition said about welcoming this inquiry. He is absolutely right and I agree that one cannot have a higher authority for an inquiry than the Lord Chief Justice. I welcome what he said about direct rule being the last possible resort. That, too, is absolutely true. The transfer of all responsibility for security, quite apart from the very serious practical problems that would be involved, would I think be regarded by the Protestant community of Northern Ireland as tantamount to direct rule, and the right hon. Gentleman must bear this in mind.
Having said that, I now challenge him on several points. For example, he said that his hon. Friends had never been told who was responsible for the internment decision and how it was reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I have said time and again, both before and after the decision, that it was a decision which was constitutionally in the hands of the Northern Ireland Government but that they would not act without our agreement. They did not act without our agreement. That is the perfectly simple position and it has been explained time and again. [Interruption.]
I wish particularly to refer to the situation over talks and the implication in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that we have been holding up inter-party talks on the situation. I feel strongly about this. For months past I have been trying to do precisely that, namely to have inter-party talks. Since the summer I have been trying, as the

323
appointed chairman of inter-party talks, to get people together to talk to me. The Northern Ireland Labour Party came. The Northern Ireland trade unions came. The Alliance Party and the Liberal Party came. Everybody came except the S.D.L.P. and the Nationalist Party, the representatives of the Catholic minority.
I have been trying to get these talks going and I was trying to do so before the Leader of the Opposition took his initiative. He suggested that, first of all, there should be talks here at Westminster followed by talks of an all-party nature in Northern Ireland. We agreed.
Subsequently the idea was changed and they wanted us to proceed as quickly as possible to talks with the Northern Ireland parties, and it was the hope of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who unfortunately is not with us today, that he would be able to persuade the S.D.L.P. at a meeting to be held in London on 20th December to come to these talks.
I entirely agreed and welcomed that course and I said, in effect, "I wish you the best of fortune. I hope that you can persuade them to come", but in the event he failed. The S.D.L.P. would not come and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's initiative of 20th December came to a complete halt.
Mr. Harold Wilson indicated dissent.
Mr. Maudling: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is so. If he reads the newspapers for the following day he will see that it is so, and everything that has been said since proves that it was the case. I welcomed his initiative and I still welcome it, but it came to a dead halt on 20th December.
Subsequently a letter was sent to me asking if I agreed that talks could take place on the basis of no conditions. I agreed to that course and I still agree to it. This is what we should be aiming to get. We want to get talks among all concerned instead of arguing about whether nine or 10 weeks have gone by and who is responsible for what.
The Leader of the Opposition accuses me of dragging my feet and he intends to vote on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: ["Nonsense."] Let me assure him that
324
he and his hon. Friends will not be voting on a valid point. We have not dragged our feet. We are not dragging our feet. [Interruption.] One thing above all we want to see taking place are talks among all people with any part to play in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I have said time and again, and I repeat now, that a settlement can come only by agreement, and agreement can come only by talking. Without talking, agreement cannot be reached.
This debate arose from incidents in Londonderry. The account by the Army of what happened was, as one would have expected, clear, detailed and documented—[Interruption.]—and it will be examined in detail—
Miss Devlin rose—
Mr. Maudling:—by the Lord Chief Justice, and the Army will offer every facility to him that he requires.
All that I will say about the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland—I say it because time and again it has been said that the Army is a tool of a corrupt political régime in Stormont, which is utterly untrue—is that it is not there at its request. Our soldiers do not want to be there. They did not ask to be there. They are performing a duty which has been imposed on them as part of their loyalty to the Crown. They are there to protect law and order—[Interruption.]—and the Army is brought into action only when law and order are threatened.
When illegal force is evident, legal force must be employed if any organised society is to remain. The British troops always operate under the rule of common law that no more force may be employed in protecting law and order than is necessary. However, the degree of force that is necessary depends on what is done by the lawbreakers. People who attack British soldiers with bullets and bombs are themselves responsible for the degree of force that the Army has to use to resist them.
Last Sunday's procession was organised clearly in defiance of the law—[Interruption.]—and in defiance of a ban on political processions, a ban which was asked for repeatedly in the past by both sides, a ban of which this House has always approved and a ban which most people in this country think is common sense,

325
knowing the danger that can arise from political marches.
That ban was legal. This march was organised clearly in deliberate contravention of it and, that being so, how could any Government do other than instruct their security forces to prevent a breach of the law? That is what took place. The security forces were told to prevent the march and they prevented it with the minimum use of force. [Interruption.]
Miss Devlin: Give way.
Mr. Rose: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: He must give way.
Mr. Maudling: As for talk about incursions into the Bogside, let me dispose of this rumour straight away. There was never for a moment a suggestion that the time had come to teach the people of Bogside a lesson. The troops were, of course, moving in to arrest hooligans who were bombarding them with stones and bricks, and it was obviously right and proper for soldiers who had been bombarded for a considerable time with stones and bricks to move in to arrest the people who were bombarding them.
I say again that the people who organised this procession, though I readily recognise that they did all they could to make sure that it was lawful and peaceful, must have known—they were warned about this—that hooligan elements, as they often associate themselves with processions, would use the shield of the procession to conduct violent attacks on the British Army. The people who carried out that procession did so in the knowledge of this danger, and therefore carry responsibility—[Interruption.]
I go further. I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, West that if he is saying, as I thought he said earlier, that he intends deliberately to organise further marches—
Mr. Fitt: Not organise them.
Mr. Maudling:—or participate in or support other marches deliberately in defiance of the law of his country—
Mr. Rose: Why not shoot him now?
Mr. Maudling:—the consequences may be very grave.
Miss Devlin: Give way.
Mr. Maudling: I am saying—
Miss Devlin rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. McManus rose—
Mr. Maudling: I am putting a simple proposition. I am simply saying that those who organise a breach of the law bear a heavy responsibility for what follows that breach. The law will be maintained—
Miss Devlin: Atrocious!
Mr. Maudling: —by the security forces with the minimum force necessary for that purpose. If force is required on a substantial scale, it will be solely and only for the people who are challenging the forces of law and order—
Mr. Rose: Disgraceful.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maudling: —and deciding their own tactics.
Mr. Rose: Disgraceful.
Mr. Heffer: Shameful.
Mr. Maudling: This is not disgraceful. I wish to conclude what I am saying on this point—
Mr. Rose: Why not shoot him now? Why wait till Sunday?
Mr. Orme: Bring your soldiers.
Miss Devlin rose—
Mr. Maudling: All I am saying is the simple proposition that those who deliberately set about defying the law and attacking the law carry a very heavy responsibility.
My final point is that we can achieve success in Northern Ireland only if we cling to our clear objectives of dealing with a policy of violence and achieving a political settlement through discussion between all parties involved.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 304.

Division No. 50.]

AYES

17.30 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Forrester, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Albu, Austen

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Freeson, Reginald

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

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marks, Kenneth

Ashley, Jack

Garrett, W. E.

Marquand, David

Ashton, Joe

Gilbert, Dr. John

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Atkinson, Norman

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Golding, John

Mayhew, Christopher

Barnes, Michael

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Meacher, Michael

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Grant, John D. (Islington E.)

Mendelson, John

Beaney, Alan

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mikardo, Ian

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Millan, Bruce

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Milne, Edward

Booth, Albert

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Hamling, William

Molloy, William

Bradley, Tom

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Hattersley, Roy

Moyle, Roland

Buchan, Norman

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

Heffer, Eric S.

Murray, Ronald King

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Horam, John

Oakes, Gordon

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Ogden, Eric

Cant, R. B.

Howell, Denis (Small Health)

O'Halloran, Michael

Carmichael, Neil

Huckfield, Leslie

O'Malley, Brian

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oram, Bert

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Orbach, Maurice

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Orme, Stanley

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Oswald, Thomas

Cohen, Stanley

Hunter, Adam

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Coleman, Donald

Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

Padley, Walter

Concannon, J. D.

Janner, Greville

Paget, R. T.

Conlan, Bernard

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Palmer, Arthur

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Pardoe, John

Crawshaw, Richard

John, Brynmor

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Cronin, John

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

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

Pavitt, Laurie

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Dalyell, Tarn

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Pendry, Tom

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Perry, Ernest G.

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

Prescott, John

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Judd, Frank

Probert, Arthur

Deakins, Eric

Kaufman, Gerald

Rankin, John

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Kelley, Richard

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Delargy, H. J.

Kerr, Russell

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Kinnock, Neil

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Dempsey, James

Lambie, David

Richard, Ivor

Devlin, Miss Bernadette

Lamond, James

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Doig, Peter

Latham, Arthur

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

Dormand, J. D.

Leadbitter, Ted

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Leonard, Dick

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Driberg, Tom

Lestor, Miss Joan

Roper, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Rose, Paul B.

Dunn, James A.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Dunnett, Jack

Lipton, Marcus

Sandelson, Neville

Eadie, Alex

Lomas, Kenneth

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Edelman, Maurice

Loughlin, Charles

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

Ellis, Tom

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Silkln, Rt. Hn John (Deptford)

English, Michael

McBride, Neil

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Evans, Fred

McCann, John

Sillars, James

Ewing, Henry

McElhone, Frank

Silverman, Julius

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

McGulde, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

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

Mackenzie, Gregor

Small, William

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mackie, John

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Mackintosh, John P.

Spearing, Nigel

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Maclennan, Robert

Spriggs, Leslie

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McManus, Frank

Stallard, A. W.

Foot, Michael

Steel, David

Ford, Ben

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Tuck, Raphael

Whitlock, William

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Urwin, T. W.

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Varley, Eric G.

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Strang, Gavin

Wainwright, Edwin

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Swain, Thomas

Wallace, George

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

Watkins, David

Woot, Robert

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Weitzman, David

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

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Tinn, James

Whitehead, Phillip

Mr. Joseph Harper.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Drayson, G. B.

Iremonger, T. L.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Dykes, Hugh

James, David

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Eden, Sir John

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Astor, John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Jessel, Toby

Atkins, Humphrey

Emery, Peter

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Awdry, Daniel

Farr, John

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fell, Anthony

Jopling, Michael

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Fidler, Michael

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Batsford, Brian

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Kershaw, Anthony

Bell, Ronald

Fookes, Miss Janet

Kilfedder, James

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Fortescue, Tim

Kimball, Marcus

Benyon, W.

Foster, Sir John

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Fowler, Norman

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Biffen, John

Fox, Marcus

Kirk, Peter

Biggs-Davison, John

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

Kitson, Timothy

Blaker, Peter

Fry, Peter

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Knox, David

Body, Richard

Gardner, Edward

Lambton, Antony

Boscawen, Robert

Gibson-Watt, David

Lane, David

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Bowden, Andrew

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Bray, Ronald

Goodhart, Philip

Loveridge, John

Brewis, John

Goodhew, Victor

Luce, R. N.

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Gorst, John

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Gower, Raymond

MacArthur, Ian

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

McCrindle, R. A.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Gray, Hamish

McLaren, Martin

Bryan, Paul

Green, Alan

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

Grieve, Percy

McMaster, Stanley

Buck, Antony

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Bullus, Sir Eric

Grylls, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Burden, F. A.

Gummer, Selwyn

Maddan, Martin

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Gurden, Harold

Madel, David

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

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Maginnis, John E.

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Cary, Sir Robert

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Marten, Neil

Channon, Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mather, Carol

Chapman, Sydney

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Maude, Angus

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Chichester-Clark, R.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mawby, Ray

Churchill, W. S.

Haselhurst, Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hastings, Stephen

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Clerke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Havers, Michael

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Clegg, Walter

Hawkins, Paul

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Cockeram, Eric

Hay, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Cooke, Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

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

Cooper, A. E.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Cordle, John

Heseltine, Michael

Moate, Roger

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hicks, Robert

Molyneaux, James

Cormack, Patrick

Higgins, Terence L.

Money, Ernle

Costain, A. P.

Hiley, Joseph

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Critchley, Julian

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

Monro, Hector

Crouch, David

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Montgomery, Fergus

Crowder, F. P.

Holland, Philip

More, Jasper

Curran, Charles

Holt, Miss Mary

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Hordern, Peter

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hornby, Richard

Morrison, Charles

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.MaJ.-Gen. James

Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Mudd, David

Dean, Paul

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Murton, Oscar

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Howell, David (Guildford)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Dixon, Piers

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Neave, Airey

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hunt, John

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hutchison, Michael Clark

330

331

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Nott, John

Rost, Peter

Tilney, John

Onslow, Cranley

Royle, Anthony

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Oppenheim. Mrs. Sally

Russell, Sir Ronald

Trew, Peter

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Tugendhat, Christopher

Osborn, John

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Scott, Nicholas

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Sharples, Richard

Vickers, Dame Joan

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Waddington, David

Parkinson, Cecil

Simeons, Charles

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Peel, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Percival, Ian

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

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Soref, Harold

Wall, Patrick

Pink, R. Bonner

Speed, Keith

Walters, Dennis

Pounder, Rafton

Spence, John

Ward, Dame Irene

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Sproat, Iain

Warren, Kenneth

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stainton, Keith

Wells, John (Maidsdtone)

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

Stanbrook, Ivor

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Wiggin, Jerry

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Wilkinson, John

Raison, Timothy

Stokes, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Redmond, Robert

Sutcliffe, John

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Reed, Laurance (Bolton E.)

Tapsell, Peter

Woodnutt, Mark

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Worsley, Marcus

Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Younger, Hn. George

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Ridsdale, Julian

Tebbit, Norman

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

NORTHERN IRELAND (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)
Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30th January which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ELECTRICITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.42 p.m.
  The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This small but important Bill has three main provisions. First, it increases the statutory limits on the borrowing powers of the Electricity Council and boards in England and Wales and of the Scottish electricity boards. Secondly, it authorises contributions to accelerated expenditure by the industry designed to promote employment. Thirdly, it removes certain impediments to the transfer of properties between boards.
  Clause 1 raises the statutory limit on aggregate outstanding borrowings from £4,400 million to £6,500 million for the Electricity Council and the electricity boards in England and Wales, and from £800 million to £1,200 million for the Scottish hoards. The new limits are estimated to meet the borrowing requirements of the industry up to the end of March, 1978.
  The statutory limits on outstanding borrowings apply to the aggregate of temporary borrowings, the principal of stock outstanding, except compensation stock, the outstanding principal of securities issued for the purpose of borrowing foreign currency, and the principal of outstanding Government advances.
  The present limit of £4,400 million on aggregate outstanding borrowings by the Electricity Council and boards in England and Wales, which was set by the Electricity and Gas Act, 1963, was at that time expected to be reached by March, 1970, but, as I explained to the House on 2nd March last year, when the Electricity Council's borrowing powers were last under review in the debate on the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1971, a scaling down of the industry's investment programme took place as it became apparent that earlier assumptions about the growth of the economy and demand for electricity had been over optimistic. In consequence, the statutory
  334
  borrowing limits have served for a further two years beyond the 1963 expectation. Since 1964, the plans of the electricity industry have been successively reduced. Capital expenditure rose to a peak of £670 million in 1966–67 and has since fallen year by year. In 1970–71, the last complete financial year, it was under £400 million.
  As expansion of the economy gathers momentum, capital expenditure in this industry will increase again, but the prospects are that for another year or two it will continue at a relatively low level. The low level of capital expenditure in the past few years is the main reason for borrowing powers having lasted longer than was expected in 1963. Details of the past and present developments in the industry are to be found in the brochures which have been published by the Electricity Council and the Scottish electricity boards, copies of which have been made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  Over the past eight years, the number of power stations has been reduced from 236 to 187, as old small stations have been taken out of service to be replaced by smaller numbers of larger stations. Thirty-nine of the 500 megawatt sets are now in service, and the remainder of the 47 originally ordered are expected to become operational during next winter. The number of employees in the industry now is about 188,000; total sales have increased between 1962–63 and 1970–71 by over 50 per cent.; and the industry's revenue in England and Wales from electricity sales has gone up from £750 million to nearly £1,400 million.
  The size of the contribution made from internal resources does, of course, in addition to capital expenditure, have an important influence on borrowing needs. In the past two years, the fact that increases in electricity prices have not kept pace with the increases in the industry's costs has meant lower profits and higher borrowing. As a result of this, the proportion of the industry's capital requirements financed from internal sources has fallen below the high level of 77 per cent. achieved in 1969–70 to 53 per cent. in 1970–71. The estimate for the current year is 60 per cent.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would it not be appropriate to mention

  335
  that the electricity industry is in its present financial position because the Government asked it to hold back prices increases?
  Sir J. Eden: I am coming to that point now.
  The increases in electricity prices made by the boards in the early months of last year were the first general increase since 1967. These were kept as low as was practicable generally below the levels that would have been justified by costs. In the financial year 1970–71, the increase of over £200 million in operating costs, a substantial element of which was due to higher coal and oil prices, more than offset the gains from increased turnover and improved efficiency, and the industry made its first loss. In the present financial year, revenues are affected by the readiness of the boards to comply with the C.B.I. initiative. Price increases not exceeding 5 per cent. are being made by the area boards in no case earlier than the anniversary of last year's increases. It is of course recognised that in the face of further cost increases during the past year these price increases will not be enough to prevent the industry being in deficit again this year.
  In consequence, the industry's borrowing requirements since the order was made last March, raising the statutory limit to its present level, have been greater than expected, and it has become necessary to introduce new legislation rather sooner than I envisaged in the debate, if the risk of the Electricity Council's borrowing powers becoming exhausted within the next few months is to be avoided.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of what the cost has been and is likely to be in this year to the Electricity Council to keep within the 5 per cent. limit?
  Sir J. Eden: Offhand I could not do so, but if the information is available I shall certainly see that it is given either later in this debate or during the Committee stage. I take the point made by the hon. Member.
  In Scotland, about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development—who is to reply to this de-
  336
  bate—will give any further information that may be required, the pattern has been a little different. Further legislation was needed to increase the borrowing powers of the Scottish Boards in 1969. The Electricity (Scotland) Act, 1969, established the present limit of £800 million which took effect last August through the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order, 1971. These powers, as explained in the debate on the order, will also be exhausted sooner than expected for similar reasons and, although there is not the same urgency as with the Electricity Council, new powers are required in the present Session.
  The Electricity Council and the Scottish boards have submitted estimates of their capital requirements, internal financing and borrowing requirements up to the end of March, 1978. In covering a period of seven years from the end of the last complete financial year—which is of course little over six years from now—the industry is following the pattern established in the 1963 Act. The estimates are set out in the Memorandum (Cmnd. 4877) which was published when the Bill was introduced, and are also given together with background material in the brochures to which I have already referred.
  In the period from 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1978, the total capital requirements of the Electricity Council and boards are estimated at £4,900 million, of which £2,800 million is expected to be financed from internal sources, leaving a borrowing requirement of £2,100 million. The corresponding figures for the Scottish boards are: capital requirements £788 million, internal finance £286 million—not £296 million as stated in paragraph 5 of the White Paper through a printer's error—and borrowing requirements £502 million. In addition, the Council and the Scottish boards need to borrow £300 million and £36 million respectively to repay compensation stock and loans in 1973. In order to enable industries to meet all these borrowing requirements the statutory borrowing limits need to be raised to £6,500 million for the Electricity Council and £1,200 million for the Scottish boards.
  I know that the House recognises that in attempting to look six years into the future the figures are inevitably subject to a number of uncertainties. There are

  337
  uncertainties about the rate of growth of demand for electricity and about the longer term trend of costs and prices.
  In the face of these uncertainties, the estimates of borrowing requirements can be only tentative. The industry's capital expenditure programme is reviewed annually by the Government and firm approval given for the year following the review—though estimates for the ensuing four years are reviewed and are included in the annual White Paper on Public Expenditure. In raising the borrowing limits we are concerned only to provide for the legitimate borrowing requirements of the industry over the next few years. Great precision is not possible, nor is it necessary. The industries have made the best estimates they can and the Government accepts them as a reasonable basis for fixing new borrowing limits. The total amounts by which the previous statutory limits are now to be increased are very large: £2,100 million in England and Wales and £400 million in Scotland. But these full amounts do not immediately become available. Following the now well-established practice, interim limits are included in the Bill, which may not be exceeded without an order laid by the Secretary of State and subject to affirmative Resolution of the House. These will raise present limits by £800 million in England and Wales and £150 million in Scotland; and some £300 million of the former will be absorbed on the redemption next year of compensation stock which had not counted towards the limit. Thus, in England and Wales the effective interim increase in borrowing powers after allowing for re-financing of compensation stock is some £500 million, which should meet the industry's needs for two years or so. On present estimates, the House may be asked to approve a further increase above the interim limit at that time.
  I now briefly turn to Clause 2 of the Bill which is to provide powers for the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury to make payments out of public funds to the Electricity Council and the Electricity boards in contribution towards the expenses of the capital projects which they are bringing forward.
  This is an essential part in the exceptional measures which the Govern-
  338
  ment are taking to promote employment. As the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on 23rd November last that the nationalised industries are making arrangements, at the request of the Government, to bring forward about £100 million of capital expenditure into the years 1972–73 and 1973–74. Of this sum about £60 million is attributable to electricity boards. It was expected that this would include expenditure involving additional costs, such as the extra payment of interest charges, and it was understood that compensatory payments would be made.
  I am sure it is right that the extra costs consequent upon this exceptional acceleration of expenditure should fall upon the community as a whole rather than on the industry's consumers. I am therefore asking the House to provide discretionary powers for the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make such payments up to a total of £25 million. This sum has been designed to cover all the expected claims for compensation from all the projects now being considered. Indeed it should suffice to cover the possibility of acceleration of some further minor projects; but it does not provide for another large project on the scale of the Ince power station. The actual compensation paid will depend not only on the capital expenditure advanced but also on the length of the period by which the projects, which vary widely in size and time scale, are brought forward.
  The choice of Ince B, an oil-fired station, rather than a coal-fired or nuclear station, should not, of course, be taken as a sign of any broad decision about the choice of fuel for future station orders. As hon. Members will know, the relative merits of the available nuclear reactors which might be built in the United Kingdom are already under study by my officials. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to this in the debate last night. This is being done in association with the generating boards and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and consultations have also taken place with the manufacturers. These studies which have certainly had full regard to developments in Europe are nearing completion, but so far they have not yet reached the point of Ministerial decision.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: One realises that these are vastly complex problems. I do not think any of us on this side of the House would want to come to a definite decision as to how the Vintner Committee should report, because these are very difficult matters. On the other hand, do the Government recognise that there is a very real problem in the supplying industry? It wants to know what its investment plans may cost. After all, the Vintner Committee has been studying this for some time.
  Sir J. Eden: I am very well aware of the point made by the hon. Member and of course we are anxious that this study shall be brought forward to the point of decision as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman fairly recognises that these are extremely complex matters; major decisions are involved and inevitably they take a little time. I can assure him that we are pressing ahead with this as fast as we can.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: The House has in the past been subject to an impressed settlement on these matters. May we on this occasion have an assurance that there will be laid before the House a White Paper or explanatory memorandum which we may be able to debate, showing how the various considerations are arrived at in choosing a particular form of generation, coal-fired, oil-fired or nuclear fired?
  Sir J. Eden: These are other matters which one has to take into account in assessing the relative merits of available fuels for the power stations. This will be the subject of normal Ministerial decision, as it has always been in the past. It will also be dependent on the views of the Central Electricity Generating Board which in the first place makes proposals about power stations, and these matters can be debated and discussed in the normal way. It would be most unfortunate in regard to the time of the House if every decision were to be the subject of a White Paper in advance.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The electricity industry has been in a straitjacket over its fuels for years. It burns about 73 million tons of coal per year. Does the Minister agree that flexibility is required, and could he say whether there is any possibility that the elec-
  340
  tricity industry will be able to burn gas as an alternative fuel?
  Sir J. Eden: These are important and wide issues and these matters will be taken into account as the various power stations consents come forward.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: An important principle is involved here and it particularly concerns miners' M.Ps. This involves capital investment and the efficacy of operation as between coal-fired stations and oil-fired or nuclear-fired stations. Has the Central Electricity Generating Board given the hon. Gentleman any figures showing how far it will be necessary to come to this House for further capital investment? What is the magnitude of the sums involved, since there has been a colossal failure following the tremendous capital investment in the nuclear-powered programme which is not working to anything like full capacity?
  Sir J. Eden: The experience of the hoard in trying to get some of these major new plants in operation has had an effect on expected performance, but we are now talking about forecasting requirements for a period of six to seven years ahead. This is a different order of magnitude and is not affected by the sort of considerations advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
  I am very much aware of the fact that we are facing enormous pressures of time in this debate and I hope the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I truncate my remarks to enable other hon. Members to take part.
  I turn briefly to Clause 3. This Clause is concerned with a transfer of property between electricity boards. This has nothing to do with the larger question of the general organisation of the industry. I do not anticipate any early statutory changes in that field. This is concerned with technical reorganisation. Hon. Members will recall that a similar provision was included in the Electricity Bill, 1970, which lapsed with the General Election. Transfers of property between boards are necessary from time to time in order to facilitate technical reorganization—for example, the transfer of the operation of the 132kV transmission network from the C.E.G.B. to the area boards. In such circumstances it may

  341
  be difficult to transfer all the property and other rights involved by ordinary instruments.
  The transfer of the various property rights including wayleaves, some of which were acquired compulsorily, is a matter of considerable legal complexity and could best be effected by order under Section 19 of the Electricity Act, 1947, as amended. In its present form the powers of this Section would not be available in respect of property acquired other than by the vesting provisions of the Electricity Acts, 1947, and 1957, and the Electricity Re-organisation (Scotland) Act, 1954. In Clause 3 of the Bill we have therefore provided for the extension of the Secretary of State's powers to transfer property between boards to cover all property whenever and however acquired. This Amendment has been sought by the Electricity Council and the boards in England and Wales so that any necessary organisation will not be impeded by the exclusion of property acquired since the vesting date.
  Clause 3 is not intended to facilitate a major reorganisation such as was proposed in the Bill introduced by the Labour Government in 1970. There is no immediate likelihood of any organisational change being proposed comparable to that measure. In the meantime, we shall encourage the greater cohesion in the industry, and to this end we have recently made a number of appointments which will ensure that the experience gained in generation is brought to distribution and vice versa.
  Mr. Dalyell: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "greater cohesion in the industry"?
  Sir J. Eden: I will, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to. Most of those who have followed this industry closely will understand that in days gone by there was a tendency for generation to move in one direction and distribution in the other. Now, thanks to effective leadership given to the industry by those who at present are in charge of both distribution and generation, there is a greater readiness than ever to work together as a single industry. It is to ensure there is this sort of effective change of experience that we have been making a number of appointments to that end.
  342
  However, the Bill itself is not concerned with reorganisation. It is a short but important Bill and deals with money without which the industry would quickly be brought to a standstill. The industry in the past years has already shown its capacity to improve its organisation, strengthen its efficiency and increase its productivity in a way that is wholly commendable. I am sure I carry the whole House with me in saying that at every level there are to be found in the industry men of the highest calibre who have served it very well.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Before my hon. Friend draws his remarks to a close, may I make one intervention in case I do not get an opportunity to do so a little later? The amount of money the House is being asked to provide must be tied up with the ability of the industry to make profits which, in turn, is tied up with the leadership, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which all hon. Members would wish to praise. Could my hon. Friend give any information about the fuels which might be used in the future? Could he say that he has not rejected for either of the two energy bodies the possibility of the use either of natural gas or Russian oil as a fuel, both of which would have allowed a considerable lowering of price in certain generation aspects?
  Sir J. Eden: I am very much aware of the importance of the point put to me by my hon. Friend. I can give no answer other than that which I gave to the question when it was put to me earlier: namely, that decisions on the fuelling of power stations are taken when applications are brought forward. At that time every aspect of the situation is brought into account. There is the whole question of the availability of cheaper sources of fuel, which may be in gas, in oil, in Russian oil, or whatever it may be.
  Mr. McGuire: Or British oil.
  Sir J. Eden: There is also consideration of the social implications which may derive from any decisions which are taken affecting the coal industry. These matters have to be balanced and taken into account at that time.
  Mr. Emery rose—
  Sir J. Eden: I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House that the Bill is necessary.
  Mr. Emery: I am sorry, but—
  Sir J. Eden: I am sorry. I ask the House to support the Bill.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: I am sorry that the Minister's speech and his hon. Friend's intervention concluded on a note of mutual regret. We can only hope that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will get an opportunity to confide to his Ministerial colleague and to the House what it was that so suddenly and perhaps belatedly oppressed his soul. We are all eager to hear him.
  The Minister concluded by saying that the future of the industry depended on the capital that is put at its disposal, the borrowing powers and the financial arrangements which he proposes to make. But it is a little odd that no mention has been made of the coal strike. It seems to me that in assessing the financial requirements of the electricity boards we need to know what prospect the industry has if what must be for it a disastrous strike continues to the point of interrupting its capacity to supply the public.
  We should not forget that three-quarters of the energy for the generation of electricity comes from coal. Here we are, in the fourth week of a coal strike, talking about the electricity boards and the industry's prospects yet absolutely ignoring the development of a situation in which stocks of coal are being run down and, within a relatively short time, if the strike continues, the industry being in a state of near paralysis with disastrous effects on the rest of the country.
  I am bound to demand in this debate that the Minister responsible for both the coal and electricity industries at least stops pretending that he has no responsibility for taking positive and constructive action to bring the strike to an end. The House ought, in discussing the Bill, to insist that the Minister discontinues his disingenuous attitude in pretending that the dispute is between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers and the mineworkers themselves and that he is, as it were, the impartial, detached referee.
  344
  The miners know that the Minister is responsible for some measure of control over the offers being made by the Coal Board. He is, indeed, the decisive factor in the negotiations. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. We protest against the shabby pretence by the hon. Gentleman that it is not his responsibility to take a hand in the negotiations. He will inevitably take a very big hand in the negotiations, and I make no complaint about that. I complain about his pretending that he is not a party to the dispute. He is showing the miners that he has no understanding of their grievances and case and is therefore making it impossible for any credible negotiations to get under way.
  I beg the Minister to go back to his Department, relate what is happening in the coal industry to the prospects of the electricity industry, and, indeed, of the whole of British industry, and stand up like a man and acknowledge that he is the decisive force in any negotiations with the miners. He ought to get off his high horse and stop pretending that this is a matter between the Coal Board and the mineworkers. The hon. Gentleman is the most important party to any of these negotiations. If they are stalemated without any effort on his part to break the stalemate, he must take responsibility for what occurs, particularly in the power industry, in the not too distant future.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: While agreeing with the points made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to incorporate in his remarks the possibility that next week there might be a work-to-rule within the electricity supply industry? Certainly the union leadership within that industry is looking for a lead from the Minister. Unless that lead is forthcoming, there may be not only the damaging strike of the miners but a strike within the electricity supply industry.
  Mr. Lever: I have no wish to impede any reasonable efforts on the part of the Government, although I have criticisms about the selective application of those efforts to the nationalised industries in their struggle to keep down inflation. We have already had our tease on the election braggadocio about bringing down prices "at a stroke". We know that the Government have the serious task, not

  345
  that anyone pretended to be able to accomplish it overnight, of dealing with inflationary problems. Although I have criticisms which are not relevant to this debate about how the Government have undertaken that task, I do not want any words of mine to damage any efforts which are reasonably and fairly made to avoid inflationary settlements.
  If the Minister wants fair dealing between the men and the great industries which they serve, to which they have deep attachment in which they are aware that their future lies, he must behave in a candid, open and honourable way. I do not regard it as behaviour calculated to win the confidence of the workpeople in these great nationalised industries when the Minister stays behind the scenes as the decisive voice in any wage negotiations but purports in public to be disinterested. I repeat, there is no shame that he has a decisive part in these matters. He must, however, face the workpeople and their representatives, the trade unions, whether in the coal or the power industry, like a man and negotiate with them. He must not pretend to the workpeople that powerless nationalised boards are holding up settlement by being rigid or digging themselves in at a particular point. We know that it is not the boards but the Government who are responsible for any rigidity or failure to keep the discussions going or any dilatoriness in showing the necessary flexibility.
  If the Minister wants relations of a constructive kind with the workpeople and their representatives, his first duty is to be candid with them, because lack of candour or anything which smacks of double dealing will inflame the situation and make settlement more difficult.
  I have said that because I think we are moving into a critical situation. It is a matter of great urgency that the Department which is responsible for the coal industry and for our electricity supplies should deal with the unions in those industries at least with the maximum candour, expedition and sense of willingness to talk, to negotiate, to be reasonable and to seek to understand their point of view, even if the Department cannot always go along with it.
  I want to deal with one or two aspects of the Bill, which is not in itself contentious.
  Sir G. Nabarro: It is contentious.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) says that it is contentious. Almost anything is contentious when it comes to the notice of the hon. Member. But I must leave him to such controversies as he wishes to raise with the Minister. I want to deal with certain particular points. If I do not cover every detail, I can exculpate myself on two grounds. First, unlike the hon. Member, I regard the Bill as largely uncontentious; and secondly, my hon. Friend who will conclude the debate will doubtless repair any gaps in my speech.
  I want to concentrate on the following points. First, the Government are here providing a very substantial sum to make good to the electricity boards the extra cost of advancing capital expenditure. I deal with the first point of principle. The Government are saying, "We are asking you to act against commercial purpose and to act for social advantage, and we will meet the cost from the Exchequer, not from the price of electricity." I wholly applaud that principle of distinguishing social purpose from commercial purpose. It is necessary in order to keep the boards clear of a fatalistic attitude that it is no use looking at commercial practice if every so often the Government ask the boards to depart from it at the Government's expense or at the expense of price.
  Mr. Skeet: Do not take it too far.
  Mr. Lever: The principle is absolutely sound. My objection is to the areas in which it is most operated. I am very troubled about the area in which it will operate. If one has to advance capital programmes on non-commercial grounds, ex hypothesi the thing is a wasteful operation but for the need to give employment it is urgently required. I note that the Minister is frowning with some lack of understanding of my point. If one has to pay the electricity boards to do this, to make good losses that the industry suffers because capital invesment is being asked from it and not decided by commercial principle—that is to say, it is being pushed ahead before it is really needed—
  Sir J. Eden: Not quite. The point is that almost certainly there would have been, in due course of time, a power

  347
  station but it might not have come as it has come. Bringing it forward earlier means that there are extra costs—not losses—incurred and it is to compensate for those that extra provision is being made.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman has rephrased what I have been saying. Extra costs and losses are precisely the same thing—losses compared with not bringing it forward. That is what I am referring to. If one brings forward a capital project in an untimely way, not linked with one's original planning, there is a loss compared with what would have been the case if one had not brought it forward.
  I mentioned my next point during the main debate on our economic situation and all I got in response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and another member of the Cabinet was an attempt to make stupid party political points that were of no value even for party political purposes and even more futile for economic purposes. They asked whether we were trying to snatch work from the hands of the unemployed whom they were seeking to benefit by this Bill. I said then, and I repeat now, that in the present situation, in which the Government's mismanagement has led us to a figure of over 1 million unemployed, if anything could advance useful work or create useful demand which will reduce that unemployment in the near future, I should be in favour of doing that. I mentioned the specific things that I would do to achieve that.
  The trouble about the proposals of the Government in their panic is that, first, they are the wrong way of supporting employment and, second, they will not support employment at the relevant time. I was asked which of the Government's projects I would not support. I said that I would not support any advancing of capital programmes which would not have an effect in the coming months, and I challenged the Government to tell us of one of these capital projects which was to come forward in the relevant 12–18 months about which we are thinking. The capital programmes here are being pushed forward into 1972–73 and 1973–74 mainly, as I understand from the hon. Gentleman, so that there is a reasonable
  348
  expectation that they should be in full swing at a point of time when the Government's problem may very well be that they have excessive demand on their hands. Therefore, they will have to hold back something else at that time because they have, as a matter of political panic, pushed forward the programmes of the electricity industry and many others at public expense—quite rightly, if it is to be done at all. But it is very like the old proverb, "If you do not know where you are going, any road will do".
  The Government have run out of sensible and reasonable economic strategy, so they have to look as if they are doing something. They have ordered power stations for 1973–74 and 1974–75 that probably are not wanted for years ahead and at any rate, according to the best calculations of the boards, can be put into those years only at a cost of £25 million, an extra cost which the Government are to make good. I object to that. We have to be very careful before we give the Government a blank cheque for an ostensibly noble purpose but one which will not deliver the goods within a relevant time.
  If the Government want to employ £25 million so as to produce an immediate employment response, they would do better by giving it to those in urgent need at present, such as the old-age pensioners and the sick, to create additional demand. There is nothing wrong with that when there is so much unemployment of men and resources at present. This proposal, however, is fudging the issue at considerable expense and it will not work in the relevant period of time. It may even work to our disadvantage if the Government's reflationary measures are as effective as they claim they will be.
  Another objection is that if we were in government I should not have asked private enterprise to gear its capital programmes, which in any case are complex and difficult in their arrangement, to sudden requests from the Government to push them forward or hold them back because of the general state of the economy. Capital programmes are the last thing that should be used for these short-term purposes. Capital programmes, especially in an industry such as electricity, need to be thought out and planned long ahead and should relate to

  349
  the best judgment that can be made about the needs of this power industry. Even when capital programmes are not disturbed, we have not had anything like perfection in the deployment of capital programmes in this industry. To ask the industry to move forward its plans in this way cannot be calculated to bring order and the best results.
  No industry should have its major capital programmes disturbed, with a pretended flexibility which in the nature of things it cannot have, by the Government seeking to move the programmes forward or backward at short notice. They are subject to long-term planning, and long-term pressures should be brought if it is felt that too little capital investment is being made. One can then take the initiative to push in the direction of more capital over a proper time scale related to economic efficiency. If one wants to pull capital back, the same principle applies.
  We do not want this stop-go policy. This is part of the "go" which seems so attractive when it is undertaken and which, if it is done in this way, always leads to a "stop." The sane policy of capital investment must be one in which the programmes are tailored to the needs of the industry. When the capital investment is as vast as it is in this industry, it is particularly important that it should he sensibly undertaken. This industry does not yet have any concept of its fuel plans in its capital programme. This is an odd moment at which to announce the pushing forward of a capital programme which would not otherwise have been undertaken.
  Until one knows what fuel will be used, one cannot see how the industry can best serve the national interest in creating employment. For example, what is the good of closing a pit, putting men out of work in the coalfields and then, when faced with swollen unemployment figures, rushing forward with cheques saying, "Build us an extra nuclear power station quicker than you would have done"? What on earth is the good of planning of that kind? Before the capital programme is tampered with in this way, the least we should know is that the capital programme has been soundly constructed and proper judgments made.
  350
  I will not go on at length about the choice of fuels, but I have grave anxieties as to the past and deep nervousness as to the future on this question. I do not think, for example, that the nation would have authorised the vast expenditure on nuclear power stations that has been undertaken had it known that several years after this huge expenditure had been incurred the nation could not claim that it had had any benefit from these vast expenditures. The pie was to be much lower in the sky when these vast expenditures were authorised, and the special pleaders will tell us that in the 1980s or 1990s—and I suppose by 1980 we shall be told that it will be the next century—the nation will reap rich rewards from this foresight of spending much-needed resources on vast experimental nuclear stations, perhaps without adequate ability by informed public opinion to examine and control those plans. I am always terrified when a small group which alone has the available details on which to judge makes decisions which are vastly more important than many of the decisions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. We are talking of hundreds of millions of pounds a year that has been spent on these stations and we should know what benefit we have gained.
  What is the available capacity in this country at the moment compared with five years ago? With these huge expenditures our available capacity should be largely enhanced, but it is not as far as I know. It has been said that capacity is little more than it was five years ago. It has been said that nuclear power stations are running 30 per cent. under their predicted capacity. This is a serious shortfall and we should be told more about it.
  I hope that nobody deceives himself that in a monopoly industry, which has monopoly rights to price electricity, earnings on capital employed are a relevant indicator of achievement. They are not relevant. One has to see what happens in other industries in other countries compared with what we have achieved—
  Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Might I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? There are evidently to be four Front Bench speeches in a debate lasting for two hours and 20 minutes. Are the Front Benches to be called on to wind

  351
  up at nine o'clock and, if so, will all the back benchers who are sitting here waiting to speak be excluded from the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Gentleman is anticipating what I intended to say to the House when the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech. The ordinary customs and traditions of the House will be upheld, and I shall rely on hon. Members to be as helpful as they can.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South would be the last whose anxiety to be called would trouble me unduly in making the points which I have to make. I have a certain responsibility which I must discharge as briefly as I can.
  My final point, which I should have finished if the hon. Gentleman had not been on his feet, is that the Minister has shown that he is willing to spend public money to stimulate employment. There is nowhere safer from an economic point of view, nowhere more desirable from a moral and human point of view, to stimulate employment than in the regions of high unemployment. May I suggest to him that instead of dickering with the capital programme of the electricity industry, in paying out money he ought to explore the possibility of providing subsidised energy in the areas of high unemployment to stimulate production in those areas?
  I do not want to go on any longer. There are some hon. Members other than the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South whom I and, I am sure, the House are anxious to hear. I therefore conclude by urging the Minister to give attention to the points which have been raised and not to minimise the gravity of my anxieties as I have raised them because we do not intend to force a vote on the Bill.
  Mr. Skeet: Would the right hon. Gentleman perhaps consider remitting value-added tax which is imposed on coal in certain regional areas to carry out the proposals he has in mind?
  Mr. Lever: I have an entirely open mind which would favour any sensible action by the Government which would give immediate stimulation to the indus-
  352
  tries particularly in the areas of high unemployment. There it can be safely done; there we need not worry about the Government's story that there is enough in the pipeline and if there were any more it would be overheated—although the day when it will be overheated in the development areas of Wales and Scotland, whatever the Government do, is, I fear, a long way off. I therefore urge the Government to pay attention to a more realistic use of their power for social purposes than so far has been evident.
  8.38 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: None would dispute that we have to finance the nationalised industries and vote them new capital sums from time to time, but the very scale of the sums involved in this Bill has caused me a great deal of concern in a period when we are passing through grave and acute inflation.
  For example, the capital expenditure of the boards in England and Wales under this Bill is to have the authorised limit increased from £4,400 million to £5,200 million and to £6,500 million, in certain circumstances and in Scotland from £800 million to £950 million and, in certain circumstances, running up to £1,200 million.
  For the purpose of my point the exact sum of money is not material. The advances are enormous, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) was exactly right when he said that they would boggle the imagination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who does not deal in a single Budget with such advances of sums he budgets for—on comparable scales. I am not prepared to pass these sums through this evening in a debate of less than a couple of hours. I shall seek to amend the Bill in Committee, thereby enabling a full debate to take place, and in the interests of the coal mining industry particularly.
  It is crass stupidity for Government policy to state that they cannot pronounce until the moment before a power station commences building what sort of fuel it will use. The position of the coal industry is this: at present there are approximately 145 million tons of coal produced in this country per annum. Out

  353
  of that about 50 per cent., or about 70 million tons, are used for electricity generation. The thermal efficiency with which coal is burned is not particularly high, and I shall deal with that point, briefly, in a moment. But I see no possibility at all of the National Coal Board planning intelligently its production schedules over eight or ten years ahead, including the sinking of new pits as necessary and major reconstruction of old pits, when it cannot be told by its largest consumer, who takes one-half of the whole of its output, namely, the electricity industry, how much coal the electricity industry is budgeting to consume, and how much oil, and how much nuclear power. I intend to say no more on that point tonight, other than that it is crass stupidity for the Government to pronounce such words and call them a policy.
  My second point is that we should be examining in the House, and certainly I shall seek to examine in Committee, the thermal efficiency with which the fuel is burned in the power stations. Vast quantities of fuel are consumed. I will not weary the House by reading out the details they are all to be found on page 31, Chapter 4, of the last Annual Report and Accounts of the Electricity Council. On the same page, in paragraph 86, we read:
  "The average thermal efficiency of generation in the Board's coal and oil-fired stations during the year was 28·4 per cent. compared with 28·3 per cent. for the previous year."
  We invested £700 million to secure a 0·1 of 1 per cent. advance in thermal efficiency. I wonder why my hon. Friend the Minister did not refer to thermal efficiency, the cardinal and critical factor in assessing the efficiency with which capital is being employed in the most capital-intensive of all British industries. Again, I shall raise the matter in Committee. The Committee will be taken on the Floor of the House. We have not had a full-scale electricity debate here for a very long time. As the Bill impinges on the fortunes of both the coal industry and our major energy industry, the electricity industry, we should have a major debate, and I shall ask the Whips to put on one side a full day.
  Mr. McGuire: Tomorrow.
  Sir G. Nabarro: No. That is too soon.
  354
  I shall ask for a day so that we can explore the efficiency with which those large sums of money are being employed.
  I shall make my third point very shortly. I rarely find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Cheetham, but he was certainly right this evening. I came to the House expecting to hear a pronouncement about the coal stocks at the power stations, expecting to learn how soon electricity supplies would fade or be shed because of coal supplies running out in the event of the miners' strike continuing for two, three or four weeks longer. I have heard not a word about coal stocks. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me in winding up whether we have four weeks' or five weeks' coal stocks left. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Two weeks'."] I cannot obtain a reliable figure. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me it when he winds up, as well as saying something about the very difficult dispute in the electricity supply industry, which may lead to working to rule. We all recall the last time that happened. I came here on New Year's Day, 1971, and found the Palace of Westminster blacked out. Cold, hungry, and miserable I was, without any electricity supplies, and I do not want a recurrence.
  That is all I have to say about the industry generally. I sought the advice of the learned Clerks at the Table to make sure that I should be in order in raising the matter to which I now turn, the suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway in Coventry, on account of her electricity bill being deliberately inflated by a junior clerk in the East Midlands Electricity Board, deliberately inflated—let someone deny it—from the normal figure of £1 to £18·50. The old lady was so worried that she took her life. The East Midlands Board has defended the practice, and says that it will continue it. I quote from my favourite newspaper, the Worcester Evening News, in which I stigmatised the practice by saying on 13th January:
  "It is simply monstrous that a public corporation can hound a woman to her death on account of a few pounds for her electricity bill."
  I asked a Parliamentary Question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

  355
  State for Trade and Industry in the following terms:
  "…having regard to the suicide of a lady in Coventry, who received a bill for electricity supplies, inflated by the electricity board to draw attention to her overdue account, whether he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to cease such practices forthwith."
  Although my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry expressed deep sympathy—indeed, he could do no less—he has not put a stop to the practices. He is talking, but he has not put a stop to them. He replied:
  "The East Midlands Board is investigating the case and will be submitting a report to me. Also, the East Midlands Consultative Council has confirmed that, as provided for in the statutory procedures, it is discussing with the board the problems arising from estimated accounts. It is open to them to make representations to the Electricity Council and to me. Given the statutory procedures applicable, I doubt whether a direction would he appropriate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 14–15.]
  I castigate my hon. Friend. A direction is exactly appropriate. Since that Answer was given, the East Midlands Board has defiantly stated that it will continue the practice. Other boards have said that they will continue the practice. The chairman of the London Electricity Board has sent me a personal note saying that his board "have never indulged in this practice." If the London Electricity Board need not indulge in the practice, why need the East Midlands or the Midland Electricity Boards indulge in it.
  In any event, it is entirely unnecessary. The recourse is simple. I never ask a question unless I know the answer, and I always know the answer to any question involving electricity appliances. All that it is necessary to do is to require by Statute that electricity meters are without, not within, domestic hereditaments in order that the meter reader may always secure access to the meter.
  In Gloucester—I shall not advertise the firm other than by naming it—there is a firm called Permali Limited manufacturing gas and electricity meter cases which are readable from the outside of homes. None of this trouble with old ladies committing suicide would ever take place, and enormous savings would occur were all gas and electricity meters without hereditaments and not within.
  356
  I pursue my hon. Friend on this matter because it is one of great public concern. I may tell the House that I received a modest 250 letters after my Parliamentary Question about the old lady in Coventry. That was not as many letters as I have received recently about my traffic problems, but it is still a substantial number. On Monday next, 7th February, when my hon. Friend answers another Parliamentary Question of mine, I hope that he will not equivocate or procrastinate or in other ways evade the very important principle that it raises. I will ask the Secretary of State next Monday:
  "…following the suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway at Coventry several weeks ago due to an inflated electricity bill, submitted by the East Midlands Electricity Board, and his subsequent undertaking to discuss with the Electricity Council and other interested bodies the practice of submitting estimated accounts, what has been the outcome of his talks; and whether he will make a statement on his future policy."
  I want to prevent other old ladies committing suicide on acount of anxieties arising from the bullying and tyrannical behaviour of monopoly, nationalised boards, behaviour for which they ought to be condemned by every hon. Member.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I have served in the House for quite a time with the hon. Member for Worcester—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.
  Mr. Palmer: I am sorry. I thought that the hon. Gentleman expanded over the whole of Worcestershire. I was going on to say that while some of us may doubt his economics, no one would doubt his humanity. As one who has had a long connection with the electricity supply industry, I agree with what he has said about this practice of over-estimating meter readings. I can see no reason for doing so even if from time to time meter readings have to be estimated. They should be pitched on the side of underestimation.
  I have no objection to Clause 2 of the Bill which will make it possible to advance projects. The extra cost will be paid out of public funds and I advocated such a course some while ago. As the Minister on that occasion gave me a somewhat dusty answer I am glad to

  357
  see the conversion which the Bill represents.
  What particular projects are now to be brought forward and how many jobs? We have not had a great deal of detail. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Ince and I understand that contracts have been placed or are about to be placed for the Isle of Grain which is also an oil-fired power station. How far will that station now be advanced? What further projects are in mind? There should be a new coal-fired power station. Also I should like to see Sizewell B nuclear power station being allowed to proceed. Rightly or wrongly there is vast national investment in nuclear power, public and private.
  I have been long an advocate of one design and construction company for nuclear plant and it may be that financial circumstances in the industry will very soon bring that about, at least I hope so. The big issue is which reactor type is to be developed before the fast breeder reactor is ready? The hon. Gentleman's answer about the pace of the Vintner investigation was unsatisfactory. It has had a long time and he should jog it to completion. If we cannot make decisions faster than this we will never keep ahead in the world of accelerating technology.
  We should be more enterprising in the selection of reactor types. The C.E.G.B. should consider the claims of the steam generating heavy water reactor because it has considerable export potential. I am certainly now doubtful about the H.T.R. Maybe we should stick to the A.G.R. though we have yet to see an advanced gas-cooled reactor actually working. Will the extra money now available be used for further reactor development, particularly of the steam generating heavy water reactor? I suggest that the Government look again at the suggestion of the Select Committee on Science and Technology when we said that to save money and time, the prototype stage of a reactor should be on the electricity supply system and that any loss which the system might incur in trying out an otherwise untried reactor should be made good out of
  public funds. I understand that this system is now being operated in the German supply undertakings.
  358
  As I argued in the debate on the Gas Bill last Thursday, it is highly undesirable to have a gigantic centralised corporation for the bringing in of natural gas, for wholesale and for retail distribution. This Gas Bill has been a triumph for the gas men, but, speaking with my admitted electricity bias, it fills me with foreboding for the fuel and power scene generally.
  There is always a danger when talking of fuel and power matters for one always to apply what is true in one country to the circumstances of another. Unlike America, here in Britain we have a reasonably temperate climate and there is a great deal to be said for using some natural gas for power stations linked with pulverised coal. The advantages of natural gas would then be taken down through the power supply system without all the costs of conversion now being incurred in carrying through the retail use of natural gas.
  As for staff morale in the industry, as the House knows, I have had long connection with electricity supply as a power engineer and I am in close contact with all grades of staff. One does not wish to say anything which is exaggerated, but staff morale in electricity supply is at a low ebb. One factor is the way in which the staffs have been absurdly run down by the combined action of pay and productivity schemes and the operations of management consultants, some of whom have left a trail of disorganisation and depression wherever they have operated. The sooner some management consultants are cleared out of British industry the better.
  It is remarkable that the electricity supply industry, which once prided itself on giving a 24-hour service to the community, had its first ever major dispute just over a year ago after a decade of attempted productivity bargaining. In spite of all that has been tried wages have in real terms fallen back against other industries.
  The renewed dispute is now at a delicate stage and I do not want to say anything which might prejudice matters. The industrial staff have been subjected to excessive productivity bargaining and differentials have narrowed for the staff grades. Often they have been the victims of the management consultants about whom I spoke.

  359
  The top salaries for chairmen in the nationalised industries were advanced greatly, and I make no complaint about that, because I have always been an advocate of the rate for the job. Provided tax is properly paid, I see no reason why they should not get those large sums. However, those top salary increases have not filtered down through the staff structure generally and the result is that pay differentials throughout the industry have worsened.
  It appears that the industry is now required, because of this Measure, to make a sudden effort to relieve unemployment generally, though as my right hon. Friend pointed out, this will be somewhat slow acting in bringing relief. The principle, however, is sound, but it cannot be done in a hurry. If the electricity staffs are run down in the way they have been run down in the past, it will not be possible for them to be built up quickly. Nor will the best people come forward if their morale has been depressed and their sense of achievement blunted by external factors.
  A depressing external factor has been the way in which the industry has been forced into the red in its trading account under the present Government, for the first time since nationalisation. There was a loss of £56 million last year. There are several reasons for this. One is that the demand for electricity has slackened because of the sluggish economy. This takes the heart out of people used to working in an expanding industry. For this, the Government must take the responsibility, because they manage, or mismanage, the economy.
  Then, for three years, prices were held steady, and some boards even made a reduction. Now, however, there have been higher fuel charges and increases have become inevitable, but the Government have artificially limited them. Once again, the Government must take responsibility. It is no good, as Carlyle said somewhere, kicking a man into a ditch and then blaming him for not being able to climb out. That will be the position of the electricity supply industry if present policies are persisted in for too long.
  The financial result is that the industry's net return has gone down to just over 4
  360
  per cent. With a fair field and no favour, it could be 7 or 8 per cent. I hope that the industry will not be blamed for this trading result; the fault lies with the Government.
  No one can say that this industry is not efficient in the use of manpower. The number of employees per megawatt of output capacity dropped from 6·9 in 1962 to 3·8 in 1971, according to the last report of the Electricity Council. It has nearly halved in a decade—an outstanding record of improved productivity.
  I should like to know the Minister's future legislative intentions. Is it the parliamentary timetable which is now holding back a Bill to make structural changes in the industry, or have the Government abandoned this intention? In view of what is proposed for the gas industry, I should be interested to know whether there is to be a parallel Bill for the electricity supply industry?
  Have hon. Members opposite, particularly the Minister for Industry, cured themselves of the delusion that something will be gained for the public by making over appliance selling and contracting to private interests? My information is that these hiving off proposals have had a poor reception from the electricity boards themselves. The trade unions are openly against any change, as are the electrical equipment manufacturers, in the main. If it is intended to persist with these proposals for giving away profitable ancillary activities, the Government are in a minority of opinion.
  Showrooms and consumer services were an integral part of this business long before nationalisation. To talk of them as just activities on the circumference is absurd. Utilisation completes the natural process chain of generation, transmission and distribution. That has been the evolution of the industry and it is no good, as is often done, making comparisons with industries which have not had the same evolution. Any present change would be wasteful and destructive of staff morale as I have said before.
  I believe that the consumers, by and large, would be against it. It would be interesting if some of the boards were bold enough on their own account, even if it did not meet with Government approval, to hold an opinion poll among their consumers.

  361
  My final two questions then to the Minister are, first, do the Government propose to bring in structural changes in the industry, and, secondly, have they dropped those so-called "hiving off" proposals?
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: The House recognises the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) as one of the great experts on the electricity industry. I begin, as I always do in a debate on power, by declaring an interest in one aspect. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely about some of the problems which management consultant surveys have brought to the nationalised industries. The electricity industry is suffering after such a report. There have been too many disastrous changes of procurement policy. Instead of there being a centralised and efficient organisation, such as that brought about by Mr. Derek Rayner in the Ministry of Defence and those which apply in the coal and gas industries, the Electricity Council has broken up its central purchasing structure in the Central Electricity Generating Board. It has diversified it into nonfunctional factors, often reporting to engineers who know nothing of procurement and purchasing. This is detrimental to the whole industry. I had not intended to introduce that aspect. I do so to further the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised that, having been stimulated by not getting as good a reply to one of my questions as I expected, I find Clause 1 unacceptable. If nothing else, I believe that consistency has some virtue. The most boorish thing in this House is to quote from one's own speeches and I shall not do so, but perhaps I might paraphrase. I recall that, when my hon. Friend and I sat on the Front Bench opposite in debates on orders increasing the borrowing powers of the electricity and gas industries, we complained about proposed increases which amounted to only one-third of those figures. Yet this Bill increases the borrowing powers for the Electricity Council and hoards by 48 per cent. in England and Wales and by 50 per cent. for the Scottish electricity boards.
  It is all very well for my hon. Friend to talk about a figure of £5,200 million
  362
  "or such greater sum" not exceeding another figure. But the lower figure is always forgotten. It is always the sum that was not to be exceeded which becomes the figure reached. Originally the borrowing power was raised to £3,300 million and up to a maximum of £4,400 million—and the £3,300 million figure was forgotten. The industry got to the maximum of £4,400 million.
  Now the Government are asking for an increase from £4,400 million to £6,500 million in one case and from £800 million to £1,200 million in the other case. These are vast increases in one bite. The limit is too high in terms of management efficiency. It is too much in one tranche. As I said in opposition, less money should be allowed in one go as a matter of pure business economics. When an industry has such huge borrowing powers allowed to it, its overall efficiency is nothing like as keen as it would be if the limit was lower. I do not seek to deprive the nationalised industries of money but when they need it they should come back to the House for approval.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the fuel feedstock situation in the electricity industry. I asked my hon. Friend if he had refused an application for the use of either natural gas or Russian oil. This cheap feedstock might have been available. I did not get a reply other than that this matter was considered on its merits at every application. I do not mind what the Minister's decision was. If the decision was to reject either of these propositions it may well have been for social reasons or to deal beneficially with the coal industry, but let us say so and not hide the facts. I can only interpret from his statement that the Minister in fact turned down such applications because, if he had not done so, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for a negative reply to have been given to me.
  It is of the utmost importance that this matter should not be dealt with on an ad hoc basis one station at a time. That gives neither reasonable efficiency to the coal industry nor the opportunity for forward planning. There cannot be any necessary forward planning for people providing equipment for the industry. I think this is the wrong type of judgment. The Government ought to make the decision for the next two or

  363
  three stations saying which fuel should be used and not deal with it on an ad hoc basis one station at a time.
  If for the same reason it is necessary to continue with coal, the most expensive feedstock to the electricity industry, I have always argued that that ought to be dealt with not by the electricity industry having to meet the social cost but by the social cost being separately accounted by the Government, to meet this as a cost which is known and able to be understood by everyone as a means of ensuring that the coal industry shall be kept in being, that employment shall be safeguarded and that capital assets are used and the whole of the town structures kept viable in these areas. There is nothing wrong in making these decisions, but let us not hide the social and financial factors in a Bill dealing with increased costs in which no one is able to adjudicate about how much is social cost and how much is not.
  There has been reference during the debate to the position of the electricity industry in relation to the coal industry. It may not be popular to say this but I do not believe that any section of society, whoever it may comprise—doctors, nurses, postmen or miners—has the right to hold the rest of society to ransom. I do not consider that to be equitable or correct. I therefore say that if there is necessity for the Central Electricity Generating Board or the area boards to—
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Emery: No, I will not give way, because five or six more hon. Members want to speak in this debate and if I gave way I would add five or six minutes to my speech by answering a question whereas I want to finish on the point I am making. If there has to be load-shedding or blackouts by the electricity industry, that load-shedding or those blackouts should be directed to the coal-mining areas so that those bringing about trouble should realise the factors which are involved.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: Scandalous!
  Mr. Emery: This may not be popular, but quite a lot of people believe that
  364
  those sections of society which bring hardship to society should be the first to realise what is the effect of their actions.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is quite right to say that his remarks will be unpopular. I thought what he said was also very stupid, and I wonder whether he would have said that had he come from the north of England, from Wales or from Scotland and had seen It first hand that on-cost workers in the coal fields were earning £13, £14, £15 per week in take-home pay.
  Mr. Emery: I probably know these matters just as well as do other hon. Members.
  Mr. Dalyell: There are others who have more authority to speak about the mining industry than I have, so I will leave that matter.
  I should like to concentrate on the Vintner Committee and would ask why the Committee has taken so long to report. We are at least due for an explanation. What consideration is being given to the total resources problem with which the Minister is now faced? I speak as one who wants to see coal develop and increase in use together with a flat-out attempt to go as fast as possible in nuclear fuel.
  All the recent literature is very convincing that oil and natural gas are both rare resources. We hope the Government will come forward with some kind of coherent plan and not an "itsy-bitsy" solution to the problem of a total fuel policy. I should like to ask about the advanced gas cooled reactor. May we be told how deep is the trouble it has run into? Since we have not been able to sell any abroad, I should have thought that there was nothing to be lost in being frank with the House of Commons, notwithstanding commercial considerations.
  Is it, I wonder, true that we should go ahead with the steam generated heavy water reactor? All the evidence which came before the Committee on which I had the honour to serve under my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr Palmer) added up to a British plan to go ahead with the S.G.H.W.R. until such time as the fast reactors came in.

  365
  It is vital for our exports, and if we are to consider potential exports the system must surely be something we use ourselves. How can we go to a prospective importing country and say, "We have a wonderful system, but our Government do not back it. We do not use it ourselves?"
  Mr. Alvin Weinberg, who is head of the Oakridge National Laboratory, has made a clear case for a standardised nuclear fuel. For all the talk of a shortage of resources in the 1990s and up to the turn of the century, there is surely a considerable argument for going ahead with a whole series of nuclear paths along the lines suggested by Weinberg. Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti-Common Market surely this should be done on a European basis. The sooner we get our European discussions right the better.
  I wish to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, what is the future of Skateness in the north of Scotland? Perhaps the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will say something about this in his reply. Secondly, the Minister said that it cost a good deal more to bring a power station forward granted a normal rate of inflation. I do not believe it, and it is up to the Government if they really take that view to provide evidence.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: I shall be very brief in my remarks because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. The main provision of the Bill so far as I am concerned is Clause 2 which is related to the encouragement of employment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, we have not heard from the Minister how many jobs are to be created. I would suggest that on a short-term basis there could be a fair number of jobs on the construction side in different parts of the country. It is surely this aspect with which we should concern ourselves in the present situation. But in view of modern developments which have taken place, the number of permanent jobs which would exist as a result of these proposals would be small.
  I turn briefly to the question of redundancy within the electricity supply industry. Several comments have been made
  366
  about the utter confusion of certain aspects of policy in the industry. I suggest that redundancy is a classic example. Whereas we are debating the possibility of extra job opportunities in the industry, at the same time we are going through a period when forced redundancy is about to take place within the industry.
  Let us consider the history of redundancy in the industry. First, there was voluntary redundancy. Many men in their late fifties thought that this would be a good opportunity to get out of the industry, accept the payments that were to be offered, and find some other job for the rest of their working lives until of pensionable age. Many men applied for voluntary redundancy. But the board apparently panicked and stopped voluntary redundancy, because it realised that men were not coming into the industry in view of the low wage incentives which were being paid.
  Then again forced redundancy was introduced. I understand that it is about to take place within the industry now. One can therefore understand the deep concern of men being forced out of their jobs, many of whom have spent their whole working lives in the industry—I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is a great degree of loyalty in the industry because of the obligations that the men feel they have to the general public—when they find that the jobs are not disappearing as such, but are being taken over by contract labouring firms, many of which pay far higher salaries to their workers than the men who were formerly doing the jobs were being paid.
  In addition—this is a matter I specifically ask the Minister to try to answer now or in Committee—there is deep concern within the industry about a matter which certainly exists within the building industry; namely, the lump system. There is concern in the electricity supply industry whether some of these contracting firms which come in are following a similar system. I suggest that there is clear evidence that many of these firms engage self-employed men for whom they have no obligation for tax or social service commitments. This system should be stamped out as soon as possible.
  I have made my point that there is great concern about redundancy. I am

  367
  sure that the whole country hopes, as I have no doubt the leaders of the unions representing men in the electricity supply industry hope, that, before next Monday, there will be an agreed solution to the wage negotiations. I hope that we will get back to stability within the industry. Unless the Minister gives a great deal of consideration to the question of redundancy and the issues which flow from it, although we might settle the present problem, I believe that we shall be confronted with many other issues in the coming years which will be detrimental not only to the electricity supply industry, but to the country as a whole. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to this matter.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: Speaking in very rapid shorthand, I thought that to some extent the Minister did a service to the House when he praised the electricity industry. Conversely, however, he did a great disservice to the House and, indeed, to the Government when he refrained from making any comment about the effect that the miners' strike would have on the electricity industry. One does not need to be an accountant to realise that the figures proposed in the Bill must be out of date if the Government maintain their pigheaded attitude in trying to settle the miners' strike.
  Before coming to the House I received certain information. The Minister must also have this information. Being the chairman of the miners' parliamentary group, I get information about what is happening. I know what will happen this week. There will be power cuts and the position in the power stations will get worse and worse. Yet the Minister presents a Bill to the House which makes provision for certain costs and he does not make any comment on what those costs will be related to if the miners' strike continues. As I said to the Secretary of State for Employment today, it is the height of irresponsibility for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and not to comment on it.
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that he would want to be on the Committee. After some of his comments, I wonder whether he will be. It would be very interesting
  368
  if he were. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) wants to be on the Committee. He is very much out of date, more so than when he used to sit on the Opposition benches. All his arguments today lead one to suppose that he must say the most outrageous things he can say. But I hope that he will be on the Committee, because we should welcome him.
  Mr. Emery: The Committee stage is to be on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Eadie: There will be a Committee.
  I also felt—and here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer)—that the proposition that we should have a third type of nuclear power station is something that we shall have to debate very carefully. We have already had two types and £2,000 million has been spent on them. Therefore when talking about finance, we are entitled to know what progress is being made. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South was on the ball when he said that it was time we had a debate about electricity and nuclear power.
  The Minister did another disservice to the House. There was a leak in the Press that the Government had been discussing an energy policy. It is wrong for them to come to the House and talk about any form of energy and not give us the advantage of the Cabinet's knowledge of the future rôle of coal, oil and nuclear power in the production of energy. We are entitled to this knowledge. It should not be leaked out to the newspapers. When looking at the question of finance involved in the Bill we should look at it objectively, asking whether we are doing the right sums. From that viewpoint the Government have done a very great disservice.
  What effect will the £25 million about which we are talking have upon employment? Will the Under-Secretary say how many jobs that will create and when they will be created? How many jobs will it mean for Scotland?
  The Government have a responsibility to answer my specific points: what will happen to the people because of the power cuts, will the Government settle the miners' strike and how many new jobs will be provided by the Bill?
  Mr. James Sillars: I shall make only two points, although there are many things that I should like to say, especially to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office and to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). The 6,000 miners in my constituency who are on strike will not be impressed by the hon. Member's contribution to the mining conflict.
  Mr. Emery: It happens to be right.
  Mr. Sillars: Indeed, the vindictive manner in which he uttered his words will make the men stronger than ever in their determination to win what is no more than a fair take-home wage. The hon. Member alleges that the miners are trying to hold the country to ransom. But the general public, through the agency of the Government—different Governments of different complexions—has used and abused the mining communities for a number of years. The mining communities have supplied cheap energy to this country. That means that they have supplied cheap labour for far too long. The hon. Member for Honiton and the Ministers responsible should understand the facts of life. For the mining communities, the only thing that will settle this strike is cash on the nail above the last offer of the National Coal Board.
  I hope the Minister for Industry does not think that he is dealing with the postman on this occasion. Psychologically, in mental tuning and in organisational ability the miners are far superior to any other group of organised workers. They have a capacity for survival and will survive.
  I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday what the United Kingdom growth rate would require to be to give full employment north of the Border. He dodged that question. Last night the Minister for Industry said that we can look forward to a growth rate of 4 to 5 per cent. for a number of years. A week ago on Monday the Prime Minister said that a disturbing phenomenon in unemployment terms is that we now have a 5½ per cent. rate of productivity. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Development answer my question? I am not an economist; I do not know whether he is, but he is backed by a bigger staff than I am. Am I right in
  370
  thinking that with a rate of productivity of around 5½ per cent., which might accelerate in future, a growth rate of 5 per cent. no longer has the impact in terms of creation of job opportunity that it would have had in the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s? The Minister should be able to answer that question in a detailed manner. If he is not able to answer it, it will mean that the Government are stumbling around in the dark for a solution to unemployment.
  This is a matter of extreme importance to the Conservative Party and to the unity of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State for Development well knows that his party north of the Border had a separate manifesto. The Conservative Party has ignored the views of the Scottish people since 1970 and has implemented a ruthless policy. That situation is latent with danger for anyone who wants to keep the United Kingdom united.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: I am pleased that so many back benchers, including myself, have been able to be called. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said. The most remarkable thing about the debate is that there has been no mention of the miners' strike and its possible effect on the electricity industry, no mention of the possibility of power cuts flowing from the miners' strike and no mention of the situation in the electricity industry.
  Clause 2 of the Bill gives a subsidy—that is what it is, no matter what we call it—of £25 million for bringing forward uneconomic capital projects. The mining industry is paying more interest content per ton than it did prior to the capital reconstruction of 1965. This has an effect on the wages problem and such a sum would help here. The coal industry is a regional employment industry. Apart from Nottingham, it operates in regions of heavy unemployment. No figure has been given of the number of jobs which will be created by these subsidised advanced capital programmes. We can hazard a guess that there will be very few indeed and that the workers who will be employed will be people in the construction industry who traditionally move from place to place.

  371
  We have the miners on strike, and I want to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, that if anything would make the miners more solid in their attitude towards the strike it would be to hold over them the threat that they will probably suffer more than anyone else from power cuts. I can tell the Minister now that they are rock solid. I spoke to them on Sunday. We went to power stations where they are picketing. They are rock solid. It is no good the Minister's displaying what I consider to be an Olympian detachment. The miners are very much involved.
  The position is this. When in the past in this House we have debated the electricity industry and the coal industry I, along with my hon. Friends from mining constituencies, have said that the problem facing the industry was that it did not know how many coal-fired stations were to be built. We knew that there would be phasing-out. I remember asking the then Minister, now the Chairman of British Rail. Dick Marsh, whether he could tell us, when we were talking about long-term capital projects, how many boilers in which coal could be burned would remain in future years. This was a very big problem and people were concerned about it. Drax was the last to be planned. He could not tell us; we got the usual Ministerial answers.
  If the Minister does not make some move in the miners' strike, a move for cash in the pocket—for the miners have had enough flannel—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I do not think the hon. Member should go too much into the question of the strike. Time is short, and I am sure he will want to keep to the Bill.
  Mr. McGuire: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but no matter how many boilers there are, no coal will be produced, such is miners' attitude, because they could not care less, unless there is a respectable offer. Otherwise they will not settle. It is no good the Minister's talking of subsidies, which will give only a few jobs, if we cannot do something positive to bring the miners back to work. This Bill is only tinkering about with ideas which
  372
  will give very little work when the Minister should be doing something practical which would help the country, help the coal industry and help the electricity industry.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful for these two or three minutes at the end of the debate to put two specific points. Before doing so I should like to deal with a remark made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and with the implications of that remark that the postal workers a year ago today held the nation to ransom. At this time a year ago I was not a Member of the House. I was a postal worker involved in the strike, and I should be failing in my duty to my colleagues if I did not refute the implications of the hon. Member's remark. It is totally dishonest to make such a remark.
  Now to address myself to the subject of the debate this evening, I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland two specific questions. In terms of the £25 million capital programme which is to be advanced to assist to solve the unemployment problem, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in asking how many jobs this will create in Scotland. Secondly, what specific projects in Scotland are in mind in the provision of the £25 million?
  Finally, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what part he sees the oil industry playing in the future power structure of this country. My constituency is the centre of the oil industry in Scotland, and I am most concerned to know, for instance, whether there have been any discussions in relation to the pricing of oil, and the amount to be charged by the oil companies for oil to the electricity boards. I should be interested to know what discussions have been held, what projects are being brought forward, and what part the oil industry is to play in the future energy programme of this country.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I want first to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and to tell the Minister that hon. Members on both

  373
  sides believe that the practice of deliberately sending over-estimated electricity bills is utterly unacceptable, morally dishonest and insensitive to the feelings not simply of elderly people but of other people on low incomes who can get very worried when they receive a bill with which they cannot cope. The Minister should use his powers in this respect. He can give a direction if necessary, though I am sure he would not need to do so. He appoints and he has the power of dismissal, and the industry is aware of that. Hon. Members on bath sides would welcome it if it were made clear tonight that the practice will not be tolerated in future.
  It is normal in such a debate as this to try to tell euphoric tales of achievement, but it is a singularly mixed tale we tell of the electricity industry. It has a record of productivity success despite a peculiar record of technological adversity. On the adverse side, despite all the extra capacity provided during the past five years, it has been suggested that the actual megawatt capacity available as opposed to that theoretically available is no greater than it was five years before. I understand that during last winter less than half the new capacity constructed during that five years was available for use. In case anyone thinks that this is a political point, I should add that though the money may have been spent during our period in government the equipment involved was ordered when the Minister's party was in office.
  The industry seems to have run into a series of peculiar technological difficulties—the Babcock and Wilcox Boiler hairline fractures, the failure of 500 megawatt units and then the corrosion of the Magnox system.
  On the credit side, it is remarkable what has been achieved in the face of that adversity. Investment during the past decade has topped the £5,000 million mark and over half has been paid for by the industry. Yet despite this heavy self-investment programme, prices in the electricity industry during that decade rose at only half the rate at which the cost of living generally rose. In that sense the electricity industry was one of the factors helping to hold down the cost of living rather than pushing it rapidly ahead.
  374
  Despite the technological failures, the rate of increase in productivity has been striking. If we take 1960 as 100, we find that by 1970 the labour cost per unit in the industry had fallen to 82 whereas in industry generally it had risen to 150. That startling rate of increase in productivity should be borne in mind when the current pay claim is considered. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides hope that industrial action will not prove to be necessary in achieving a settlement. If, however, such action is taken it is worth reminding the public, in view of some of the headlines at the time of the last dispute, that it is the management that takes the decisions on which sectors are to lose power.
  I fully accept that if there is industrial action some cuts may be necessary, but it is at the discretion of management where those cuts occur. This must be made clear to the public. For example, if a sector with a hospital in it is blacked out, the presence of the hospital is known to the board at the time the decision to cut out that sector is taken. At the Wilberforce Inquiry last year the South East Board's chief engineer made it clear under questioning that the workers had never refused to co-operate to keep hospitals supplied, even during the industrial action. He said that help had been "readily forthcoming".
  I hope that we do not have to face a similar situation again, and therefore I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) in urging the Minister to act in pursuit of his duty to ensure adequate power supplies and not just sit back and allow the industrial situation to drift.
  As regards the future, several of my hon. Friends have raised very fundamental questions. I know that in the time available to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, it will not be possible for him to give too much detail. But it is important that the House should be told not only what the future mix of firing methods is to be but how the mix is to be arrived at. For example, what will be the impact of the actions of the oil-producing countries? What system is now being used for assessing fully the pollution costs of each of the alternative systems? Is this being looked at, and is it being quantified? Is

  375
  a social cost being assessed of the pollution created by the various systems? It may be, for example, that it would be better to accept the need for a coal-fired station rather than incur the possible hazards of nuclear wastes. We want to know this and to be told how it is arrived at.
  The Bill is an astonishing document. It is yet another admission of defeat by the Government. Like the Mineral Exploration Bill, it recognises a fact which the Government foolishly failed to realise when they first took office, namely, that grants are the most appropriate form of stimulus. Secondly, the fact that Clause 2 exists at all indicates the depths of the Government's own assessment of the fall that has taken place in commercial confidence. Previously we were told that investment allowances would unleash an investment boom. It did not come. Then we were told that that was because the industry was waiting for the decision day about going into Europe and that when we said "Yes, we will go into Europe" there would be a bursting of the investment dam. If the investment dam has burst, where is it and why do we need Clause 2 to stimulate investment one to two years ahead? If there is that investment expansion which was allegedly to come as a result of the decision-making, this Measure could make its employment impact and expenditure impact at the wrong stage of the cycle.
  The Government are trying to use the electricity industry and the other nationalised industries in the Keynesian manner, for pump priming. They are trying to prime the same investment pump that was not primed by investment allowances, by tax concessions and by their attempts to create a consumer boom. Now they intend to use the purchasing power of the nationalised industries. We on this side do not object to that, but if the Government are to bring forward £100 million in the nationalised sector, £60 million of which will come from the electricity industry, we want to be clear that this will not saddle the industry with unproductive overheads and, if it does, that the costs of those overheads are covered fully. Secondly, we want to make sure that it does not mean bringing forward decisions before the appropriate time for taking them. In the electricity
  376
  industry we are working near the frontier of current technological knowledge, and to rush decisions may mean rushing that much earlier into high-cost errors.
  I am glad that the Government at last recognise the value of the publicly-owned sector, and I appreciate the panic that there must be in the Government for the Minister for Industry to have been converted to this realisation. If it makes sense to use the purchasing power of the nationalised industries, why not take it to its logical conclusion? Instead of stimulating order books for producers indirectly, why not allow the electricity industry to produce for itself? Why not encourage ancillary activities and allow it to diversify according to normal commercial criteria? Instead of hiving off, why not allow it to add on those sectors where private industry is at present failing to carry out adequate investment?
  It would be helpful if tonight the nationalised industries could be assured that the Minister has substantially reformed his attitude towards hiving-off. We cannot expect the nationalised industries to update investment if at the time their investment becomes profitable it is hived-off to the private sector. The hon. Gentleman must give a guarantee that anything brought forward in the £100 million programme, not just the electricity programme, will not be subject to any hiving-off activities. If he wants to use the nationalised industries to remedy the failures of the private sector, he must give this guarantee and stop his mischievous doctrinaire methods.
  9.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): In the very short time left I will do my best to answer as many of the points that have been raised as possible. If I fail to get through them all I hope that these matters can be covered in Committee or if necessary by letter. I will go as fast as I can and hope to get through as much as possible.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and others asked about fuel studies. There is no avoidable delay here, but the House will understand that it is important that decisions taken on such a fundamental matter should be absolutely right. Hon. Members will recognise that there have

  377
  been and continue to be changes in the criteria and the facts lying behind these studies. What particularly springs to mind is the dramatic change in oil prices. When my right hon. Friend has received the report he will be ready to make decisions as soon as possible.
  Several hon. Members asked about the advancing of capital programmes and wanted details about that and the number of jobs which would be produced. Although the bringing forward of Ince B power station is the only spectacular, large item in this programme, there are a number of small and very small items which it has been possible to bring forward. I can assure Scottish Members that there are projects in Scotland being brought forward which we are discussing with the electricity boards. Some are small, some small to medium. It is not possible to say how many jobs will be provided but I can say that they will be provided in most cases well within the period of 18 months which the right hon. Member said was necessary. They will certainly begin to provide jobs soon.
  It is not merely the workers who take part in the construction of these works, transmission lines and so on who are affected. There is also the ordering of equipment of various sorts which spins off into industry generally and is difficult to quantify. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's reservations on purist economic theory grounds, but I am glad that the Government have brought this work forward. I am certain that it will employ more people, that it is valuable and worth doing.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked about available capacity. He and other hon. Members expressed the view that in spite of all the capital expenditure of recent years available capacity was not much different from what it was. Two figures which I have been able to discover since the right hon. Gentleman made the point may illustrate that his fears are not altogether well-founded. The available capacity at 31st December 1966 was 38,500 megawatts and at 31st December 1971 the figure was about 53,000 megawatts. That is a considerable increase and I think it justifies the capital expenditure made by both sides during that time.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that this is actually
  378
  available, rather than available in theory or nominally available?
  Mr. Younger: I should have to look more deeply into the matter to answer that question with certainty. It is available capacity and the figures are those which I have been able to obtain quickly, because I thought the House would like to have them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise this point in Committee if he wishes to pursue it.
  I was asked about the availability of coal stocks now. It is rather misleading to produce an average figure for coal stocks at power stations throughout the country and assume that one can draw firm conclusions about the possibility or otherwise of power cuts. It is obvious that in some areas there are considerable stocks for some weeks ahead, while in others there are less stocks. I therefore do not believe that it would be helpful for me to make generalisations and give average figures. I can say, however, that there is still a considerable number of weeks' stocks available in general and that naturally everything possible will be done to use them in the most useful way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) raised the important point of the tragic case of Mrs. Hemmingway. The whole House will agree that we are anxious to see that such a tragedy does not occur again and hon. Members will join me in expressing sorrow at the fact that it did happen.
  I was somewhat surprised that my hon. Friend did not mention—perhaps he did not notice it in the papers—that the Minister for Industry had already taken action on this important matter. He had a meeting with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council on 26th January to discuss the issue of the billing and collection procedures of the boards. These procedures are the responsibility of the boards, but my hon. Friend wanted to express personal concern over the recent reports and cases.
  The chairman of the council told my hon. Friend that he and the boards shared his concern and that the industry was carrying out a full review of its billing and collection procedures. The implications of this review, which have been given added urgency by these unfortunate cases, will be discussed at a meeting

  379
  of the full Electricity Council on 9th February and at the council's meeting the following day with the chairmen of the electricity consultative councils. I assure my hon. Friend that the whole industry takes this problem most seriously.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has asked to be kept informed on further steps in this matter and he will make sure that these are kept in the forefront of the consideration that is given to this issue by those concerned. I hope that these remarks will allay some of the fears that have been expressed over this extremely distressing case.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked for examples of projects that had been brought forward under the capital improvement scheme. I cannot give him exhaustive lists at this stage but one example is the fact that only yesterday a transmission project at Heysham worth £1½ million was brought forward. I agree that this sort of project is rather more easy to bring forward quickly than some others. Nevertheless it is an example of the sort of project that we are hoping to bring forward under this scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about various other stations such as the Isle of Grain. He pointed out that this was going ahead anyway and was not being brought forward under the emergency scheme. It is nevertheless going ahead. Sizewell B is a nuclear station which will be some time before going ahead, for we are anxious to ensure that we are making the right decision for the future, bearing in mind the balance of fuels to which I have referred. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay over the progress of this station.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, Central then asked about structural changes and wondered whether there would be a holdup in the production of structural changes in the industry as a whole. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said; that we do not have any proposals in hand just now for any major reorganisation of the electricity industry. I wish to make this clear because we do not want those concerned to feel that they
  380
  are operating in an atmosphere of uncertainty or that such an atmosphere is hanging over them.
  The hon. Gentleman then asked about hiving off. I wish to make it clear that the consideration of whether, and to what extent, parts of the industry can be hived off is still very much under way and that no decisions have been made at this time. My hon. Friend will continue his consideration of this issue and in due course, if and when any decisions are made, he will make a statement to the House in the normal way.
  I am sorry that I have not had time to answer all the questions that were asked and all the points that were made in the debate. I trust, however, this having been a valuable discussion on an important Bill, that hon. Members will give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Speed.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  ELECTRICITY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Electricity Council and Electricity Boards, and to authorise contributions by the Secretary of State to expenditure intended to promote employment it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) any increase in sums falling to be paid into or out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund under section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963, or any other enactment, attributable to provisions—

  (i) increasing to £6,500 million the limit imposed by section 15(5) of the Electricity Act 1957 on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by electricity authorities in England and Wales,

  (ii) increasing to £1,200 million the limit imposed by section 47(7) of the Electricity Act 1947 on the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of borrowings by electricity authorities in Scotland,

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding £25 million to be applied as contributions to expenses incurred by electricity authorities in connection with agreements entered into with the Secretary of State to promote employment. —[Sir J. Eden.]

  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
  10.0 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): I beg to move,
  That the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
  The order will empower my right hon. Friend to obtain temporary loans for the Redundancy Fund to a maximum of £20 million from 28th February. The purpose of the fund is to assist employers declaring redundancies by making rapid payments of 50 per cent. of the statutory redundancy payments to which their employees are entitled. It also makes guarantee payments to the employees of firms which, because of insolvency or for other reasons, cannot themselves pay.
  The fund is normally financed by contributions from employers generally, which are collected from the National Insurance contribution and which at present are 6.3p for men and 2.9p for women. Under Section 35 of the Redundancy Payments Act there is provision for loans up to £8 million from the National Loans Fund. The total borrowing limit may be increased to a maximum of £20 million if both Houses approve orders authorising the additional amounts.
  The state of the fund has fluctuated considerably since the introduction of the Redundancy Payments Scheme in December, 1965. Expenditure from the fund is necessarily linked with the incidence of redundancies, so the fund is especially vulnerable in times of rising unemployment, but expenditure is also affected by the ages, length of service and rates of pay of the workers who become redundant.
  Through a combination of these various factors, a trend to deficit appeared in the latter part of 1966. It proved necessary then to increase the borrowing limit to £12 million from August, 1967, and, notwithstanding increases in the contribution, to £15 million from April, 1968, and to £20 million from August of that year. By March, 1969, the deficit was over £17 million. The Redundancy Rebates Act which came into operation in that month
  382
  decreased the rate of outgoings from the fund by reducing the employer's rebate to 50 per cent. of the payment due to the employee.
  In 1969 and 1970 the number of redundant workers qualifying for payment remained relatively stable. These factors together enabled the loan to be fully repaid from the fund by the autumn of 1970. By the end of that year the fund carried a surplus of £2¾ milion. However, during 1971 redundancies increased sharply. The number of payments from the fund in that year, provisionally 369,000, was one-third greater than in the previous year. The average payment in 1971 exceeded the 1970 figure by 15 per cent., higher wage levels being a big and important contributory factor. As a result the surplus in the fund, which had been £3¼ million in the middle of April, began to disappear and by the middle of July the fund was once more in deficit. Since then the deficit has been increasing at various rates, apart from two short periods at the beginning of October and after Christmas.
  At the end of the year the deficit had reached £4¾ million and at the end of last week it was £5,897,000. If it continues to rise at anything like the rate it has done in recent months, the £8 million limit which can be borrowed from the National Loans Fund will be reached within a matter of a month or so. It is not possible to predict the exact date when this position will be reached or how the fund will behave beyond this point. Much will depend on what happens to the levels of unemployment and earnings. There are encouraging signs of a reduction in the rate at which wage rates are increasing and we are confident that the massive measures we have taken to stimulate the economy will be increasingly successful, although they will take time to work their way through to employment.
  But experience throughout the life of the fund has shown how difficult it is to forecast what its future position will be. There is no hard and fast link between outgoings from the fund and the level of unemployment. I have already referred to the fact that expenditure is affected by age, length of service, rates of pay and so on, of those who become redundant, and the causes of redundancy are complex. Even in periods when new

  383
  employment opportunities are being created, other jobs may disappear through changes in the pattern of demand or in the organisation of industry or methods of production. For example, the mechanisation of the handling of goods and materials has done away with many unskilled portering jobs but has created fresh opportunities for skilled labour, such as forklift truck driving.
  Although our predecessors recognised the difficulty in the way of forecasting the future of the fund, this did not deter them from making various proposals for increasing the borrowing limits to figures short of £20 million, which they apparently hoped would be sufficient. As a result, no fewer than three borrowing orders had to be introduced within a period of 12 months. This does not seem to us to be a sensible precedent to follow. Given the difficulties of forecasting, we think the right thing to do is to increase the amount which the fund can borrow to the maximum figure of £20 million for the next two years. This does not mean that we think this figure will necessarily be reached or approached, but it will give us a reasonable degree of flexibility in administering the fund.
  For the time being we intend to rely on the proposed increase in borrowing power. We shall, however, continue to keep a close watch on the state of the fund with a view to putting forward proposals, should they be necessary, to bring the income and expenditure of the fund into balance by adjusting contributions.
  In conclusion, I should say something about the Redundancy Payments Scheme itself. As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been carrying out a review of the scheme. Before any decisions are reached about what changes, if any, should be made in the scheme, the Government consider it desirable that there should be full public discussion of the various issues involved. For this purpose my right hon. Friend proposes to issue a consultative document. This will examine how the scheme has operated in the light of experience, how far it has achieved its original objectives and whether changes are now required either in its objectives or in the means by which they are secured.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Walker: From this side of the House tonight we shall not oppose the order, nor shall I level much criticism at it, although there are several questions which we must put to the Minister of State to which we shall expect answers before the House approves the order.
  Before proceeding to those questions, may I say that I deeply deplore the failure of the Government to produce any account whatever of the Redundancy Fund since they took office. The most recently published account was that of November, 1970, relating to the financial year 1969–70. We have no statement either of the current state of the fund or of the income and expenditure for the year 1970–71 apart from that which we have heard briefly delivered orally this evening. This is a most regrettable state of affairs. It is tantamount to the hon. Gentleman coming to the House and seeking a blank cheque.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): No.
  Mr. Walker: The Under-Secretary denies that, but it is a bit much when the Minister of State asks us to approve the loan of £20 million to meet the requirements of a fund, details of which are not laid before the House and we have not had an opportunity to study them. I deplore and most strongly condemn the circumstances which make this order necessary.
  I agreed with the Minister of State when he said that there were a number of factors which influenced outgoings from the fund, such as age and pay levels and length of qualifying service, but there is not the slightest doubt that the overriding factor is the number of claims made on the fund, which means the number of persons made jobless. Another factor may be the demands made on the fund during periods of relatively stable employment. I am sure that no hon. Member can say that the order is not before us because of the sharp and almost unprecedented level of unemployment since the present Government took office.
  Mr. David Mitchell: And before.
  Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) wish to interrupt?
  Mr. Mitchell: I was rather taken aback by what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said and, therefore, I intervened from a sedentary position, for which I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I shall be able to reply to him when I seek to catch your eye later in the debate.
  Mr. Walker: That was a quick ride away. I await with interest the observations of the hon. Member if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not good enough for the Minister of State to try to suggest that the level of unemployment is not the significant factor operating here when during the lifetime of the previous Government, every time the then Minister brought a similar order before the House, his hon. Friends made precisely the same charge as I am levelling now. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this volte-face.
  For example, on 23rd July, 1968, when we had a similar order before the House—I readily acknowledge that—the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said:
  "The very fact that the total level of unemployment is rising means almost certainly that the numbers who are making claims upon the fund will rise; so there must be some link somewhere. I should be surprised if the high and, indeed, rising level of unemployment was not having a significant impact on the present state of the fund. One thing that they both have in common is that the accuracy of the forecasts by right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been miserably inadequate. I do not want to stray out of order, but forecasts have been made about the state of the fund and about the level of unemployment. Both have been proved wrong. I believe that there is a link between the two."
  The present Secretary of State for Employment, in winding up that debate for the Opposition, said:
  "The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the suggestion that the increases in redundancy payments have nothing to do with the unemployment figure. This must have something to do with it because, by definition—although, of course, the linkage is indirect—there must be some linkage between rising unemployment and, therefore, people losing their jobs, and the payments from this fund." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 363–4, 395–6.]
  Contrasted with the present level of unemployment which has risen as it has
  386
  during the last 18 months, the level of employment at the time of that debate was relatively static. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was speaking in an entirely different situation from the present dramatically changed situation. To try to pretend that the arguments then used by the Conservatives have no relevance today is a little too much to stand.
  The Minister of State went into some of the historical background of the fund. Every time the accounts of the fund have been discussed there has been ready acknowledgment of the difficulty of forecasting. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's readiness to refer to the difficulties when we remember that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer some eight months or so ago was prophesying that his measures would take approximately two months to work through the economy and to start to have an effect on the level of unemployment. We all know that month by month there has been yet another dramatic increase in the unemployment figures until we now have the catastrophic level of more than 1 million unemployed.
  I acknowledge the difficulty of forecasting, but surely experience over a period of time must provide some kind of yardstick. The pioneering years of the scheme which led to substantial revisions in 1968 and 1969 in respect of both contributions and rebates must have taught us something. In those days unemployment was running higher than the pattern in preceding years. I acknowledge that it was higher than when the original contribution and rebate level were established. But the adjustment that followed in 1968–69 seemed then to be certain to put the fund into substantial and continuing surplus for at least some years, even though we felt that the level of unemployment which then persisted was too high.
  It is important to point out that a Written Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) in col. 85 on 17th January, 1972, may be rather misleading, although I am sure not intentionally so. The answer then given by the Under-Secretary was that for the year 1970 there was a surplus in the fund of £2,754,000. I think that was the figure given by the Minister of State in his

  387
  speech this evening, but the statement of account of the fund for the year ending 31st March, 1970, shows an excess of income over expenditure of about £14·1 million. It may be that this apparent discrepancy arises from the use of different accounting periods being based on the usual financial year whereas the Under-Secretary's reply may well have related to the calendar year. The answer does not make the position clear.
  We have not been able to check the figures because, as I said earlier, the latest accounts have not been published and we are entirely dependent on the figures which were given a little earlier by the Minister. I should like the hon. Gentleman to qualify the situation. If he has adopted different periods for accounting purposes, perhaps in future he will feel it advisable to harmonise the accounting periods used by the political and accounting sections of the Department so that the answers to Questions are not, as in this case, completely devoid of meaning.
  I should like the Minister to shed a little light on the reference to the deficit for 1968 in the answer to which I have referred. We ought to know the precise period over which that deficit was incurred. Was it a deficit for that particular financial year or a cumulative deficit which carried forward the deficit from the previous year or years? Before approving the order, the House is entitled to have a clear picture of the administration and accounts of the fund placed before it. Despite the Questions which I have put to the Department, and having scrutinised such accounts as are available and listened to the hon. Gentleman tonight, such a picture seems as elusive as the pursuit of the Holy Grail.
  Mr. Bryan: Nonsense.
  Mr. Walker: The Minister says "Nonsense". I hope that later he will give me the clear picture which I am seeking. I shall readily acknowledge my error if he is right.
  By the absence of statements of account for the last financial year the Minister is offering the House a pig in a poke. Not only is there the difficulty of reconciling the Minister's answers to Written Questions on such accounts as have been published, but there are irreconcilable in-
  388
  compatibilities between the answers given by the Minister over a very short period.
  On 17th January, in answer to a Written Question, the Minister gave a table showing the numbers of persons who had received payments under the scheme each year since its inception. Yesterday, in answer to a further Written Question, he gave me a table of payments made each year to men and women. For the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 the number of persons receiving payments was substantially in excess of the number of men and women combined. Presumably the difference between these figures was accounted for by persons under the age of 21 who, by definition, are excluded from the tables for men and women but are still eligible for redundancy payments if they qualify.
  For the period from 6th December, 1965, to 31st December, 1966, we see the very opposite. The number of men and women combined is more than 1,500 in excess of the number of persons receiving payments. Will the Minister tell me who these non-persons were? There may have been an error. If so, it calls into question the reliability of the figures with which we have been presented.
  Again, contrary to the pattern which I described in the four years 1967 to 1970, the number of men and women who qualified for payments in 1971 exceeded by nearly 4,000 the number of persons given in the earlier reply of 17th January which the Minister of State has repeated tonight. But again tonight, as then, the hon. Gentleman said that the figure was provisional.
  The important point about this matter is that if the pattern of those previous years persists, a more realistic figure for the number of claimants during 1971 is not 369,000, which the Minister gave tonight, or the larger figure of 372,725 being the number of men and women together, which was given in the hon. Gentleman's Written Answer yesterday, but probably about 380,000, which is by far the highest number of people receiving redundancy payments in a year since the scheme started. It is a staggering increase on the preceding year and a 60 per cent. increase over the average for the duration of the scheme under the Labour Government.

  389
  This is a very sad and sorry indicator of the grief, misery and hardship that is being endured throughout the land as a result of the unemployment which stems directly from the Government's policies.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Shame.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman says "shame". He ought to talk to the 10 per cent. of the male workers in my constituency who are looking for jobs but cannot find them. He should talk to some of the 1 million-plus who are unemployed about whether they are suffering grief, misery and hardship and whether they believe, as I do and as all our people believe, that it is the direct consequence of policies pursued by the Government. It is the Government's failure to rectify the causes of unemployment which is directly responsible for this misery and suffering. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman or anyone on his side of the House to say "Shame" when they are presented with what are the hard, stark facts.
  Mr. Robert Redmond: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government have set out to create unemployment or that we on this side of the House are any less concerned than he is about the unemployment figures? The figures are not the result of the present Government's policies; they are rooted in the credit squeeze which began in July, 1966.
  Mr. Walker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the time when we left office and the trend of the figures since 1966.
  Mr. Redmond: Double.
  Mr. Walker: If the figures were plotted on a graph, the hon. Gentleman would see a remarkable and accentuatingly sharp upsurge in a curve resulting in the disastrously high level of today. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been when we have debated unemployment in the past few weeks, when it has been made clear beyond doubt—
  Mr. Redmond: I have been here.
  Mr. Walker: —that every reputable economist, every newspaper commentator and everyone on this side of the House believes that the causes of unemployment are the policies pursued by the Govern-
  390
  ment. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I can only tell hon. Gentlemen on the Government side that they are in a tiny minority and they ought to try to sell their argument to the unemployed. The reasons have been pointed out and I should be only too happy to reiterate them: the withdrawal of investment grants, the lame duck philosophy pursued by the Government, which has completely destroyed business confidence—
  Mr. Redmond: Have a go on S.E.T., too.
  Mr. Walker: —and the cuts in public expenditure. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) thinks that this is funny, but I have never thought that unemployment was a laughing matter.
  It may well be that redundancy payments and wage-related unemployment benefits have cushioned people who lose their jobs against the kind of hardship I saw and experienced at first hand in the 1930s, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the loss of a job is still the most grievous misfortune that can befall a working man and his family. Not only is financial hardship involved; the destruction of a man's morale and the blow to his spirit are desperately important matters. It ill behoves any hon. Member either to laugh at this or to treat the unemployed as a political football. When I say that I believe that the policies pursued by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have caused this unemployment, I believe that to be so. I also indict them for their failure to have the necessary policies to put the economy back in a direction in which unemployment would be reduced.
  I have referred to investment grants and the loss of business confidence. I was also referring to the cuts in public expenditure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to realise that for every £1 of Government expenditure that is cut, £1 is taken out of someone's wage packet. If one chops off sufficient pounds and if one chops off sufficient wage packets, one is chopping jobs. The man who loses his job does not have enough money to buy goods at the shop—
  Mr. Bryan: Oh, no—
  Mr. Walker: The Minister of State may not like it but I was led into this

  391
  argument by his hon. Friends who sought to repudiate my argument. By cutting expenditure we cut the jobs or people whose wages and salaries are represented by public expenditure.
  I pointed out to the Secretary of State as long ago as July that to bring about a short-term reduction in unemployment he should embark on a massive programme of public works, encourage local authorities and nationalised industries to bring forward their spending programmes and encourage nationalised industries and Government Departments to bring forward their capital programmes. Belatedly and in small measure the Government are doing this, months after it was urged upon them.
  It has been repeatedly argued on the Government side of the House that one factor leading to unemployment is the worsening of our competitive position because of increasing labour costs brought about by inflationary wage and salary settlements. I am an unrepentant believer in the need for a prices and incomes policy, but certainly not of the kind practised by the present Government and not necessarily of the kind practised by the Labour Government. We made mistakes, and I hope we shall learn from them. We grappled with the problem, but every time we tried to do something we were opposed almost without exception by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  If the Government want to put increased purchasing power into the economy without adding to wage and salary costs, let them give increases to those in greatest need who, because they are not in employment, would not add to wage and salary costs—the retirement pensioners and the chronic sick and disabled—instead of giving them supplementary benefit. Those people would spend every penny of it, unlike those who are in receipt of the surtax giveaways which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced last year. That would have a direct effect on purchasing power.
  I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was compelled to pursue that argument by the interventions, sometimes from a sedentary position, of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Bryan: Possibly also because of the lack of support from the hon. Gentleman's side of the House.
  Mr. Walker: I am not sure what that remark is intended to mean. My hon. Friends probably realise that I do not need support when I take on the hon. Gentlemen and his hon. Friends.
  To return to the issue before us, the Minister said that there was to be yet another consultative document from his Department on the future of the scheme. That answers the widespread Press speculation that the Government are contemplating changes in the scheme. Because of repeated allegations made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they occupied the Opposition benches, the Labour Government instituted a survey of the scheme. That survey was published in November, 1971. The Times pinpointed the essential features of the report on it on 17th November in a review of the Survey of the Effects of the Redundancy Payments Act, carried out for the Department of Employment and published by the Stationery Office.
  The Times said:
  "The basic findings of the survey are that the Act has had a beneficial effect on industrial relations and has broadly achieved its objectives. It has led to increased flexibility and mobility of labour … On a social level it has more or less correctly related payments to hardships …The report finds that the criteria used to determine the size of the lump sum payment are generally appropriate….The report appears to vindicate the philosophy behind the Act."
  While the scheme is not faultless, and there are anomalies that need to be rectified, it is wrong to look at the scheme itself for the difficulties that the fund is in and which give rise to the need for the order. Perhaps we should examine the fund's in-built tendency towards deficit, arising from contributions and payments being based on different principles. But neither that nor the need for a consultative document has anything to do with the need for the order. That arises entirely from the inept and maladroit policies that have produced over 1 million unemployed.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: When the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) started his speech I hoped that we should have a game of Parliamentary ping-pong tonight, but he

  393
  was induced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to go in for rougher fighting, which is not appreciated in the House at present. We always admire the hon. Gentleman's speeches, because of the steadfastness with which he has always supported his right hon. Friends through thick and thin.
  Mr. James Johnson (Kingston-upon-Hull, West): That is loyalty.
  Mr. Page: I will not be controversial and be led on by the hon. Gentleman to discuss the loyalty of Labour Members towards their former Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity at certain times during the "In Place of Strife" debate.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster tried to pull the legs of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. He said that they were adopting a different posture tonight from that which they had adopted on previous occasions. Having read with enormous entertainment, interest and admiration my own speeches on the two similar orders under the previous Government, I am happy to say that I shall be quite prepared to read them out from this side in the same way as I did then but with a difference, to which I shall come shortly.
  There have been three increases in the employers' contributions to the Redundancy Fund during the past six years. In 1969–70 the total figure was £51 million. I wonder what it is today. Perhaps it is £60 million; it might be more. The hon. Gentleman's chiding of the Government for not producing figures earlier comes ill from a former Under-Secretary at the Department concerned. He must have known when he left office that the figures would not be available until November of last year, in the traditional way in which the figures are produced. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should complain at the beginning of February of the following year about the slowness with which the figures are produced.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has said that I am complaining because figures which are normally produced in November are not available at the beginning of February of the following year. I think that that is a just cause for complaint.
  Mr. Page: I shall not go on with this argument. But it must have been clear to the hon. Gentleman when he was in office that the figures would not be produced before a certain date, and I do not see that he has grounds for complaining that they have not been produced in accordance with the schedule to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was committed at the time.
  1 am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not quote from my last speech on this subject when I said that the industrial milch cow might be becoming a bit dry because of the constant milking by the icy-fingered milkmaid from St. James's Square. We now have a milkman, but the fingers are just as icy and industry has as much cause to complain now about the amount being taken from it for employers' contributions to the Redundancy Fund as it had before.
  The welcome difference in the speech from the Treasury Bench tonight, in stark contradistinction to that which we heard when the previous Administration were in office, is that my hon. Friend has offered the country the hone of a complete restructuring of the Redundancy Payments Scheme.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster said jeeringly that there would be another consultative document. The new system of producing consultative documents in the case of value-added tax, training, and the Code of Industrial Practice has shown how extremely valuable these documents are. Had there been a consultative document on S.E.T. instead of an absurd bulldozer procedure, many of the idiocies which occurred could never have happened. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends not only for suggesting consultation but for suggesting genuine consultation.
  I feel that the order is inevitable, but we look forward with some avidity, keeping my hon. Friend on the graticules of our binoculars, to seeing the new scheme produced within a reasonable time.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: This is a remarkable occasion. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said that unemployment was a desperately important matter. I should not have drawn

  395
  that conclusion from looking at the empty benches on his side of the House. Not one Opposition Member has felt that a discussion of the operation of the Redundancy Payments Act warrants his being present to support the lonely figure of the hon. Member for Doncaster.
  Twice during the past seven days the Opposition have debated unemployment and attempted to censure the Government. When it comes to making party points the benches opposite are full but when there is an opportunity to come forward with constructive suggestions on a matter bearing on assisting affected persons no one other than the Opposition Front Bench spokesman who has been detailed to speak thinks it worth while to attend. I hope that this is borne in mind when some of the hollow phrases echo from those benches in future.
  The Redundancy Payments Act has been an effective Measure even though it is somewhat crude and rough. It is a perfect example of commonsense and general sentiment triumphing over the finer points of logic. It is also a fine example of a Government, and I give full credit to the party opposite for this, setting a trend, pointing a path, and the theme being taken up by industry, then refined, developed and shaped in the light of experience. My hon. Friend the Minister says that he will be issuing a consultative document. I hope that the Government will look at what industry has done to adjust and refine the protection of the redundancy payment provisions.
  Firms combine provision for age and length of service. The hon. Member for Doncaster said he thought the balance was right but I have never thought this and I do not feel it today. More emphasis should be placed on the difficulties of redundancy at a later age and if necessary, to achieve the right balance, there should be less emphasis on compensation for those made redundant in the prime of life when they have the best prospects of obtaining new employment. Many firms have introduced a special age supplement in addition to the statutory protection for those becoming redundant at or about the age of 60. I hope that the Government will look first at the possibility of being more generous in the provisions for those who, while they may
  396
  obtain further employment, are unlikely to be able to obtain it in occupations where they can sustain the level of earnings they had in firms where they had many years of service.
  I turn now to the rebate. The last Government placed enough impositions on industry and when they relieved the industry generally of the need to increase the redundancy levy this did not perhaps attract a great deal of comment. The thinking behind it was suspect. There are two situations in which firms declare employees redundant. The first, and we have seen a great deal of this in the last 12 months, is where a firm is still vigorous and prospering but is in the middle of a restructuring operation involving the closure of out-of-date plant or plant no longer situated in the most economic place for future operation. Those firms probably account for a substantial proportion of the redundancy payments but other firms declare employees redundant because they are facing a difficult time and reduced demand. I hope that if there are to be enhanced redundancy terms the payment will not fall on the firms directly concerned but will be met entirely from the general fund, because there is a case for looking with some suspicion at a reduction in rebate.
  I mention this for another reason. We are constantly searching for policies to assist the regions. A great deal of redundancy has taken place in the regions in the older industries which face substantial problems of employment and renewal. If the redundancy payments were carried generally by industry, that would have two effects. It would mean a modest measure of help to the regions and would encourage firms to make more generous provision in redundancy cases and would encourage them to an extent which should not be under-estimated.
  One final point. The £40 maximum for payments taken into account in applying the formula has remained unchanged since the inception of the scheme. Either it was too high then or is too low now. I have not looked up the figures but I suspect that average industrial earnings over this period have increased by one-half. The maximum when the Act was introduced was probably about double the average industrial earnings. It is no more than 33⅓ per cent. above average

  397
  earnings today. There must be a case for looking at this figure.
  I wish to refer briefly to the more general strictures of the hon. Member for Doncaster concerning the causes of unemployment. He made some indirect suggestions. May I suggest that at the conclusion of the debate he beats his solitary retreat from the Chamber and looks at a letter in The Times today by Professor Nicholas Kaldor, who says that there is no need to look for mysterious reasons why suddenly unemployment has grown. Professor Kaldor says that this is due to the absence of demand which is responsible for the unemployment levels of today.
  We do not have to look far for that absence of demand. It is attributable to two factors. First, it is the direct responsibility of the previous Government, which increased taxation to such a high peace-time level-taxation which the present Government have largely removed. Secondly, it was the explosion of industrial costs which have pushed up prices, engineered by the Labour Government in the mistaken belief that it would lead them to win the General Election. If any hon. Member wishes to learn the lesson in front of him, it is that overtaxation and cost inflation are the prime contributors to unemployment.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I listened with considerable care to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), who has been an assiduous attender at debates on this subject and who is now in the unhappy position of finding himself lacking the support he might reasonably have expected from the benches behind him. We join with him in his sense of difficulty in the position in which he finds himself.
  I listened with considerable pleasure to my hon. Friend the Minister of State in opening the debate, because before coming in for the debate I had some hesitation in supporting the Government in this matter in view of the things we said when we were in opposition and because of the Amendments we then moved to the legislation which is now in operation. I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to announce this evening that there has been some rethinking and that there will be a consultative
  398
  document, which no doubt it will be possible for the House to discuss.
  Two things must be borne in mind. The first is that payments out of the fund are in no way related to the loss incurred by the individual who makes a claim. He may be able to cross the road to a better job and collect a payment at the same time. Equally he may suffer severe loss and still receive the same payment. This does not seem an equitable basis on which to proceed with a scheme like this.
  I can give one example concerning a factory which was sold. A number of the employees were asked to travel 10 miles on a difficult journey to work at another factory owned by the same company. They agreed to do so. They continued to work for the same employer and did not have any call upon the fund. The rest of the employees remained working in the same job, in the same plant as before, but were now working for a new employer. They were therefore eligible for a payment. This is yet another example of the misuse of public money.
  We are entitled to ask for an assessment of how the scheme could operate in terms of the best value for money. It has many aspects which the Government are quite right to re-examine. The sort of scheme that was outlined yesterday in which money will be spent on retraining is a far better investment for the country than some of the ways in which money will be spent out of the additional funds that we are asked to vote this evening.
  I must respond to the invitation by the hon. Member for Doncaster when he spoke about unemployment and the 10 per cent. of his constituents who are unemployed. He suggested that it was a direct consequence of the Government's actions. I hope he will, to quote his own phrase, "look at the trends". I hope he will look at the direct relationship between the growth in the underlying productive potential of the country—something like 3 per cent. per annum —and the growth in demand which was achieved while his Government were in office. In 1968 there was a 5·6 per cent. growth in demand against a 3 per cent. increase in the underlying productive potential. In 1969 the growth in demand had sunk to 2·6 per cent. and in 1970 to

  399
  1 per cent., and in 1971 it has risen to 1·5 per cent.
  There is a clear trend back to 1968, when the Labour Government were in office, of a far lower level of demand than the increase in the productive ability of industry. With figures of this sort it was inevitable that there should be a growing level of unemployment. It is a deep-seated problem and to use cheap catcalls about its being the responsibility of the Government is beneath the normal stature of debate of the hon. Member for Doncaster and I am surprised to hear him do it.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Bryan: With permission, I should like to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), the one Member of the Opposition who has shown enough concern about redundancy to stay up to the late hour of ten o'clock to discuss what he has presumed to tell us is an important point—and he no volunteer, he a conscript. He is not in a strong position to lecture hon. Members on this side who have bothered to come here—I am the only conscript on this side, but I would be a volunteer anyway—about whether we are concerned about unemployment or redundancy.
  Mr. John Prescott: Then where was the Minister during the industrial relations debates?
  Mr. Bryan: I realise that the hon. Member is present but, having seen the subject for the Adjournment debate, I know why he is here.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Doncaster, I too thought, when I was preparing for this debate, that the accounts had been late in coming forward, so I looked up what had happened in the past. In 1966–67 they appeared on 27th February, the next year on 27th January and in 1968–69 on 4th February. When we came to office in 1969–70, they appeared on 24th November. This year we are somewhat behind but we are no later than the previous Government. I will see whether they can be produced earlier in the future.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Could the Minister give the House an example of our
  400
  Asking approval of a further loan without having previously made the figures available to the House?
  Mr. Bryan: I cannot produce that answer off the cuff.
  Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look into that one.
  Mr. Bryan: Certainly, but I do not feel in a weak position about this.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the deficits were cumulative or every year. He was referring to the Question of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). The figures in that answer, which are listed for the years 1966 to 1971, one after another, are the current deficits, on 31st December, of those respective years. The hon. Gentleman then showed discrepancies between figures. He seemed to be comparing provisional with final figures, but as there were so many I will go through them and put them on paper for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Walker: Is the Minister suggesting that the figures which I quoted for 1965–66 were provisional?
  Mr. Bryan: No, I am not claiming that, but in toto that is the general explanation of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. But these are not vital points.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the general increase in these figures was due to unemployment. Unemployment has of course increased in every year since the scheme was first introduced in 1964. But, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) discovered in the past, there is no exact mathematical relationship between unemployment and the Redundancy Payments Scheme. That was what the hon. Member discovered in 1968, when he asked the House for what we are asking for tonight: borrowing powers up to £20 million.
  With all the steps we have taken to try to bring down the unemployment figures, we are expecting a downturn in the coming months. Even then, however, it is sensible to say that one could have better unemployment figures and still have rising redundancy figures. As we have heard in the debates over the

  401
  past weeks, there are two kinds of unemployment—unemployment due to lack of demand and structural unemployment. There could be more activity, more employment and less short-time working together with, because of structural unemployment, an increase in actual redundancy at the time. Therefore, one's figure can go wrong—as well as policy, as the hon. Member's colleagues found when they were in power.
  Apart from all this, machinery and other factors come into the redundancy picture, which, as we have said before, led to the hon. Member for Sparkbrook coming to the House three times in 12 months asking for further borrowing powers. Each time he was more confident than the last that it was all he would require, except for the third time when he was rather less confident. He explained that there were too many variables to get an accurate figure. We were told not only that earnings went up but that age, length of service, the numbers of unemployed and structural changes all had an effect. Obviously we have learned from the experience of the Labour Government, and we have decided to get within ourselves and to have some room for manoeuvre.
  The hon. Gentleman rather sneered at the idea of a consultative document but we believe that the device or machinery, or whatever one calls it, of a consultative document is an extremely good one. We had a consultative document on the Code of Industrial Practice which we consider to be a great success, and that is what we shall say tomorrow. It produced a lot of advice and suggestions from all over the country and from all interests, except the party opposite, which did not care to take part. We believe that it is a great success.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must not say things which are not true. He says that my party chose not to take part in the consultative processes leading up to the Code of Industrial Practice, but my party was invited to do so only by a debate in this House, in which we obviously took a full part. If the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to look at my speech—it was a very good one—on that occasion, he would see that it was a catalogue of suggestions to his right hon. Friend, many of which, I am
  402
  delighted to say, are in the code of practice that his right hon. Friend has now adopted.
  Mr. Bryan: I remember the hon. Gentleman's very long speech.
  Mr. Walker: It was precisely the same length as the Minister's—exactly 30 minutes.
  Mr. Bryan: I do not think this is important. On this point, however, the trade unions decided not to take part in the consultative process. That is without doubt true, and as a large number of hon. Members who are interested on the Opposition benches are trade unionists, I do not think the hon. Gentleman can say that they took a full part.
  That is not what we are discussing, but to continue regarding the device of a consultative document we have today published a document on training which I believe will be a milestone in the history of training. We are shortly to get the consultative document on the Redundancy Payments Scheme and I believe that it will serve its purpose.
  Without doubt, the Redundancy Payments Scheme has its virtues but equally without doubt it is not perfect and can be improved. We have had valuable suggestions from my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), but not from the Opposition benches.
  When the consultative document comes out, it will open up the whole subject and we will have plenty to contribute, and I hope that there will be more than one hon. Member of the Opposition present to make a contribution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

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

HULL DOCKS
11.9 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: I begin this debate about the future of two docks in West Hull with a quote from the Hull Daily Mail of 21st January. It said:
"It was a sombre day for North Humberside yesterday. The shock announcement that there are now more than 10,000 people out of work in the area was grim enough, but it was not the only blow to befall Hull and its immediate neighbours."
On 27th January the leader said:
"What must puzzle many people is that this docks closure comes at a time when the country as a whole is being urged to prepare for entry into Europe. This, if it means anything at all, must be a tremendous challenge to those docks most likely to be affected by European imports and exports, of which Hull is preeminent."
On Thursday, 20th January, at 9.30 a.m., the Hull docks manager summoned some 80 gentlemen—port users, trade union officials and others—to see him and at 11 a.m. the bombshell burst upon them that the docks were expected to close by 31st March and there would be 200 redundancies. These would be among members of the N.U.R. —dock porters, loaders, shunters and others. The Hull Docks Board is having universal odium showered upon it all over the city. The situation calls into question the board's whole administration and management.
The able N.U.R. secretary, Mr. Tom Waddington, got in touch with me. The action taken by my colleagues and myself has been taken in consultation with the unions concerned, the N.U.R. and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. We have their full backing. I wish there had been the same sort of teamwork between the board and the unions as there has been between the National Coal Board and the N.U.M. over pit closures.
A leading Hull industrialist, Mr. Weekes, President of the Hull Association of Engineers, said:
"To the people who build ships at Goole and have to fit engines at William Wright Dock, Hull, closure of the dock would be most unfair. There should be collective discussion and much more notice given of any intention to close the William Wright and Albert Docks."
The Hull Chamber of Commerce, in much the same strain, said it was
404
"gravely concerned" about the planned closure. It explained its objections.
We immediately got in touch with the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, Sir Humphrey Browne, at Marylebone. He saw me and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The Minister said it was a matter for the board management. He added that he could not interfere with the board in anything it considered necessary to keep the docks viable. I do not accept this. I put down a Question to the Minister to which the answer was a monosyllabic "No". We were told by the chairman that the closing of two docks at some stage was inevitable since the modern Eastern docks had more than ample capacity. We got the usual bromides, for example that the closure was vital to the health of the port, and—another magnificent cliché—that no one a few years ago had contemplated the speed at which cargo handling methods would change.
To allay any fears in Hull, particularly in West Hull, about the fish dock, I am assured that the commercial docks administration is kept separate from the fish docks and that as far ahead as can be estimated there will be fish docks on both sides of the Humber.
We were told that the loss on the docks to be closed was £860,000 in 1970 and would be just over £1 million in the current year. To our dismay the chairman refused to give any more detail beyond stating that the closure of the Western docks would make economies of perhaps a £¼ million or £400,000. These docks represent £4 million in assets. It is scandalous that these modern, well-equipped docks should close on the west side of the city where there is easy access to the West and Yorkshire by means of the railway freight terminal and main highways. What puzzles union leaders, and of course Members of Parliament, is the nature of the financial and economic arguments which are advanced since we have been given no breakdown of the port's finances.
For example, what are the interest payments and total overheads? Do they amount to £1¼ million or £1½ million, as I have been told? What percentage is due to the East docks or the West docks? Without detailed figures any argument

405
or debate is completely phony, particularly as I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), who has allowed me to use his name, that Liverpool Members of Parliament are willingly given access to financial information by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
The docks board in Hull owns large areas of land. Why can it not sell some of the land to obtain money to pay off debts? In my constituency we have no land for building houses; we have to go to the east of the city to get land to house our people. A firm named Kinsey's has investigated the finances of the guildhall and the city. I wish that it could have a go at the docks and the Railways Board, which has a dead hand over Hull.
At a meeting of workers and port users, considerable criticism was voiced. The docks board set up a two-tier system whereby most things at the Humber Ports Association level are duplicated in the four Humber ports. The workers and port users criticised and charged the management with being completely ineffective in running Hull docks and for failure to secure traffic. The docks manager indicated that prices quoted to consumers for handling traffic at Hull were higher than anywhere else in the country except London.
The unions have found unusual allies at this time in that the industrialists and those who do business in the port have sent a telegram to the Prime Minister signed on their behalf by a former colleague. Mr. George Odey, a well known industrialist and a former Member of Parliament for Beverley. A storm of feeling has been aroused in the city. I ask the Minister to examine Hull's position again. He must surely know that future Humberside development is on the way if we are to enter the European Economic Community. Bearing in mind that his Government have given the go-ahead for the Humber bridge and for motorways linking with the M1, he must also bear in mind that there is a slump in world shipping. When we become more buoyant, as the Minister so often on behalf of his Government tells us we shall, we expect him to show this with reference to Hull. He must show this to maritime and commercial circles.
406
There is also the worsening of the further deadening impact on unemployment figures. In the light of this, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of suspending interest payments on Government loans. In any event, I ask him to intervene with the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board and to delay the closure until a thorough inquiry is made into the administration of Humberside docks.
Feeling in the docks amongst the workers is high. I am speaking of some of the most responsible unions in the T.U.C., including the N.U.R. and the T.S.S.A., but it would not take much to spark off industrial action. We therefore-expect the Minister to make a positive gesture and give an indication of the sort of action that he feels it is possible for him to take.
11.20 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The Conservative Government believe in efficiency and not in featherbedding lame ducks. They also believe in private enterprise. I think that the Government are right and tonight I am not asking for special help for the Hull docks, because I believe that they could and should be made to pay their way, but the present policy of the dock board is endangering many of the private enterprise firms which use the docks.
It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that about 10 years ago Hull was attracting trade from the London Docks because of London's continual strikes and inefficiency. I am sorry to say that since then owners have tended to avoid Hull because our docks have a bad reputation for labour relations. Futile one-day strikes may succeed in killing the Hull port, and these strikes have already in part been responsible for the decision to close two docks. I repeat that they will be responsible for killing the port if they go on.
But this is only one side of the story. There has also been inefficient management, and I will give three examples of what I believe illustrates this statement. It will be seen, therefore, that both sides have a responsibility for the possibly disastrous effects of the present policies on the Port of Hull, the third biggest port in the country.

407
First, I am informed that there are unused parts of the area of the docks the future of which we are debating, with derelict buildings and derelict railway sidings. I am told that offers have been made for these properties by local firms and that these have been rejected, probably owing to uncertainty about future planning. I believe that the loan charges already referred to could be offset by selling these properties, which could then be put to good use.
Second, I support what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said about the difficulty of obtaining financial information from the docks board. This difficulty is not conducive to good public relations or good relations with hon. Members of this House.
Third, there is the whole question of lack of consultation with the users of the port. As we have heard, the trade unions were not sufficiently consulted. The users were not consulted at all. This makes for the worst possible kind of public relations, especially when a decision to close the docks is announced without any consultation.
St. Andrew's is the fish dock which I know well as it used to be in my constituency before the redistribution. Here we see a good illustration of what I mean by inefficiency on the part of the docks board. Charges have risen, though this is perhaps not unusual. There has been very little modernisation of the fish docks. In fact, I am told that since 1954 only just over £500,000 has been spent on modernisation but that about £420,000 of that sum represents war damage repairs.
There has been very little future planning. The size of the lock gates determines the size of the trawlers that can use the dock, rather in the way that the size of the American fleet used to be determined by the ability of warships to go through the Panama Canal. The quayside is such that modern machinery cannot be used, because the quayside would fall in, and it is clear that there has been gross lack of planning and modernisation of these docks by the docks board. I am told that there has even been a threat to close these docks, but I have been glad to hear that this threat is null and void.
Mr. James Johnson: I want to make it clear, because this matter is bound to worry people and we do not want to make the people of West Hull scared, that what the hon. Gentleman is mentioning now is not a starter.
Mr. Wall: I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the Fisheries Committee on his side of the House and I am chairman on this side. Naturally we have personal interests in this matter. I am sure that if there were any foundation for the threat contained in the rumours which have been circulating, it could not have been carried out.
In the St. Andrew's dock the owners have offered to pay for a work study because they believed that the dock was inefficient and was losing money. This offer was turned down. Why? By allowing an impartial inquiry, the docks board could justify its increased charges. and demonstrate that it was being efficient.
I believe therefore that there is a case for saying that in the Hull docks as a whole there is inefficient management. It is clear that there are bad labour relations, and that there has been no consultation with port users or trade unions, that the Albert and William Wright docks constitute a major public utility and that there is grave local concern which cuts across party boundaries.
A telegram was sent to the Prime Minister, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I should like to quote the operative paragraph. It is signed by my constituency president, Mr. George Odey, a former Member of Parliament and prominent industrialist, and by my chairman, Mr. Robert Locking, a prominent solicitor in the area. They say:
"We urge you in the strongest possible terms to order a public inquiry into the administrative and financial position of Hull Docks to ensure the future prosperity of Hull as a port for Europe."
This is the note on which I should like to end: the future prosperity. We have the possibility of the closing of these two docks hanging over our heads and no assurance that the efficiency and administration of the docks board will improve. This uncertainty may spread to other parts of the port. I therefore believe that there is a strong case for a public inquiry. I know that a Select Committee of this House is to visit Hull in the near

409
future and that the Minister may feel that he should wait until that visit has taken place, but a Select Committee takes a long time to make its report and I do not believe that there is much time. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be a public inquiry within the shortest possible time.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. John Prescott: I will take no more than two or three minutes, because the Under-Secretary obviously has to reply to this important debate. I shall have to curtail what I had hoped to say, so I will restrict myself to one or two points only.
The first point that we want to get clear from the debate is that it is not inevitable that the docks will have to close. If they do, it will be the result of the financial policy which is being forced upon them: namely, that they must make a profit. That is the policy which the Government have put out. The Minister and I have debated this point before. In order to make a profit the docks must cover the interest charges. The Hull docks have made profits but they have not been able to cover the huge interest charges of over £1 million on the £25 million which has been invested in the last decade or so.
This creates a problem for a port like Hull, because it means making higher charges and competing with some of the smaller ports which do not have to cover the charges for the great amount of investment which a new port requires. For example, it costs only 17½p to unload a ton of grain in one of the small unregistered ports down the Trent compared with 60p in Hull. This presents a challenge to the policy of financial obligations which are placed on the nationalised industries.
We cannot seem to get any detailed financial information about these individual docks. We have approached the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board but he has told us that we cannot have the information. The Under-Secretary should stand up for the rights of Members of Parliament and demand to have the information which we require about this industry. I am blocking a British Transport Docks Board Bill which is before this House and will continue to do so until we get the information.
410
The Minister should ensure that the information about the costs involved and the alleged savings is made available to Members of Parliament. I hope that he will get on to the chairman of the board and tell him that we need that information.
My last point concerns the traffic fall. The unemployment level in Hull is so high that the unions face situations, though on a smaller scale, like Clydebank, Plessey and Fisher-Bendix in Liverpool. There comes a point, particularly when Hull is dying the economic death of a thousand cuts, when workers will say, "To hell with it; we will not accept it", and will pass a resolution, like that passed by the N.U.R., saying that they will not co-operate with the increasing closure of docks. I understand that view and support it. That seems the only way to force any sense into a Government who dictate this kind of financial policy, which is dedicated to the exaltation of profit but means 1 million unemployed, 10,000 of whom are in Hull. The workers and the unions in Hull will not accept it, and we shall do all we can to resist it and any other possible closure.
11.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): In many ways this is a sad occasion. It is sad because the subject of the debate is the possible loss of jobs by some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and because the two docks which are to be closed have meant a great deal to Hull. I have had a good deal of personal experience of those two docks.
The occasion is sad because in the 1950s and 1960s a good deal of public money was invested in the William Wright and Albert Docks in the hope that they would pay their way. But, alas, they have not done so, and the losses have continued to mount. It is sad, too, because of Hull's apparent failures to grasp the great opportunities that lie before it.
For me personally it is saddest of all because hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their speeches, have simply refused to recognise that the Port of Hull's salvation lies very largely in the hands of those who work there, whether in management or in the unions, and who have, alas, in too many cases, on both sides of the table, through

411
dispute and division, done themselves and the port no good.
Coming to the hon. Gentleman's speech, my first and most important point is that the decision to close the two docks is a matter for management. Parliament has set up the British Transport Docks Board as a statutory undertaking, and it is right that management should be left to the board. I emphasise that at the outset, because hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that the Government should intervene to prevent the closure of these docks. My right hon. Friend and I do not consider it right that we should intervene. Even if we did, we have no locus and no powers in law to do so. My right hon. Friend's powers under the Transport Acts—
Mr. James Johnson: Is the Under-Secretary saying that he has no powers whatever, even to ask the chairman of the board to delay any future closure?
Mr. Griffiths: We have no wish to intervene in the management's judgment of what is best for the port. We have no powers to tell the board how to run its business. I understand, too, that there are no powers in the local legislation affecting the Port of Hull that would have any bearing on such a question.
Warmhearted as always, the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the effect of the proposed closures on the men employed in these docks. I hope that he will accept that I am just as concerned as he is about present and future employment prospects, whether in Humberside, Bury St. Edmunds, or anywhere in the United Kingdom; nor is the British Transport Docks Board in any way lacking in recognition of the human problems involved. Indeed, before the main board in London reached its decision on Wednesday last, the matter had been very carefully considered by the local board in Hull, and the staff representatives were informed in advance of its proposals. No one has yet been given notice of termination of his employment, and, whilst it is true that about 200 docks board employees are likely to be affected by the decision, I understand that the board will do its utmost to deal with the redundancies, as far as possible, by voluntary severance arrangements, and that this will cover the port as a whole, so that all the redundancies need not—and, I sus-
412
pect, will not—be centred in these two particular docks.
The reasons for the closure are matters for management, but the board has been making increasingly heavy losses at Hull in the past seven years. In 1969 it lost £567,000; in 1970 it lost £830,000; and last year the losses are expected to have been about £900,000—not, as far as I am aware, £1 million. All this was in spite of efforts by the board to reduce costs and increase revenue. Therefore, the proposal to close these docks has not suddenly arisen. It results from a thorough review of the financial results of the facilities on the Humber as a whole, a review which has been going on for some years.
It is true that in the late 1950s and in the 1960s £3 million of further capital was invested in these two docks. In my view it is a great pity that that expression of confidence has not been justified in the events. The point has been reached at which the board has come to the conclusion that it is better to cut the mounting losses than to pursue further what now seems to the board to be the hopeless quest for adequate revenue on its past investment.
Hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who has intervened in the debate, have raised questions about the financial situation. I am bound to tell hon. Members opposite that there is annual publication of the accounts of the Hull docks in the accounts of the British Transport Docks Board.
Mr. Prescott rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I will not give way.
Mr. Prescott: But that is not sufficient information.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member must learn that when he leaves the Government spokesman with nine minutes to reply to an Adjournment debate, he will not get all the answers to his questions.
Mr. Prescott: Look deeper.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member would be wise to wait, and then he might listen and learn.
I was saying that the financial statement of the port is contained in the annual report of the docks board. The

413
new chairman of the board, Sir Humphrey Browne, is well aware of the problems of the industry as a whole and of the Port of Hull in particular and I am confident that he will reverse, if it is possible to do so, the disappointing trend that we have confronted.
I want to deal with some of the specific points that were raised concerning land. There may well be opportunities that need to be grasped and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that it is most certainly the policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries that in all the nationalised industries for which my Department has some responsibility we should encourage the sale of as much land as possible at a commercial price, in part to help the housing problems to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has referred and in part also to help the finances of the board.
Concerning the fish dock, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me, since this was not the main subject of the debate, simply to say that this is a rather special case. I am, however, glad that discussions are now under way between the management of the port and the British Trawlers Federation. I will keep my hon. Friend advised about all I learn on this subject.
I cannot leave this subject without saying that those who work in the Port of Hull, whether management or labour, have not helped themselves. There is the problem of surplus labour. This is a
414
very real problem. Within the Port of Hull a number of stevedoring firms have been driven out of business simply because they are not allowed, as the National Dock Labour Scheme now operates, to divest themselves of surplus labour.
It is equally the fact that the industrial troubles have made the port's financial situation very much worse. There has been a whole series of extremely damaging one-day stoppages arising from various disputes, and frequently these strikes have taken place without warning, doing unaccountable damage to the shippers and to foreign shippers in particular. In October, 1970, there were two one-day stoppages. In December that year and January, 1971, there were four separate one-day stoppages. In March and April last year there were other one-day stoppages—
Mr. Prescott: Why?
Mr. Griffiths: —and between May and July there were not fewer than 13 separate one-day stoppages in the Port of Hull. I am bound to say that this does not help to create a climate of confidence for the port's future.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Medical Social Work Service
  Medical Social Work Service
  Negative Income Tax (Effect on Benefits)
  Negative Income Tax (Effect on Benefits)
  Retirement Pension (Review)
  Retirement Pension (Review)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Coal Miners' Strike
  Coal Miners' Strike
  Hospital Boards (Population)
  Hospital Boards (Population)
  Benefits (Publicity)
  Benefits (Publicity)
  Pensions (Purchasing Power)
  Pensions (Purchasing Power)
  Hospital Boards (Complaints Procedure)
  Hospital Boards (Complaints Procedure)
  Child Resistant Containers
  Child Resistant Containers
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Drugs (Driving Ability)
  Drugs (Driving Ability)
  Pupil Midwives
  Pupil Midwives
  Hexachlorophane
  Hexachlorophane
  Paraquat
  Paraquat
  Elderly Persons (Pocket Money)
  Elderly Persons (Pocket Money)
  Invalid Vehicle Service
  Invalid Vehicle Service
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Mind Report Number Four
  Mind Report Number Four
  Widows and Deserted Wives
  Widows and Deserted Wives
  Bath Clinical Area
  Bath Clinical Area
  Cigarette Manufacturers (Sports Promotion)
  Cigarette Manufacturers (Sports Promotion)
  Supplementary Benefit Rent Allowances
  Supplementary Benefit Rent Allowances
  Health Service Ombudsman
  Health Service Ombudsman
  Humberside (Hospital Administration)
  Humberside (Hospital Administration)
  Dispensing by Medical Practitioners
  Dispensing by Medical Practitioners
  Cytology
  Cytology
  Huntingdon County Hospital
  Huntingdon County Hospital
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Private Practice in Hospitals (Bad Debts)
  Private Practice in Hospitals (Bad Debts)
  Restaurants (Hygiene)
  Restaurants (Hygiene)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Retirement Pensioners (Overseas Residence)
  Retirement Pensioners (Overseas Residence)
  Northern Region (Supplementary Benefit)
  Northern Region (Supplementary Benefit)
  Home Helps (Greater London)
  Home Helps (Greater London)
  Chrysler, Linwood (Dispute)
  Chrysler, Linwood (Dispute)
  National Insurance Commissioner (Appeal Cases)
  National Insurance Commissioner (Appeal Cases)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Benefits (Total Cost)
  Benefits (Total Cost)
  Private Insurance Schemes (Cash Benefits)
  Private Insurance Schemes (Cash Benefits)
  Milk and School Meals
  Milk and School Meals
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Surgical Procedures
  Surgical Procedures
  Pyschiatric In-Patients (Pocket Money)
  Pyschiatric In-Patients (Pocket Money)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Orange Juice
  Orange Juice
  National Dried Milk
  National Dried Milk
  National Health Service Reorganisation (Wiltshire)
  National Health Service Reorganisation (Wiltshire)
  Geriatric Beds (Southampton)
  Geriatric Beds (Southampton)
  >Injury Benefit (Earnings)
  >Injury Benefit (Earnings)
  Pre-School Children (Milk)
  Pre-School Children (Milk)
  False Sickness Benefit Claims (Convictions)
  False Sickness Benefit Claims (Convictions)
  Poor Persons (Life Expectation)
  Poor Persons (Life Expectation)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Staff)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Staff)
  Industrial Disputes (Supplementary Benefit)
  Industrial Disputes (Supplementary Benefit)
  Disabled Living Foundation
  Disabled Living Foundation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Thames Flood Barrier (House of Commons Display)
  Thames Flood Barrier (House of Commons Display)
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Road Improvements
  Road Improvements
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax
  Construction Industry (Uncertificated Sub-contractors)
  Construction Industry (Uncertificated Sub-contractors)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  National Economic Development Council (Incomes Policies)
  National Economic Development Council (Incomes Policies)
  >European Economic Community
  >European Economic Community
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Assembly on Unemployment
  Scottish Assembly on Unemployment
  >Curriculum (Consultative Committee)
  >Curriculum (Consultative Committee)
  Housesing Completions
  Housesing Completions
  State Public Houses (Gretna)
  State Public Houses (Gretna)
  Inshore Fishing Vessels
  Inshore Fishing Vessels
  Teachers (Lanarkshire)
  Teachers (Lanarkshire)
  Water and Sewerage Services
  Water and Sewerage Services
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  National Coal Board (Discussions)
  National Coal Board (Discussions)
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Labour Costs
  Labour Costs
  Wales (Public Expenditure)
  Wales (Public Expenditure)
ENVIRONMENT
  Toxic Materials (Disposal)
  Toxic Materials (Disposal)
  Sports Council (Chairman's Remuneration and Duties)
  Sports Council (Chairman's Remuneration and Duties)
  Smoke Levels
  Smoke Levels
  Hersham (Bypass)
  Hersham (Bypass)
  Esher (Bypass)
  Esher (Bypass)
  Pollution (Penalties)
  Pollution (Penalties)
  Unemployment Alleviation
  Unemployment Alleviation
  Bolton (Grants)
  Bolton (Grants)
  Docks (Closures)
  Docks (Closures)
  M.V. "Germania"
  M.V. "Germania"
  Technological Material (Preservation)
  Technological Material (Preservation)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Weighbridges)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Weighbridges)
  Construction Industry (Productivity)
  Construction Industry (Productivity)
  Transport, Wales (Public Expenditure)
  Transport, Wales (Public Expenditure)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Central Heating (Eligibility for Grant)
  Central Heating (Eligibility for Grant)
  Police (Form Stats 19)
  Police (Form Stats 19)
CIVIL SERVICE
  School Fees Grants
  School Fees Grants
  Car Parking
  Car Parking
EMPLOYMENT
  Imperial Smelting Corporation, Avonmouth
  Imperial Smelting Corporation, Avonmouth
  Wales
  Wales
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Hamilton, Blantyre and Larkhall
  Hamilton, Blantyre and Larkhall
  North-West
  North-West
  Bolton
  Bolton
  Factories Act, 1961 (Prosecutions)
  Factories Act, 1961 (Prosecutions)
  Foundries (Prosecutions)
  Foundries (Prosecutions)
  Highly Flammable Liquids Regulations
  Highly Flammable Liquids Regulations
  Newham
  Newham
  PRIME MINISTER (LETTERS)
  PRIME MINISTER (LETTERS)
  COALVILLE
  COALVILLE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Publications
  Publications
DEFENCE
  Military Aircraft Training Areas
  Military Aircraft Training Areas
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education Students
  Higher Education Students
  Halifax (Schools)
  Halifax (Schools)
  Local Education Authorities (Quota)
  Local Education Authorities (Quota)
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Married Women Students (Grant)
  Married Women Students (Grant)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licence Fees (Northern Ireland)
  Television Licence Fees (Northern Ireland)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisons (Special Security Wings)
  Prisons (Special Security Wings)
WALES
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Paediatric Services
  Paediatric Services

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

THE ASTRONOMER ROYAL
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: 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 propose to appoint an Astronomer Royal to succeed Sir Richard Woolley.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the appointment of the Astronomer Royal is the prerogative of Her Majesty the Queen. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is considering what recommendation to make to Her Majesty.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl will give an assurance that this very distinguished office, which goes back 300 years and the distinction of which has been well maintained by Sir Richard Woolley, will not be abolished? Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to divide the two offices of Director of the Greenwich Royal Observatory and the Astronomer Royal? If this is so, who is going to responsible for the Nautical Almanack?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I take new note of the last supplementary question put to me, and I will revert to it later in correspondence with my noble friend. In fact, Her Majesty the Queen approved in July of last year that the posts of Astronomer Royal and Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory should in future be regarded as separate appointments. But this does not mean that they cannot be held by one and the same person, male or female, as the case may be. Nor does it imply any downgrading of the post or of the staff associated with
664
it. There is no intention of abolishing the historic office of Astronomer Royal which, curiously, my researches show has been held by only 11 people, all very distinguished in the last 300 years. There is nothing which precludes its being held by a woman—and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has taken due notice of what I have just said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was smiling because it is so unusual for any Minister to qualify a statement of this kind in this way—I think it is rather refreshing. Perhaps it is a result of "Women's Lib.".

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT CONFERENCE
2.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to secure the widest representation at the Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm in June.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, on December 20 the United Nations General Assembly decided by an overwhelming majority that participation in the Stockholm Environment Conference should be open to Member States of the United Nations system. In order to ensure the widest possible representation. Her Majesty's Government and other Western Governments have stated their willingness to see countries outside the United Nations system participate at working level.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that Answer very much, may I ask whether there is not a great danger that this tremendously hopeful Conference to deal with pollution, world-wide, may be hindered in its representative character by the earlier decision to exclude East Germany while West Germany was allowed as a full member? Would the Minister say what steps are being taken to remedy this position, and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the

665
initiative in representing it at the next General Assembly whose present resolution excludes East Germany?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, we all agree that we want this Conference to take place and to succeed, and we naturally hope to see the widest possible representation at the Conference. I think that the feeling behind the United Nations resolution, in so far as it affected the East German Government, was that to afford full Government status at this moment to East Germany might prejudice the negotiations going on between the two parts of Germany with regard to a more suitable modus vivendi in the future. I need not tell the noble Lord that this resolution was adopted by an enormous majority—something over 100, I believe, were in favour of it—and it was only the Eastern bloc who raised this rather political matter. Nevertheless, we hope that this will not prejudice in any way the success of the Conference.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, did it not become a political matter as soon as the Federal Republic of Germany was admitted, solely on the grounds that she was a member of one of the Specialised Agencies although not of the United Nations itself? Has not the noble Marquess seen the suggestion put forward in some quarters that this problem could be resolved quite simply by admitting the German Democratic Republic to one of the United Nations Agencies, such as the International Atomic Agency, which would bring her within the terms of this resolution? May I ask him to use his good offices to see that this is done before the Conference is wrecked?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said on this matter. Naturally, we do not want to see the Conference fail. Personally, I do not think it is likely to be wrecked, but I will certainly take note of what he has said.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his second reply is much less reassuring than his first reply, because it indicates that the difficulties are still continuing? In view of the fact that if the problem of world environment is to he dealt with it must be by some agreement between East and West, as it
666
affects the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Caspian, will Her Majesty's Government give us an assurance that they will do everything in their power to overcome the present difficulties for which they have some responsibility as sponsoring the General Assembly resolution?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly note what the noble Lord has said in this regard. I do not think that the difficulties are those made either by Her Majesty's Government or by the majority of the members of the United Nations. I think such difficulties as there are in this matter—and I recognise that there is a problem —have been raised by the Eastern bloc. I hope that perhaps they may be able to see how important it is that this Conference should succeed and that any difficulties may be ironed out.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, this country is equally wrong when it agrees with the majority of the United Nations as when it is in a minority?

THE CASE OF MISS PAULINE JONES
2.45 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: 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 take steps to secure that Miss Pauline Jones be released from prison and given medical treatment.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary obtained full medical reports about Miss Jones but was unable to find grounds which would justify him in interfering with the sentence which the court thought it right to impose. He has, however, arranged for her to be transferred from Holloway to the open prison at Askham Grange. She is receiving all the medical attention she needs.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I think the Home Secretary has acted perfectly correctly in transferring Miss Jones to

667
an open prison, but is it not a fact that many psychiatrists disagree with the advice which has been tendered, that Miss Jones should he kept in prison for the remainder of her sentence? In the wholly exceptional circumstances of this case, would not the noble Lord make representations to his right honourable friend that a further review with other psychiatrists should be undertaken so that Miss Jones could be released and given proper medical treatment in a hospital and not in a prison?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Home Secretary did take a second opinion on this matter just before Christmas from a distinguished psychiatrist. The report he received was that Miss Jones was not mentally unfit for imprisonment and that there was no reason to suppose that any psychiatric attention she required would not be available to her in prison.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I ask three supplementary questions relating to this sentence, to which I want to know the answers? First, was Miss Jones in receipt of social security payments during her sojourn with the baby in Hull? Secondly, is it true that she was planning to take the baby abroad and, if so, who was financing the expedition? Thirdly, if she was in receipt of social security benefit, would it be possible to recoup those payments from the very large sum of money which Miss Jones will receive on leaving prison for her serialised, "ghosted" story in the News of the World or the People?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have taken note of those questions and will provide the answers for the noble Baroness. But I think she will accept that they do not arise out of the Question put on the Order Paper by the noble Lord.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, has just said, is it not a fact that the administration of justice is sometimes shown to be startlingly lacking in imagination? While we must never forget the agony of mind through which the parents of this baby must have gone, nevertheless are there not characteristics of this case which are in common with the case of
668
Ruth Ellis who was executed some years ago, when it seemed to many of us that justice had been very severe and unimaginative?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Home Secretary is not a further court of appeal, and it would be wrong for him to allow himself to be drawn into reviewing the decision of the court in this case. There was an appeal. The Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, reviewed all the evidence and no new evidence has since been brought forward. It would not be right for the Executive to interfere with sentences passed by the courts.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us—I think most people—will understand the emotional disturbance of this girl that made her commit the offence for which she has been imprisoned? We understand that there is some difficulty if the medical advice given to the Home Secretary is such that he is diffident about releasing her, but is the Minister aware that those of us who have visited Askham Grange think that in sending Miss Jones there the Home Secretary has gone as near as possible to releasing her? Is he aware that the women at Askham Grange are allowed tremendous facilities to go out to work and to live a normal life, and that the experiment carried out there has proved very successful?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I hope that the relaxed atmosphere at the open prison at Askham Grange will be helpful to Miss Jones and that she will receive guidance and training while she is in the prison. There are minimum physical restrictions placed on the liberty of women in open prisons.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I do not disagree with the decision of the Home Secretary in this case because I think of the anguish and the terrible time that the mother went through when her child was stolen?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Government are pleased to have support from whatever quarter of the House it may come.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, if the Home Secretary were to release Miss Jones, thus taking her away from the

669
psychiatrist at Askham Grange, is there any way in which he could ensure that outside prison Miss Jones would undergo any medical treatment?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is another point. As I have explained, the Home Secretary does not feel that it would be right for him in the circumstances to order the release of Miss Jones.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standards of the hospital at Holloway Prison are second to none in this country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is true that, while the physical conditions of Holloway Prison leave much to be desired—and that is the reason why it is being rebuilt—there are four medical officers at Holloway, two of whom are qualified psychiatrists and all four of whom have recognised psychiatric experience.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, further to the noble Baroness's question, may I ask whether anybody has actually asked Miss Jones whether she would be willing to accept treatment on a voluntary basis if she were released from prison? May I ask the noble Lord to make it clear to the House that the only purpose served by keeping Miss Jones even in an open prison is the purpose to which attention has been drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton; namely, retribution?
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is not right, my Lords. The noble Lord really has not followed the debate and all the public discussion if that is the impression that has been left in his mind. The Home Secretary has—and everyone, I think, has given him credit for this—been into this case personally with the greatest care, including taking a second medical opinion. But he has made it quite clear that it would be wrong for him, in an arbitrary act because of the amount of public interest that has been shown in the case, to set aside a sentence passed by a court of law. That is not a proper function for a Minister of the Crown.

CONTRACEPTIVES AND VENEREAL DISEASE
2.52 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 have warnings against venereal diseases printed on all packets of contraceptives having regard to the alarming rise in incidence of venereal disease.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, we have given careful consideration to this interesting suggestion. We have decided on balance that it would not be right, as there is no evidence of any direct relationship between the use of contraceptives generally and venereal disease.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I regret the fact that the Government are not prepared to accept this practical suggestion of mine, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have any alternative scheme calculated to warn young people—and it is mostly young people to-day who are becoming infected—of the danger of this disease?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. A good deal is going on. It is the responsibility of the Health Education Council nationally and local health authorities locally. There is a good deal of general propaganda and the Health Education Council are shortly to run an intensive six months' campaign in two London boroughs, Lambeth and Wandsworth, which we hope will give guidance in the most effective way of conducting these campaigns. Quite apart from that, we are improving staffing and facilities at hospital special clinics, improving methods of contact tracing and doing research.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that time is the very essence of this exercise? There were 150 fresh cases of

671
venereal disease in 1970 and this is a transmissible disease, so that each case could infect half a dozen others.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are pursuing this matter very actively. I suggest to the noble Baroness that perhaps the most effective way is through contact tracing.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to see that steps are taken in the training of doctors, and also in the hospitals and the medical profession as a whole, to raise the whole status of those who are experts in these diseases? I think the noble Lord will find that at the present time the status of doctors specialising in these diseases is not ranked very high.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think there is a good deal in what the noble Lord says. The training of doctors comes under another Department, the Department of Education and Science; but I will certainly see that his remarks are taken into account.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I correct a mistake that I made? I am told that I said there were 150 fresh cases in 1970. This, I am afraid, is wishful thinking. There were in fact 150,000 fresh cases in 1971.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I again correct the noble Baroness? There were in fact 53,617 cases.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that on the side of treatment—and I very much welcome what he has just said about increasing the staffing at the much overloaded clinics—the problem that has to be faced is that, as compared with ten years ago, double the number of new cases are now coming along to clinics in our hospitals?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. That is the reason why we are increasing the staffing. We have already authorised 10 new senior registrar posts, 14 new registrar posts and 2 additional consultant posts.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that television is the right place to put across a campaign of this sort?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that the Health Education Council will consider that sugegstion.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is it not a fact that the only type of contraceptive which is normally sold in packets is itself a fairly good safeguard against venereal disease?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is certainly true, and it is one of the reasons why we did not feel able to accept the noble Baroness's suggestion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether both he and the noble Baroness have the information about contraceptives that I have? Is he aware that condoms are sold in packets? I agree with the noble Baroness that they are much safer. But, of course, pills are sold in packets, and pills are highly dangerous. An expert on the subject, Dr. Morton, the adviser to the World Health Organisation (I am sure the noble Lord has read what he said), has said that the pill has been more dangerous to the world than thalidomide.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think we are rather getting on to another subject. I have read Dr. Morton's book. The dangers of the pill are something quite different from venereal disease.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me, but we are thinking in terms of danger to health and danger to welfare. When thalidomide came to the world, men, women and children were shocked at the results. But the contraceptive pill is much more widespread and, in consequence of this, there is much greater danger of contracting venereal disease, because the contraceptive pill does not in the first place provide any protection, as the condom does, but nevertheless it also invites promiscuity.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that even the noble Baroness will allow that the vast majority of people who use contraceptive devices are married or are in a perfectly stable relationship and in no danger of contracting venereal disease.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that young women use contraceptive pills?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, very well aware: and also aware that many do not.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, has any thought been given to the form of words that would be used in this warning? Would it be a closely reasoned medical argument, or something precise and pragmatic like, "Buy me and stop one !"?

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., be making a Statement on the independent Inquiry into the events at Londonderry last Sunday.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is making a Statement in another place on industrial training. It has been agreed, through the usual channels, that it would be for the convenience of the House if this were not repeated here but were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which, with the leave of the House, I will arrange to have done.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"I have published today a document entitled Training for the Future: A Plan for Discussion. This sets out the Government's plans for implementing its commitments to expand the facilities for retraining together with the results of my promised review of the work of the Industrial Training Boards.
"The Government has decided to introduce a Training Opportunities Scheme which will bring in a massive expansion of Government sponsored training for individual men and women. In 1970 the number of people receiving training of this kind was less than 17,000. Training for the Future announces that this will be raised to 100,000 a year as quickly as possible and as a first step to at least 60–70,000 by 1975. I recognise that to achieve this expansion we shall need determined action to provide the necessary facilities and also to inform people of the new scale of opportunities open to them and of the benefits of taking advantage of the new scheme.
"Training for the Future also reports the conclusions of the review of the work of the
674
Industrial Training Boards. The Boards have great achievements to their credit in changing the attitudes of industry to training and in raising the standard of training generally. We need to build on what has been achieved but we must also recognise and acknowledge the defects in the system and seek to remove them.
"For this purpose it is proposed that while compulsory levy/grant should be phased out after 1973, the Industrial Training Boards should in general be retained in order to concentrate on the development of their work in the identification of particular training needs of their industries, the setting of standards and on the provision of advisory services. This proposal is in line with the direction already being taken by a number of the Boards.
"It is further proposed to establish an agency to co-ordinate the work of the Boards and to fill the gaps in the present system. This agency would be given funds of the order of £25–40 million a year to provide advisory services and grants in order to stimulate key training to meet national needs—for example, training to meet the shortfall in the apprentice intake last summer and to provide any support which may be necessary for activities such as group training schemes and off-the-job training of apprentices and technicians.
"Since it will he necessary to unify responsibility if we are to achieve as quickly as possible the 100,000 target on Government sponsored training and since the training plans and programmes of employers and Government also need to be looked at as a whole and closely co-ordinated, it seems sensible to make the agency responsible for both sectors. It is therefore proposed to establish a National Training Agency which will he hived off from my Department.
"I should like to make clear the status of this document. The expansion of Government sponsored training which the document announces represents a firm decision with which the Government is proceeding urgently. The proposals relating to the future role of the Training Boards and the establishment of a single National Training Agency are, however, for consultation on the widest basis.
"The Government intends to introduce such legislation as may be necessary to implement these proposals in the next Session of Parliament. The document therefore asks all those who wish to comment to do so not later than the end of May so that this timetable can be kept.
"We believe that the programme contained in this document will ensure the supply of trained manpower which is vital if this country is to achieve sustained economic growth—growth that is of particular importance both in terms of regional policy and of our forthcoming entry into Europe. Training has a strong social purpose, too, for it gives people a chance to improve their economic prospects and to achieve greater satisfaction as they progress through their working lives.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill, to make illegal, and provide for the prevention of, discrimination on grounds of sex; to establish an anti-discrimination board; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 1ª,—(Baroness Seear.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
3.0 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the membership of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be reconstituted as follows:

M. Cholmondeley,

E. Alexander of Tunis,

E. Dundee,

E. Dundonald.

L. Privy Seal (E. Jellicoe),

E. St. Aldwyn,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Hood,

V. Massereene and Ferrard,

L. Aberdare,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Brooke of Cumnor,

B. Brooke of Ystradfellte,

L. Byers,

L. Champion,

L. Conesford,

L. Denham,

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Fiske,

L. Gardiner,

L. Granville of Eye,

L. Hawke,

L. Henley,

L. Hilton of Upton,

L. Hunt,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Inchyra,

L. Ironside,

L. Kennet,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

676

L. Maybray-King,

L. Nugent of Guildford,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Orr-Ewing,

B. Phillips,

L. Popplewell,

L. Reid,

L. Robertson of Oakridge,

Ly. Ruthven of Freeland,

L. Sainsbury,

B. Seear,

Ly. Sempill,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strang,

B. Summerskill,

L. Trefgarne,

L. Wade,

L. Wells-Pestell,

with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why it is necessary to have 54 people on the Offices Committee of the House of Lords? Will he say what the quorum is? Further, would he tell us the function of the Committee? Finally, is he aware that I am very jealous that my name is not on the membership list?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that question, to which I know there is a perfectly good answer, may I ask him whether, following the decision of the House on the earlier Procedure Committee Report, this is another of the reconstituted Committees, so that while once again a number of valuable noble Lords have, unfortunately, had to stand down after having rendered yeoman service, equally, we have gained a number of valuable noble Lords on the Committee? I hope that my surmise is correct.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, for their comments. The size of the Offices Committee is large, but the House decided, on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in December, to make no substantial reduction in the Committee's present size, the reason being that this Committee deals with the domestic affairs

677
of the House, such as improvements in facilities and accommodation. These are matters which require a Committee that represents every quarter of the House. That accounts for its large size.
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, says that he would be willing to serve on the Committee. May I point out to him that nominations for this Committee are made through the usual channels, and I hope that he will take a future opportunity to draw the attention of the usual channels to his willingness to serve. My reply to the point raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is that this Committee has been reconstituted in accordance with the decision of the House in December, and account has been taken of the need for a regular turnover in the membership of the Committee. For this purpose 14 senior members of the Committee have retired, and I should like, on behalf of the Committee and I am sure of the House, to express my thanks to those members who have retired after serving the House on this Committee for a number of years. A total of 11 new members have joined the Committee. In that way we are succeeding in getting a turnover in the membership of this important Committee.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the noble Earl permit me to ask one other question; namely, is he sure that all 54 Members will be able to be accommodated in the Moses Room on Thursday afternoons?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, my Lords.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, perhaps it should be pointed out that although this is a large Committee it is divided into a number of sub-committees for specific purposes, and that these subcommittees—the Refreshment Committee, the Library Committee, the Accommodation Committee, and so on—report to the Offices Committee from time to time and do excellent work.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would not the noble Earl the Lord Chairman agree that the size of this Committee means that it cannot be efficient? It is not a Committee; it is a mass meeting.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I remind the noble Lord that it is a matter for
678
the House to decide what it regards as being the right size for this Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY CINEMA BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES BILL
3.4 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. As I informed your Lordships on December 6 last, the Government have accepted the recommendations made in the Report of the independent Review Body which was constituted under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, regarding the salaries to be paid to Ministers of the Crown and the holders of remunerated offices in both Houses of Parliament. In doing so they had very much in mind what the Review Body said in paragraph 121 of their Report. I feel I should remind your Lordships of the precise language of this part of the Review Body's Report. It was as follows:
"We have been conscious of the declared intention of the present Government to implement our proposals unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. We have regarded this as placing on us an added responsibility to keep our recommendations for increases and improvements to the absolute minimum which we consider to be necessary. It is in our view of the highest importance that these recommendations both as they affect salaries and allowances should now be implemented as a whole and in full."
The measure now before your Lordships' House gives statutory effect to the recommendations of the Review Body regarding the salaries to be paid to Ministers, including the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the Law Officers, the Speaker in another place, the Government Whips and the Opposition Leaders and Whips in both Houses. The salaries of the other paid office-holders will be adjusted in line with the Review Body's recommendations, but this will not be done by specific legislation.
Before drawing the attention of your Lordships to a number of particular points, I should like to invite your Lordships to join with me in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his

679
colleagues on the Review Body, two more of whom—the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—are Members of this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as she was only recently appointed, did not take part in any of the substantive discussions which led to this particular Report of the Review Body. The nature of this Report shows clearly the care and thoroughness with which the Committee approached a task that was not only difficult but also delicate, and the sound basis upon which they have founded their recommendations. I say in all sincerity that we are deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and the other members of the Review Body.
The salaries provided for in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill are those recommended in Chapter 8 of the Boyle Report. In this connection there may be one point of particular interest to this House: it concerns the salary of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Whereas in the past an element of £4,000 in the salary of the holder of this office has been paid in recognition of his functions as Speaker in your Lordship's House, the Review Body considered that in present circumstances this might more appropriately be determined at £2,500. While it is of course the whole salary that is important, I understand from my noble and learned friend that this recommendation of the Review Body is fully acceptable to him.
The present salaries of those included in this measure were introduced in 1965, some seven years ago, following the Lawrence Committee's Report. The Review Body have, however, recommended, and the Government have accepted, that there should in future be major comprehensive reviews once in the lifetime of each Parliament of normal length. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this more regular, and, in my view at least, more realistic arrangement, which is less liable to give rise to embarrassment.
In the past, revisions in the rates of remuneration of Ministers, and the majority of paid office-holders in Parliament, have been effected by specific legislation and this is the case on this occasion. Provision is made in Clause 1(4) of the Bill to enable future changes in these
680
salaries to be dealt with by Order in Council. I think myself that the simpler procedure is right. At the same time, I can assure noble Lords that since the Order in Council will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure the opportunity for Parliamentary supervision in this area will not be prejudiced by this move away from primary legislation.
Perhaps I should mention another feature of this Bill which your Lordships may find of interest. This is the first Schedule, which usefully simplifies and brings up to date the structure and number of Ministerial Offices. Apart from the Law Officers, who stand in a very particular position, the Bill in effect identifies three tiers of Ministerial Office. In the top tier are the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. All of them, with the one exception of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, are now either of the rank of Secretary of State or holders of one of the traditional Offices, like my own, which may or may not carry with them some particular Departmental responsibility. This situation, which has come about with the emergence in recent years of a small number of very large Departments each headed by a single Secretary of State, suggested that the present tight limit of nine put on the number of Secretaries of State who can be paid is no longer realistic. The Bill imposes an upper limit of nineteen, not including my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, on the number of Ministers who may be paid at the top level appropriate to Cabinet Ministers. This gives a head room of three, if necessary, over the size of the present Cabinet in the present Administration. Within the total of nineteen there is considerable flexibility in the number of Secretaries of State who may be appointed.
The second tier contains a range of Ministerial Offices with varying degrees of responsibility, and this is reflected in a band of salaries. The Offices contained in this group are the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who heads a politically important and sensitive Department which, because it is a small organisation, is not separately represented in the Cabinet, and the various posts within the large Departments where a Minister is given special responsibility

681
for a large and important block of work. Examples of this kind are my right honourable friends the Ministers for Trade and for Transport Industries. The second tier also includes Ministers of State who do not have control over complete blocks of work but exercise a more general function of assisting the head of their Department politically and of taking charge of particular responsibilities with which they may be entrusted. The group also includes the holders of the old Offices and the Chief Secretary (when they are not in the Cabinet), the Government Chief Whip in another place and the Financial Secretary.
Then there is a third tier of work: the Parliamentary Secretaries and the Government Whips in both Houses. A useful and welcome change here is that it will be possible in future to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries to assist any Minister. They will not be tied, as is the case at present, to a number of named Departments and to Departments headed by Secretaries of State—a point which has caused some head-scratching in my own Department. Your Lordships may have noticed in this connection that there is an increase in the maximum number of Lords in Waiting from three to five. I would only add that this is a ceiling and not a floor.
Finally, there are two specific matters in connection with the Boyle Report which are perhaps not immediately involved in the Bill now before your Lordships but to which I should like to refer. In the first place, your Lordships will recall that the Boyle Committee recommended the establishment of two funds to meet the cost of travelling within the United Kingdom and overseas for information purposes by Members of Parliament. The Government have yet to take a decision on the right arrangements for establishing these funds in another place. In this context it has been suggested to me that the relevance of this recommendation to the circumstances of your Lordship' House should be considered; and I have agreed—I may say that I have agreed very willingly—to look into this matter carefully.
Lastly there are the Boyle Committee's proposals regarding pensions. This is a complicated subject, as all of us who delve into it find out, to our cost, very soon, and the Government are examining
682
the form of legislation necessary to give effect to the relevant recommendations of the Boyle Committee's Report. It will be within the knowledge of many of your Lordships that I have already received a number of representations covering various aspects of this matter from Members of your Lordships' House. I think all it would be proper for me to say at this stage is that I am giving careful consideration to those representations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.17 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have a long day in front of us and therefore I do not propose to speak for very long. This is in fact a certified Bill; we could not amend it, as I understand it, without a great deal of trouble. It is always rather a delicate matter as to when you can or cannot amend, but I think this is a case where we should not be able to. I am bound to say that I think the broad proposals are right, but I would mention one point in particular about the Lord Chancellor's salary. When people look and see this large salary, they forget that even going back to the days of the Haldane Report not only has the office of the Lord Chancellor been one of the heaviest and most responsible but it is also absolutely essential to provide headroom for the proper payment of Judges. This is therefore perfectly right. It is unfortunate, of course, but the essence of the matter is that increases of this sort which take place over a wide interval of years would look large if they were in fact within the norm; and I suspect that they would be within the norm, whatever the norm might be—for example, 4 per cent. a year, or something of that kind. But it is unfortunate, when one sees the struggle of the miners which we debated last night and on which, although the Government tried to be sympathetic, they were not very helpful. However, I do not wish to pursue that matter.
I was very interested in what the noble Earl had to say about the possibility of the travel funds, which are being made available to Members of Parliament for special trips, both within this country and abroad, being made available to Members of your Lordships' House. Considering that the House of Lords is unsalaried, it seems to me that, if anything, its Mem-

683
bers have a better claim. Clearly this is a matter which would require only simple administering, and I would urge the noble Earl, who I know himself initiated this consideration, to pursue it further.
There is only one other point on Ministerial salaries. Once again the difference in the treatment of the Chief Whips and the Lords in Waiting, as opposed to what is given in the other place, is striking. There is a considerable difference between what the noble Earl himself receives and what is paid to a Cabinet Minister in another place; but I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge that we need not feel that he is suffering unduly. But when it comes to the Lords in Waiting, I think they have been treated shabbily. I do not blame the Government for this, and it is very difficult to criticise the Boyle Committee when they were not specifically considering the general status of the Lords. It may be that we shall have to return to this subject. Indeed, as other noble Lords have said on a number of occasions, the longer this House works, the more the strain on it; and, after all, there was quite a considerable vote in this House around midnight last night. It may well be that we shall once again have to look at expenses. The noble Earl has himself shown great sympathy. As he has said, he has shown sympathy with regard to the pensions of former Members of Parliament who fall outside the present arrangements. My noble friend Lord Beswick on an earlier occasion argued this with force. Having said all this, no doubt we shall continue the discussion further. The noble Earl is himself in a position, if his Cabinet colleagues allow him—and this is the problem—to do some helpful things so far as the House of Lords is concerned.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a question about a proposed increase of salary, and preface my question by saying that I offer no objection to the increase and raise it as a point for elucidation. It was reported in the Press, and I think that the noble Earl the Leader of the House in his statement just now mentioned it also, but I may be wrong about that. It refers to a proposed additional increase in salary for the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. Reference is made to an increase as
684
Speaker of the House of Lords. Would the noble Earl explain this matter?—or perhaps there has been some misreporting in the Press. But if an additional increase is to be made to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, as Speaker, may I ask whether this anticipates some change in the constitutional position of your Lordships' House? Perhaps noble Lords would like some elucidation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to point out that there is a decrease, not an increase.
3.22 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for saying that he is giving consideration to the question of pensions of former Members of the House of Commons. I would thank him, too, for the consideration he has given to this question and to the representations which we made to him. It may seem strange that here in the House of Lords we should be discussing this matter, but some of us felt that we here were the only people who could get together the former Members of the House of Commons, since most of them are spread over the country and have no opportunity of coming together to discuss the matter. I would thank the noble Earl for that.
There is also the question of the pre-1964 Members, of whom I am not one—those who retired before 1964. I should like here to make one point that might be considered when this matter is looked into. I have heard it said that pre-1964 Members of Parliament should not rightly receive a pension of any kind because they have not contributed in any way. It is perfectly true they have not contributed in that they have not contributed to any special pension fund. But I should like to put the point that, of those who retired from the House of Commons before 1964, many were serving when the salary in the House of Commons was £600 a year, then £1,000 a year, and then £1,750 a year, with no secretarial allowance, no allowance for postages of any kind, and very little allowance so far as travel is concerned. I would make the point that those previous Members of the House of Commons serving in those circumstances

685
have made a very great contribution indeed to the working of Parliament.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House was good enough to refer to the travel fund and says he will explore the possibilities of its applying to this House. May I ask the noble Earl whether he would be good enough to bear in mind that, in the case of official delegations in which Members of your Lordships' House are included, if a delegation takes place during the sitting of your Lordships' House those noble Lords cannot, he they away on a one-week, two-week or three-week official delegation, claim the attendance fee whereas in the case of a delegation including Members of another House, their salary goes on just the same? In the past a number of us have suffered very badly from this situation. I would ask the noble Earl whether he had that matter in mind as well.
3.25 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of noble Lords to what I said in introducing this Bill, and I can of course confirm that it is a certified Bill.
On what has been said by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition about the Lord Chancellor, I can really only echo what he has said: that this is a constitutionally exceptional office as well as being a highly important one. There is not only the question—this has been made clear in all recent consideration of the remuneration of this great, old office —of ministerial balance here but also the question of head-room so far as judicial salaries are concerned. I can of course confirm what my noble and learned friend said to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: that Lord Shinwell was under a misapprehension in thinking that the Speaker element in this has been increased. It has in fact been decreased from £4,000 to £2,500. I think I could have given the same assurance to the noble Lord if it had been an increase as I am able to give to him in view of this decrease: that it implies no change in the functions which my noble and learned friend discharges as Speaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, should not regard this as a forecast of things to come, presaging a possible constitutional change.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is it not a fact, as I believe, that there are a number of noble Lords who do not realise that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack in fact does so in accordance with Standing Order 17 of 1660, and that he does attend the House of Lords as Speaker? It is just a very different kind of Speaker, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, from the Speaker in the other place.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would agree that it is a rather different sort of animal that we are talking about.
Turning to the two particular points which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition especially mentioned, first, on the travel fund, I think there is a very good case here for the eligibility of noble Lords to a fund of this kind. But I would agree with what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said: that if it is decided that such a fund should be set up it will require careful and scrupulous administration. I will, of course, in considering this matter—and I will be very open to representations on it from the noble Lord—bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
So far as the differential between Junior Whips in another place and Lords in Waiting here is concerned—the differential in that which one might call their effective take-home pay—I would only say that, so far as the salary is concerned, Lords in Waiting receive £4,500 per annum; they are £500 better off than Junior Whips in another place. But I recognise what lay behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on this matter. This question of the differentials is something we should all be thinking about.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that they are in fact £3,500 less well off in their take-home pay?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords; this depends on the question how much they might be eligible to claim on one particular allowance, but grosso modo this is the case. But this, of course, is because of the constituency obligations of Junior Whips in another place—a matter

687
to which the Royal Commission gave careful attention. I do not wish to prejudge what would be the right thing in the future. All I would say is that I believe this to be a matter which needs some pondering.
With regard to the point put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, I am grateful for her expression of appreciation. I am glad that those noble Lords who were eligible under the 1965 arrangements have had their pensions—to use the jargon—"jacked up" in accordance with other pensions in the whole public sector. This is absolutely right and I am glad that we had the necessary foresight to make provision for this in the Pensions Increase Act which we passed in the last Session.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, it might be appropriate at this stage for me to make the point which I have made in correspondence to the Leader of the other place but which has not been taken care of; namely, that anyone who has served less than ten years in another place and thus was not eligible for a pension there, has to wait for five years before he can get any of his contributions back. In the meantime, he receives interest at the rate of only 3 per cent. I am not taking this point up for myself, but I think it is absolutely monstrous that while in any other occupation a person who loses his job is entitled, as of right, to get his contributions back, Members of another place are forced to lend the money at this ridiculous interest rate of 3 per cent. for a period of five years.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am of course open to any representations made to me by this very active "club" whose membership derives from another place and which I regret I shall never be able to join. I think we should not occupy ourselves unduly with something that primarily concerns another place, but I would reiterate that I am most willing to consider the representations which have been made to me.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, before the debate is closed I should like to sound a note of dissent and discord. When I was young I was told that la noblesse does not discuss money matters, and especially not its own money matters.
688
Also, we have had a Bill brought in during the miners' strike about another salary question. That Bill was unfortunate in timing although maybe not unfortunate in essence. The fact is that we have had these sectional wage claims and sectional salary demands, and indeed of course the demand for the Civil List provision. In my view this is a great disservice to the community. I think one ought not to have these sectional wage bargains but one ought to try to have a general equitable solution to all these income claims. It seems to me that, while no doubt in each case these proposals are quite justified, from a general point of view they are very regrettable.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, because I did not see that he was rising to his feet; but if I may, by leave of the House, I should like to reply to him. The noble Lord prefaced his remarks by saying that he was rising to strike something of a note of discord and dissent. I noted what he had to say, and all I would say is that it is not perhaps the first occasion on which he has struck a note of discord and dissent in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

NORTHERN IRELAND: LONDONDERRY SHOOTINGS INQUIRY
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to acquaint the House with the fact that the Prime Minister, as adumbrated by the Chief Whip, is now making in another place a Statement, about the Inquiry to be held into the events of Sunday, January 30, which led to a loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have decided that this Inquiry should be a Tribunal established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The necessary Resolution was tabled last night, and the House will be asked to approve it this evening, after the conclusion of the debate on Northern Ireland."
In parenthesis, I would add that your Lordships will see a similar Motion on to-day's Order Paper in this House. The Statement proceeds:
"In order to ensure that the powers vested in the Tribunal extend to transferred matters under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, as well as to matters reserved to Westminster, the Northern Ireland Government will table a similar Resolution in the Northern Ireland Parliament.
"The House will be glad to know that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, has consented to undertake the Inquiry. He will sit alone."
That, my Lords, is the Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating this Statement. In a way it would have been more tidy had it been done later, when the Motion on the Order Paper was moved. I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to have the Statement at this moment, because I am sure that it was for the convenience of the House, rather than a good deal later when we had all read it on the tapes. The fact that there is a Motion on the Order Paper will enable noble Lords, if they wish, to discuss it then; and of course, we also have our debate on Northern Ireland to-morrow. I would only say now that we strongly welcome the Inquiry and in particular the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice. I cannot imagine a more onerous task than that which he is to undertake. I hope that everybody will come forward and give evidence, because if accusations are made on either side, whether against the Army or the other way round, it is important that such accusations should be brought out into the open and tested.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this is not the moment to speak at length on this matter. It goes without saying that the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Widgery, is the best possible one that could have been made within the terms of the British Bench, but I think it is a pity that the Government have seen fit not to go outside and to try to find someone distinguished, such as, say, Mr.
690
Lester Pearson. I do not think the Government have yet realised, and I am sure that most noble Lords have not yet realised, the immense change in opinion that has taken place in Ireland as a result of what happened on Sunday. It has been compared to the change that occurred following the executions after the 1916 rising, and I am very much afraid that, so long as an Englishman is in charge of the Tribunal, there will be a lack of co-operation and this will be tragic.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord able to say what the terms of reference for this Tribunal will be, in addition to the rather short phrase that he used?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I would say that he will see the terms of reference on the Order Paper. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I will say what I have to say about it later.

SUPERANNUATION BILL
3.40 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: 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.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Employees of British Airways Board, British European Airways Corporation, British Overseas Airways Corporation, etc.]:
EARL JELLICOE: I apologise for taking up the time of your Lordships' House with these four Amendments which are on the Marshalled List in the Government's name. Three of them, I can assure your Lordships, are purely technical. Amendment No. 1 is one of them, and unless any of your Lordships wish me to give the technical explanation, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 4, after ("was") insert ("or was treated for those purposes as being").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: If the Amendment is more than drafting and I am not clear whether it refers to the other Amendments—and if the explanation is reasonably succinct, in view of the time I think the noble Earl, with respect, might give a small explanation of it. It will have to go back to another place, and although he assures us that it is all all right, I think perhaps we could have just a brief explanation.
EARL JELLICOE: I will gladly respond to what the noble Lord has said. Subsection (6) of Section 56 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, which is substituted by Clause 21, permits Board service to be treated for the purposes of the superannuation scheme as if it were employee service where the Board member was previously an employee. As drafted, this Bill unintentionally excludes the person who immediately before his appointment was not in the employment of a member or group but was on the Board of such member; for example, a member of one of the Air Corporations who becomes a member of the British Airways Board. This was not the intention under the original Section 56(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, and the Amendment which I am moving is designed simply and solely to restore the position as it obtained before and to correct an unintentional drafting error that crept in.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I think it was helpful to have that explanation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
"—(1) For subsections (1) to (4) of section 2 of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (which provides for the future review of official pensions and payment of increases) there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
'(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister for the Civil Service, as soon as may be after 30th June in the year 1972, and every year thereafter, shall review the rates of official pensions against
692
any rise there may have been in the cost of living during the review period that is to say—

(a) the period of fifteen months ending with 30th June 1972 ("the first review period"); or

(b) the period of twelve months ending with 30th June in the year 1973 and every year thereafter;

and if it is found that in the review period the cost of living has risen by two per cent. or more, then the Minister shall by order provide that the annual rate of an official pension may, if a qualifying condition is satisfied, be increased in accordance with the order in respect of any period beginning on or after 1st December next following the review period.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the increases to be provided for by an order under this section shall be as follows:—

(a) for pensions beginning on or before the first day of the review period the increase shall be in the proportion (to the nearest one-tenth of one per cent.) in which the cost of living has risen during the review period; and

(b) for pensions beginning—

(i) in the half year following that day; or

(ii) in the next succeeding half year ending, in the case of the first review period, with 1st April 1972 and, in the case of any other review period, with the day after the end of that period; or

(iii) in the three months ending with 1st July 1972,

the increases shall be in the proportion (to the nearest one-tenth of one per cent.) in which the cost of living is found to have risen between the basis period for that half year or that period of three months, as the case may be, and the end of the review period, if the cost of living in the basis period is taken as the mean of the monthly figures.
(2A) For purposes of subsection (2)(b) above—

(a) the basis period for any half year is the six months ending with the first month of the half year or, if the cost of living is lower in the half year than in those six months, is the half year itself;

(b) the basis period for the period of three months specified in sub-paragraph (iii) is the period of three months ending with 1st February 1972 or, if the cost of living is lower in the period so specified, is that period.

(3) Where the rise referred to in subsection (2)(b) above is less for any half year than two per cent., there shall only be an increase for pensions beginning in that half year if there is one for pensions beginning in a later half year, and the increase (if there is one) shall be two per cent.; but where this subsection prevents there being an increase for pensions beginning in any half year, then the order made

693
in respect of the next review period shall for those pensions authorise, instead of an increase calculated in accordance with subsection (2)(a) above, such increase as would result if that prevented by this subsection had been made and were followed by one calculated in accordance with subsection (2)(a) by reference to the rate as so increased.
(4) Where on any review under this section it is not found that the cost of living has risen by two per cent. or more in the review period, the review in the next year shall be for the same review period extended by twelve months; and if it is found that the cost of living has risen by two per cent. or more in the (extended) review period, the provisions of this section shall apply subject to the modification that for subsection (2)(b)(ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the following:—
"(ii) in any of the succeeding half years up to that ending with the day after the end of the review period "
(2) For subsection (3) of section 9 of the said Act of 1971 (which relates to gratuities and lump sums) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(3) In respect of any lump sum or instalment of a lump sum which becomes payable after the day following the last day of a review period but before 1st December next following the review period there may be paid by virtue of section 2 above the same increase as if it became payable on that date.'
(3) After subsection (4) of the said section 9 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(4A) Subsection (4) above shall have effect in relation to the first review period as if the period of three months ending with 1st July 1972 were a half year ending with that date '."
The noble Earl said: This is the substantive Amendment to which I referred in my opening remarks. The new clause which I am hoping to move into this Bill was the one which I foreshadowed at Second Reading. It gives effect to the Government's decision, which was announced in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Aberdare just before Christmas, to review public service pensions every year instead of every two years, as was provided for by the Pensions (Increase) Act of last year. Your Lordships will recall that when the Pensions (Increase) Bill was before the House last July a number of noble Lords suggested that we had perhaps been wrong in holding to a two year review cycle, which is what we were committed to in our Election Manifesto, and I believe the Party opposite were also pledged to that, and that an annual review period would be more appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as he has reminded me from time to time with perhaps his tongue somewhere in his cheek, and the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord Gridley and Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, were among those who pressed me at the time on this point. It was in fact a suggestion which had been strongly pressed during the Committee stage in another place. The Government did not simply brush it aside at the time; we gave very careful consideration to it, but we came to the conclusion, having regard to the very substantial improvements already provided in the Bill and to their not inconsiderable cost, that we could not at that time justify adding annual reviews to the package. But I did say last July that if need be we can come back to this matter at a later stage, and in the event we have been able to come back to it sooner than I had deemed possible at that time.
The decision to move to annual reviews of public service pensions was linked with the decision to uprate National Insurance benefits annually. Public service pensions are, of course, occupational pensions, and it does not necessarily or by any means follow that the arrangements the Government make in this Bill as an employer should exactly mirror those they make for the nation as a whole in the quite separate field of social security benefits. In this case, bearing in mind all that was said during the passage of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, it seemed to us only right to take the opportunity of bringing the reviews of public service pensions on to the annual basis.
There was a further and significant reform which we pledged ourselves to introduce during the lifetime of the present Parliament, but which again for reasons of priorities and cost we did not feel able to put into effect immediately the Pensions (Increase) Act became law. I refer to the reduction from 60 to 55 of the age at which public service pensioners normally qualify for increases under the Act. We think it would not be right to continue to defer this reform once we have moved to annual reviews, and accordingly an Order will in due course be made under the powers already contained in Section 3(8) of the Pensions (Increase) Act, reducing the qualifying

695
age with effect from December 1, 1972, the date from which, under this new clause, the next increase is to be made payable under the Act. I am sure that both these changes I have briefly touched on will be good news to the public service and Armed Forces pensioners, on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, gave a very generous welcome to what we had in mind at the time of my noble friend's Statement last December.
I should now like, if I may, quickly to refer to the clause in a little more detail. On the face of it, I would freely grant that it looks formidably complex, but there are in effect only three main things and one subsidiary matter it sets out to do. The main things are, in the first place, to provide for a system of annual reviews instead of the biennial reviews at present laid down under Section 2 of the Pensions (Increase) Act; secondly, to provide for the transition from September 1 to December 1 as payment date, and the fact that the present review period will in consequence not consist of an exact number of half years; and, thirdly, to reduce from 4 per cent. to 2 per cent. the amount by which the cost of living must have risen during the relevant period for an increase to be payable.
The last point is the question of a trigger figure, as I mentioned briefly on Second Reading. The purpose of having a trigger of this sort—4 per cent. in the Bill unamended—is to ensure that if at some future date the cost of living becomes virtually stable, as I suppose at some future date it might just conceivably so do, the whole complicated process of adjusting nearly one million pensions is not put into motion unless it is going to produce a worthwhile and needed increase for the pensioners affected by it. It could well be argued that, given the major improvement of annual reviews—and I think noble Lords interested in this matter know how important this annual rhythm is, especially in a period of inflation —the figure could perhaps be left unaltered, on the grounds that it would remain what it was always intended to be; namely, a measure of the extent to which one could reasonably allow the value of a pension to be eroded before purchasing power is restored. On
696
the other hand, there is a rough justice, a rough logic (and I must say that it was a logic which appealed to me), in the argument that a rate of inflation of 4 per cent. over two years is roughly equal to a rate of 2 per cent. a year, and that in the context of annual reviews the trigger ought to be readjusted to be no more than 2 per cent. This view was one which was in fact strongly pressed on us by the Public Services Pensioners' Council, and I am glad that we have been able to adopt their suggestion.
Apart from the three changes which I have mentioned we are not introducing any alteration in the drill for reviews under Section 2 of the Act, but we thought it would be right and convenient to reproduce in a new clause the first four subsections of Section 2 in their new form, rather than to have a whole and complicated string of separate Amendments. I think that, as a general principle, this is always better than tinkering all through a Bill. There is a subsidiary change that again I should be glad to explain if need be, but I hope that I have given a sufficient explanation to satisfy your Lordships that the new clause is going to be helpful to the pensioners rather than the reverse.
3.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl has introduced a clause which I find very clear and precise. Although we shall want to study the noble Earl's words, because he gave some quite interesting expositions, I think it very unlikely that we shall want to do anything further on Report. Just to take a small point, I hope, and I think, complete clarity has been achieved with regard to the particular day of the particular period. This has caused trouble in some public service pension schemes in the past, and I have known cases where there has been misinterpretation, and I, as a Minister, took a different interpretation from one taken by a local officer. I was gratified in that case to find that I was right and he was wrong. However, this matter seems to be well taken care of.
I am a little sorry that the noble Earl —though perhaps it was modesty on his part—saw only the barest hope of inflation coming down to lower than this amount in the foreseeable future. The noble Earl talked about pledges from the

697
Government. I will not remind him about all those embarrassing pledges, but I will remind him that although he said that this sort of thing was covered in his Party's Manifesto, the Conservative Party scheme for public service pensions was in fact a very different one, and a rather unsatisfactory one as compared to that put forward by the Labour Government. The noble Earl has had the wisdom and, if I may say so, the generosity, to acknowledge this, and the Government have accepted it. As for the reduction from a biennial review to a one-year review, again I quite acknowledge that the Government were right and the noble Earl was right not to accept the Amendment until this principle was applied to the general body of pensioners outside the Civil Service. It would be dangerous to go on giving benefits to the Civil Service—although all these are fully justified —if the public at large are not going to be as well served.
There is one group I should like to refer to, and that is those in the F.S.S.U. scheme. I mentioned this subject before. I hope that the universities and the University Grants Committee will recognise that academics are not, for the most part, anything like as well paid as senior civil servants. Did my noble friend at the back utter a noise? Perhaps not. I thought one of my academic friends was either agreeing or disagreeing. I repeat again, academics are not as well paid now as senior civil servants, or will not be so well paid in the future. It is important that the functioning of their pension system should be as nearly as possible up to the standard of the public service. With those remarks we certainly welcome this Amendment and encourage the Bill to move on.
LORD CROOK: May I, on a completely non-political basis, say how much I welcome this Amendment and the whole attitude which has been adopted to this superannuation problem? It was in 1925 that I became a leader of a Civil Service union for clericals and executives, and I have lived through very many fights to get much done that we completely failed to secure. I was grateful enough when the last Government managed to do what they did. I was happy about the establishment of the new Civil
698
Service Department and the job of work it did, and I am grateful that the noble Earl who now leads the House as Lord Privy Seal and is in charge of the general work of the Civil Service Department has not only carried on the good work of my noble Leader but has seen to it that this kind of thing is brought to this House, properly and appropriately.
EARL JELLICOE: I very much appreciate what the two noble Lords have said. I must apologise if I showed undue and unnatural modesty about our expectations regarding the reduction in the rate of inflation. All I will say is that if we can reduce it in the range of 2 per cent. plus within the coming year I, for one, will be reasonably satisfied. I can assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the F.S.S.U. scheme is, I understand, a matter which is under consideration at the present time. Could I, on one further point, just deal—and on the same completely non-partisan, non-political basis as the noble Lord, Lord Crook—with the old Party political point which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition trotted out in the course of his remarks. I would agree that we fought the last Election on a slightly different basis so far as public service pensions were concerned, but there was a great deal in common with our two platforms in this respect. On one particular point which the noble Lord had in mind, when we came into office we recognised that there were technical reasons, and very good technical reasons, why what, in our innocence, we had thought would be beneficial to the pensioners would not prove to be the case, and we not only adopted but also improved on what the noble Lord had in mind.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble Earl. Of course it is difficult when in Opposition. That is one of the problems. He later had the inestimable advantage of taking over my flock of civil servants. Let us acknowledge again that great credit is owed to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 29 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Consequential and Minor A mendments]:
3.58 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 45, line 16, leave out ("after '22(b)'insert' and (c)'") and insert ("for 'and 23' substitute to 23A '").
The noble Earl said: This, again, is a technical Amendment designed to correct an error in drafting—one of the few errors in drafting which those civil servants whom I inherited from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition did not spot at the time but which, with their eagle eyes (and I pay tribute to their eyesight as well as to their humanity), they have managed to catch at this stage. The Amendment concerns staff who were formerly employed as civil servants in war pensioner or special hospitals, and who opted to stay under the Superannuation Acts when those hospitals were transferred to the National Health Service. As the Bill is at present drafted, any such staff who later become redundant and who are re-employed in the Health Service will not enjoy the benefit of pension increase. The purpose of this Amendment is, quite simply, to rectify this position. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Savings and transitional provisions]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 50, line 39, leave out ("11(3),").
The noble Earl said: I can explain very briefly the purpose of this further Amendment, which again is of a rather technical character. The background is this. To be admitted to the local government superannuation scheme a person must be able to complete ten years of service before his compulsory retiring age. Section 11(3) of the Local Government Superannuation Act 1953 was a transitional provision, allowing persons who entered local government service from certain employments before the passing of that Act to count their previous service in such employments towards that qualifying period. The employments concerned were those with which interchange of superannuation rights were possible
700
under rules made under Section 2 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948.
Although this provision is basically exhausted, its terms have been subsequently applied by later interchange rules under Section 2 of the Act of 1948 to cover persons entering local government employ before the making of such new rules. Because these rules will still continue in force, and further rules or amendment rules may be necessary, the basic provision cannot be allowed to lapse. The provisions in each section of the table should be the same, so that Section 11(3) must be deleted from paragraph 6 of the Scottish section, since this section of the Local Government Superannuation Act 1953 will be needed in the transitional period. I have bothered your Lordships with the technical explanation because I was quite certain that, if I did not, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would ask me to do so. I hope that the position is now crystal clear to your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think it is useful to have that explanation so that we can read it afterwards, and can then understand what the Government have done. Meanwhile, I only congratulate the noble Earl on his masterly handling of a complicated Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

SUNDAY THEATRE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
4.4 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved. That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restriction on the hours of plays on Sundays]:
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("opened and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related. Their purpose is to clarify the agreement reached with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester at Committee stage, that when the Bill refers to the opening hour of a theatre it means the hour at which the public is admitted, not the hour when the performance begins. These two Amendments are simply drafting. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert:
"(3) For the purposes of this section premises shall be deemed to be used for the public performance of a play at any time during which members of the public are present in the auditorium of the premises in connection with such a public performance."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I have said this Amendment is related to Amendment No. 1 and clarifies the same point. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to contracts of employment
".—(1) It shall not be lawful to include in any contract of employment to perform in any play, a provision requiring a person to take part in a public performance of that play on more than six days in any week.
(2) In this section the expression 'week' means any period of seven consecutive days."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will observe that this is the new clause which I introduced earlier, the purpose of which was to make it unlawful to include in any contract of employment a provision requiring a person to take part in the public performance of a play on more than six days in any week. On the surface, this seems straightforward and utterly reasonable, but a great deal of work has been done to clarify precisely what is meant. I am most grateful to the Home Office, to my colleague the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and, although this is a Private Bill and is not a Government measure, to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has been more than helpful.
There is no doubt at all about our intentions. We do not want anyone, whether performers or technicians, to be compelled against his will to work seven days at a stretch in a theatre. But when we consulted the unions—Equity and the technicians' union—and individual artistes, we found that they were really anxious not to be forbidden to work on the seventh day. It was pointed out to us that the theatre is different from most other occupations. Sometimes there will be a long run of a play, and sometimes there will be only a very short run. There is also a great deal of seasonal work, particularly in the commercial theatre. So many complications were raised, pointing out all the different terms of contract, the different circumstances, the different needs, that finally even I was convinced—and I took a great deal of convincing—that it was impossible to get a simple form of words which could be included in the Statute to cover all that we intended.
Fortunately, the commercial theatre, and the theatre for which the Arts Council and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, are responsible, have agreed to exchange letters with both Equity and the technicians' union, so that the terms of employment will be decided directly between the unions, the men's representatives, and the employers, whether they are working on the commercial side of the theatre or at the State-subsidised end of it. If the unions had objected to this procedure, then I should have felt very uneasy. But as all the people who are most knowledgeable about the enormous complications and different circumstances involved have agreed on this exchange of letters. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question is that the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not yet actually put the Question. I do not see how the Amendment can be withdrawn until he has put the Question. But I am sure that the noble and learned Lord —
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, but I do not think the noble Baroness had moved

703
the Amendment. So perhaps what I ought to have done was to—
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I explain? The only way in which it was possible to raise this matter again at Report stage in your Lordships' House was to put down the Amendment, and then ask your Lordships' permission afterwards to withdraw it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws the Amendment, one or two other Members of your Lordships' House may like to contribute to the debate. I am well aware that it was the noble Baroness's intention to put down this same Amendment again, in order to provide an opportunity for further debate, and that it was her intention then to withdraw it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I say, with the greatest respect, that, acting in the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It seems to me impossible for a noble Lord or Baroness to speak to an Amendment which he or she has not moved. It could be, of course—and I say this with the greatest respect to my noble friend—that it might be very unfair to other noble Lords, because one could get up and say the most frightful things (though nothing my noble friend has said was other than very acceptable) and then, before anybody could reply, nip out of sight. So, with the greatest respect, I would suggest that the Amendment should be moved and that the Question should be put, and, then, if no noble Lord wishes to speak, that would be the moment for my noble friend to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I am sorry, my Lords. I tried to save time. I beg to move the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I had been going to speak, partly on my own behalf but more particularly on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who was concerned at the Committee stage but who sends his apologies for unfortunately not being able to be here to-day. But as the indication has been given that this Amendment will be withdrawn, I will say merely that I am
704
perfectly happy to accept the lead which the noble Baroness has given.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: Then I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Short Title and extent]:
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
("(3) This Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date of its passing.")—(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. First, I must declare an interest, which is that I hold 200 Ordinary Shares in Shell Transport and Trading, and it is of course that company which would benefit in part by this Bill if your Lordships were to pass it.
The Bill is one of three stages which will end up in creating Europe's first ocean terminal to handle the new generation of big oil tankers of 300,000 tons, and this would be off Amlwch, on the Anglesey coast. The Bill deals with marine and harbour installations which are needed but which could not be covered by any of the other planning procedures available. A public inquiry has been held on the landward installations, and one awaits the inspector's report and the Minister's verdict thereon, no doubt some time within the next several months. A further inquiry will still have to be held on the 80-mile pipeline which is necessary to join the proposed terminal with the refinery that it has to serve inland at Stanlow. If your Lordships give this Bill a Third Reading, it will then, of course, go to another place.
My Lords, the Bill was originally promoted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, though in a slightly different

705
form. It is now promoted by the Anglesey County Council; and the Amlwch Urban District Council have withdrawn the objections which were expressed to the Select Committee. It has been warmly endorsed by the Mersey Pilots' Association; and, above all, it has been recommended by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, by a majority, for a Third Reading.
The Bill is designed, in the first instance, to serve a particular object, and that object is an oil refinery at Stanlow, some 80 miles away, which is at present handling 10 million tons of crude oil a year. In April, 1970, with very little delay and no trouble at all, planning permission was given for the expansion of that refinery to very nearly double its capacity. That was done at a time when Ministers who might have wanted to consider alternative planning procedures chose not to make use of them. As a result, something like 80 per cent. more crude oil will have to be brought in to that refinery from the end of next year onwards—a throughput rising from 10 million to 18 million tons a year. About a quarter of what is produced feeds industry, and therefore employment, in the North-West of Britain and in the Midlands—heavy industry like North Wales and Sheffield steel, and power generation like the Ince Power Station, which itself is shortly going to need to double its present fuel consumption of 1½ million tons of fuel oil a year. This expansion is part of a programme to help meet Britain's rising energy need, which looks like very nearly doubling by the end of this decade.
The refinery can be supplied in either of two ways, and I beg your Lordships, if you will be so kind, to pay particular attention to these two alternatives. The present scale of large tankers of 200,000 tons can continue to come into the Mersey, can continue to lighten some of their cargo at sea into smaller tankers, and then the bigger and the smaller, together or in succession, can come into the Mersey and unload their crude oil. This has been happening, until now, every two or three weeks. But, of course, if the refinery is expanded to nearly double its capacity, serving that refinery this way would mean just twice that seaborne traffic going into the Mersey, virtually twice that risk of congestion and
706
virtually twice that risk of collision. The alternative to that procedure (which is perhaps best summed up in the liturgical phrase, "Let us pray") is to bring in a smaller number of even bigger tankers to a terminal which is a fair and safe distance away, where its cargo can be discharged under properly controlled conditions.
One of the most interesting comments on this has been made by the pollution officer for Anglesey, who sums up the implications in terms of pollution. He says that increased Mersey traffic means increased collision danger, and that in turn means an increased danger of pollution incidents. I quote from his evidence at the public inquiry in the following terms:
"The single buoy mooring project will reduce the risk of oil pollution at sea in the following respects. It will reduce the risk of collision in the Mersey by taking tankers out of the more congested shipping areas. It will reduce to a minimum the number of tankers passing through this area of the sea … This will reduce collision risk and will reduce the number of oil transfer operations required at sea."
He went on:
"The oil transfer operations will be supervised at all times by a responsible maritime authority with powers to prosecute, and so on, if there are cases of spillages. There will be available at Amlwch and attendant on all oil transfer operations suitable launches to deal immediately with any spillages that may occur."
Discharging from these big tankers at terminal points will therefore be under carefully controlled conditions. There will be a terminal authority in charge and not the Shell company itself. Indeed, the authority is so designed that the local authority will have a majority of nominees on it; Shell will be in the minority; and if the civil authority want to close it down because it has been badly run they will be able to do so at any time.
Although this terminal is proposed for the biggest ships, it is not in fact the first such terminal in the British Isles. A single-buoy mooring is operated by the Continental Oil Company in the Humber. It has been operated there for 18 months without protest and without a single spillage, let alone damage. So the short point is that the larger the tankers, the fewer; and, because of that, the safer. And this for two reasons:

707
first, they can carry better selected crews and, secondly, there are fewer actual occasions for collision.
More generally, our country stands to benefit from this proposal in four ways. First, we should enjoy through it the full advantage of economies of scale being brought to bear on the cost of fuel by means of these jumbo tankers. The saving effected by these big tankers is more than £1·50 per ton of crude oil on a trip from the Gulf. Our fuel costs, our energy costs, amount to between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. over all of our industrial production costs, so this in itself would not only assist our industrial situation but also benefit the domestic and private user, including the motorist. The second advantage is that we shall avoid the partial loss which would follow if these very big ships, denied a proper berth in Britain, had to be diverted to—shall we say?—Le Havre. Britain is then served more expensively by smaller ships coming in from there. This would carry an on-cost that we should feel in our energy costs and therefore in our industrial costs. The third general advantage is that this terminal would abolish the current and otherwise steeply mounting pollution dangers due to collision hazards in the Mersey; and finally it would clear the fairway for the Mersey to take those big container carriers for which the new £40 million Seaforth Dock Development has been set going—which, indeed, is the hope of the Mersey. This point is one particularly stressed by the Mersey pilots.
The Bill also would confer considerable local benefits. There is high unemployment in Anglesey. Cammel Laird recently laid off 120 of their 700 employees. The temporary closure of the Menai Straits Bridge, now only partially reopened and not to be fully reopened for another year or 18 months, has slackened employment in Holyhead. Of the 60,000 population of Anglesey some 1,715 were out of work in November. By New Year's Day the figure had risen to 1,819 and by the end of January to 1,885. Within the district of Amlwch itself, which has 2,400 people, no fewer than 300 are out of work at this time. Those unemployed folk of Amlwch have submitted a very human document, a Petition which was sent to the public inquiry and from which I should like to quote. It is addressed to
708
the Inspector of the Public Inquiry at Amlwch and addressed from 26 Craig y Don, Amlwch. It says:
"The following letter has been endorsed by 166 men, all of whom are unemployed and are registered at the Amlwch Employment Exchange."
It goes on:
"Sir,
We the undersigned would respectfully draw your attention to the unemployment situation in the Amlwch area. In the Inquiry, now likely to drag on for another two weeks, we wish to state it is work we want and less talk. The project (Shell) no doubt will ease the unemployment in the Amlwch area a great deal and it is hard to understand that until recently there were signs on the Burwen road (Cemaes) and the Amlwch to Penysarn road reading Amlwch invites Industry'. Yet there are people doing their best to prevent it coming to the area. We voice the opinion of all those unfortunate men who are dying to start work.
Yours faithfully,
(Signature) E. I. Hughes."
If any noble Lord wishes to look at the photocopies that I have here of these moving signatures, he is welcome to do so.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? It would be useful if he could tell us how many of those 166 men are guaranteed employment on this project.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention, the first, no doubt, of several. I was just coming to that point. Such is the context of the Shell proposal. Quite apart from whatever number may be employed temporarily on construction—and I stress "temporarily"; it may be 200 or so—the Shell proposal is for not fewer than 60 permanent new local jobs at Amlwch. To say that any particular one of those 166 men will necessarily get one of the jobs available is as impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as it is for me. But the point is that there will be 60 at least permanent new jobs that can be recruited for locally at Amwlch. There is also the likelihood of indirect employment that might well create another 40 or so in servicing of various sorts. The prospect of 100 jobs towards relieving the plight of the 300 workless is not lightly to be sneered at.
Then there is the second local advantage. The Bill provides that Shell, or for that matter any other company which

709
discharges oil through this pipeline with Shell's consent, will pay a levy to the County Council on every ton of oil passed. After the proper corrections for the effect of the rate-support grant, this seems likely to mean a net new revenue to Anglesey County Council of the order of £120,000 in 1975, if the timing programme is adhered to, rising to about £150,000 by the end of the decade. That money, it is declared and provided, shall go for the benefit of the people of Anglesey. The County Council already declare that they have ideas for using some of this money for attracting industry.
My Lords, I come now to the objections that have been freely voiced. They range under three heads: first, the appearance of the installation; second, the wider ecological environment; and, thirdly, the location. As to the appearance, your Lordships should be aware that the North Wales Society of Architects, who are allied to the R.I.B.A., have written of Amlwch:
"Existing heavy industry has already visually dominated this part of the coastline."
They go on to say that the question is really whether oil tanks are more or less offensive than the rubbish heap that they would replace. They say of the inland tank farm, which is not covered by this Bill and was the subject of the public inquiry, that they could not select a better site. They add:
"Tanks are pleasant in shape, and with a well designed colour application they could become an asset."
Then there is the argument about the ecological environment, the question of crude oil pollution due to accidental spillage. The Select Committee went into this in great detail. Taking the world as a whole and the full world-wide experience of this matter, one finds that it has been shown that such pollution as has occurred has been mainly from loading terminals where crude oil is put on to ships, and not terminals where it is taken off the ships. The reason is that in all the cases so far concerned these terminals are mostly further from the shore—up to 14 miles in one case as against two miles in this. That involves the use of stronger pumps and consequently greater tension on the equipment; and the places in Africa and Asia where these functions take place usually have available less
710
competent personnel for immediate supervision and operation. Among the discharge terminals, which is what we are discussing in this Bill, there has been no trouble of any kind at any time in the 18 months' experience of running such a terminal on the Humber. Overseas there has been only one case of beach pollution out of some 1,500 discharges totalling more than 110 million tons of crude in eight years. Many of the spillages that have been listed have been very small, some as little as a pint. Mr. Jim Gordon, chairman of the Durban Antipollution Vigilantes Committee, who has been watching very carefully the operation of the S.B.M. there, wrote in the Press last November:
"There is no objection in principle to an S.B.M. so long as it is carefully operated."
My Lords, the Anglesey terminal would be much safer than that experience, because over eight years it would handle double that volume 110 million tons of crude that I have mentioned, with half the number of ships. There would be 800 ships instead of the 1,500; therefore this would halve the opportunities for accidents. The aim is, by means of a single buoy mooring, to halve the possible occasions of trouble while doubling the volume of oil to the refinery.
Then there is the question of location. Various persons have suggested that the development of North Sea oil surely argues for the location of terminals, and perhaps of refineries as well, on the East Coast of Britain as well as the West. My Lords, those who argue in that way would do well to take a look at the map. The North Sea oilfield is roughly between Aberdeen and the Shetlands, and, of course, if one is going to serve a refinery virtually in the Midlands it makes much more sense to take the oil by sea straight to North Wales and nearby than to take it an equal distance down the East Coast of Britain and then run a pipeline over the greater distance of the Pennines; not only a greater distance, but with greater engineering difficulties. So the question of location as between West and Fast coasts is not, I submit, a strong one.
I think that all noble Lords should be grateful—I certainly am—to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in the first instance (we are all sorry that he cannot attend to-day; I understand that he is abroad) and now to the noble Lord, Lord

711
Goodman, for raising the questions implicit in the Amendment which no doubt the noble Lord will be moving in a moment. I have much sympathy with those who feel that in a complex string of developments like this, starting from the inland refinery expansion, back through the pipeline to service it, back to the storage tanks, back to the pumping station and finally back to the terminal—that any such complex matter involving places 80 miles apart should, in some way, be subject to a single planning operation. I have much sympathy with that point of view. Indeed, it is one that I have advocated elsewhere because I am a firm believer that we should do well to look ahead where we can about projects of this kind and I, too, would like to see the bitty, piecemeal character of these performances avoided in future.
But, my Lords, with the law as it stands and planning permission having been given for this refinery expansion at Stanlow, the rest more or less follows. Indeed, when the planning commission was granted for this expansion there was an opportunity for the Government, had they wished to do so, to propose what is commonly called a planning permission inquiry. There have been other opportunities for the same procedure. The Bacton oil terminal was one and the third London Airport another. But I believe that most noble Lords would share my prayer, and say, "God save us from another Roskill!" However that may be, the planning law as it stands is such that planning permission for an essential part has been given and the consequential operation is going ahead.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment as I read it—and I await his exposition of it with more than the usual interest with which we await everything which the noble Lord says—is bound to have the effect of delaying the Third Reading of this Bill until after the Minister's decision on the public inquiry, which may well not be, let us say, until April, or perhaps even May. At any rate, by the time in that event that there was another chance for a Third Reading in this House, it might well be early summer. But, of course, if the Minister turns down the scheme on the basis of the inspector's report on the public inquiry, the scheme fails anyway; so that
712
nothing that we do to-day alters the situation, except to create a new delay. If the Minister chooses to turn down the planning application investigated at the public inquiry, or indeed the application for a pipeline which still has to go before a public inquiry then the scheme fails.
My Lords, it may well be argued, if that is so why the hurry? There is a need for hurry in this respect. First, there is a kind of multiplier in an operation of this sort. When it is a question of ordering £50 million worth of tailor-made engineering equipment no sensible company will place such an order until it is quite certain that the equipment will be needed. This is not equipment which can be made for one job and switched to another. It is not like buying another motor car. It is specialist, tailor-made equipment; and it is important, if delays in operating the terminal are to be avoided, that the order should be given as soon as possible. If there is delay—say that there is no Third Reading in this House until the summer— it is questionable whether the Bill could be got through another place before the end of this Session. In that event it might very well fail altogether. The difficulty about that, my Lords, is that the pollution hazards are multiplied rather than diminished, for though the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board are ready enough to say that they could cope with the extra tanker tonnage, there is no doubt whatever that they certainly would not recommend it. There will be plenty of opportunity in another place to review the inspector's report and the Minister's decision. A delay now for failure to understand the technological developments would be rather like making a man walk before a motor car carrying a red flag. Deny this facility and you force a marvellous opportunity ultimately to move abroad; deny this and you refuse perhaps 100, certainly 60, jobs to some of the 300 unemployed at Amlwch. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
4.40 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, "That the Bill be now read 3ª", to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert

713
("this House declines to give the Bill a Third Reading until it has had an opportunity of seeing the inspector's report on the planning application inquiry held at Amlwch from the 5th of October to the 5th of November 1971, and the Minister's decision thereon.") The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that I, too, must declare a negative interest. As a trustee of a number of trusts, I believe that I am the owner of a number of shares in the company promoting this Bill. It may well be that if I am successful in my efforts this afternoon my beneficiaries will be reproaching me tomorrow for having reduced their dividend, which I may say is a complaint that I shall bear with composure; and I shall point out to them that they have the compensation of still being able to visit an Anglesey that is unpolluted and undefiled. May I also say that I do not intend to introduce anything controversial into this debate if I can avoid it, because it is very much a technical matter. I have not the slightest word of criticism to address to the great company who are promoting this measure. It is absolutely right that industrial and commercial concerns should promote what they regard as necessary installations all over the country. They should do it with the utmost vigour in places which suit their commercial and industrial convenience taking into account as much as they can æsthetic and scenery considerations.
It is equally absolutely right that those of us who think that approaching an application of this kind should be closely invigilated should address our considerations as vigorously as we can to those who have to make the decisions. It then falls to the Government, the planning authorities and this House to decide which is the greater compulsion—the compulsion of acceding to commercial and industrial needs, or the compulsion of maintaining the countryside, the seaboard and everything else as unpolluted and undefiled as possible. So I have not a word of criticism to say about the promotion of this Bill, and nothing would drag such a word from me.
I entirely endorse what was said by the noble Earl in criticising the procedures which operate in these matters. We have had a previous instance in this House, in which I was myself actively concerned,
714
about the investigation of an important social question that came up in a Private Member's Bill. We, equally, then observed that the procedures were "long-winded, expensive and need not in the end be comprehensive". That, I am afraid, is precisely the situation that has arisen here. This Bill was referred, inevitably, to a highly responsible Select Committee of the House. It is, I think, one of the disadvantages, and perhaps a shortcoming, of the Select Committee procedure that the Committee can consider only what is brought before them; it is not their function, as I understand it, to innovate or make proposals, or to seek to introduce evidence or considerations that are not brought before them by the parties directly concerned and represented.
In the present case, the Bill was introduced as a late Bill, which meant that its opponents, of whom there is a varied selection of highly responsible authorities and other bodies, who feel strongly and have very responsibly advanced arguments, had a very limited opportunity of assembling their evidence. Needless to say—and this is another great defect of this procedure—they had very limited funds to assist them in presenting their case. It is, I think, quite wrong that people who are concerned to protect the countryside where they happen to live or in which they are interested should have to bear the often terrifying expense of organising resistance to measures promoted by great commercial undertakings. I hope that one day we may be able to give a little thought to this matter.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that that would apply also if the planning inquiry commission procedure had been followed: that in fact the cost of representation before such a commission could be even more formidable than the five weeks public inquiry that took place in Anglesey?
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I entirely agree that the cost of representation at any public inquiry is forbidding, and one can only pay tribute to the disinterested and altruistic nature of the people who are prepared to dip their hands into their pockets for the purpose. But I do not think it is an argument for saying that people who want to oppose should be discouraged from

715
opposing because it may cost them money which they are willing, albeit reluctant, to spend.
Coming back to my point, this was a late Bill. The opponents to the Bill had very limited opportunities—and I do not think the noble Earl, who has presented his case with the greatest of fairness, will dispute this—of appreciating the nature of the case supporting the Bill, which is a highly complicated case involving matters of which they themselves could hardly be expected to know anything. In the result, a great many important considerations, relating to the economic factors, social factors, æsthetic factors and factors relating to interference with amenities, were either not introduced at all or were introduced too sparingly—and most of them not introduced at all.
Then another mishap occurred, because the Select Committee, having heard the evidence in the first instance, decided that they wanted to hear more evidence solely on the question of spillage, so that there was a resumed inquiry and a second hearing by the Select Committee, which was by their terms of reference—
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? It was not the Select Committee who decided that; it was the House.
LORD GOODMAN: I apologise, my Lords, and I am most grateful. If I do not show a total mastery of the complicated facts of this matter, it is due to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had such a mastery and has passed the job on to me. It is indeed the case that it was the House that decided that the Committee should be reconstituted with limited terms of reference, which then made it ultra vires for the Committee to consider the evidence which by this time the hapless opponents had tried to collect with such limited funds as were available to them. They did collect it, but alas! to no purpose, because it could not be presented. Thereupon we had this situation. We had the marine operations, which are the subject of this Bill; we had, at the same time, inextricably interwoven with them, the land operations, which were the subject of the planning considerations and which had been the subject of the public inquiry that had taken
716
place and been conducted for many weeks, until as the noble Earl has rightly said, they stand or fall together. It is impossible to have one set of operations without the other; the considerations that weigh with one must weigh with the other. If it is socially, æsthetically and from the point of view of amenities undesirable to have the scheme on the land, it would obviously be a nonsense to have it at sea if the land was also an element of the whole scheme. Hence, it would appear to be common sense that this House, before considering whether this Bill should proceed, should know what decision has been reached in relation to the planning on the land. That decision will be quite shortly forthcoming. It may be a matter of only a few weeks.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House how he has this information, and from what quarter has come the assurance that the Minister's decision will be available in a few weeks? Has the Minister said anything of that sort?
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, it would be helpful to me if the noble Earl would listen with rather greater attention to what I am saying—although of course he need not listen at all. I never suggested that I have had any assurance from anybody. I have not had an assurance from anybody, and it would have been grossly improper for me to discuss it with the Minister. All I was saying was that a decision may come in a few weeks. I do not know whether the noble Earl is in a position to say that it will not come in a few weeks. Of course it may take longer— planning matters often involve great lengths of time. But I repeat, without any apology, that it may come in a few weeks, although it may take longer. But however long it may take, that decision is highly relevant to our deliberations this afternoon, and it seems to me to be entirely wrong that we should proceed to a decision on this Bill this afternoon before we know the inspector's decision after the inquiry and the Minister's decision.
The noble Earl has said that there can be no harm in our giving a Third Reading to the Bill and speeding it on its way to the Commons, because if the Minister decides at some later stage that he wishes to abrogate the matter in rela-

717
tion to the planning inquiry, he can so act. I am inclined to think that this is a misconception of the function of this House. If a Bill has been passed by this House and has the authority of Parliament, it would seem to me to be difficult for the Minister to say that he is going to make a planning decision which appears to be defying the steps taken by Parliament and the view already expressed by Parliament. It seems to me very much to be pre-empting the matter if the Minister is faced with a decision, a fait accompli, so far as this House is concerned. It would therefore seem to me entirely right that we should accept the necessary delay.
The noble Earl urged a number of reasons why delay might be damaging. But, of course, delay is damaging to any great commercial project. But where we are talking of a relatively short period of time, and where we are concerned with a national issue of this importance—because, although this is a Private Bill, it is one of that special category of Private Bills which raises important issues of a national character—it would seem to me highly appropriate that we should wait to be seized of all the information relating to it before we reach our decision. I am inviting the House to agree to an Amendment which in no way passes judgment on the merits of the Bill. I do not for one moment challenge anything that the noble Earl said in relation to the economic factors, the use of large tankers and the likelihood or not of spillage: these are not matters on which I challenge him. I merely say that I have no comment to make on them. It seems to me that people who are well versed in these matters should still retain the opportunity of commenting on them.
Some remarks have been made about the nature of the countryside. The countryside is entirely delightful, and the seaboard also. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has committed himself to paper to the effect that the area is a rather tatty one—I am not sure if that is the word he used but it was not a totally dissimilar phrase. I would invite him to go and take another look, possibly accompanied by younger members of his family. It is not a tatty area and there is an enormous risk of its being spoilt by this installation. I do not say—
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, since the noble Lord has mentioned my views as to this particular place on the sea coast not being the tank farm or marine installations, is the noble Lord aware that the shore installations are on the site of a corporation rubbish tip?
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I am aware of that, but the whole area presents a most agreeable aspect. There is no area in the whole world that has not a rubbish heap: whether you go to India, to Cumberland or the beauties of the Sussex Downs you will find rubbish heaps. If I may say so, it is not a very convincing argument for the erection of these vast installations so far as aesthetic considerations are concerned. I am not saying that in the ultimate analysis we ought not to do it: I am not in a position to say that, because there are often imperatives that go beyond our pleasures and delights. But if we do it we should do it on the basis of knowing all the evidence and of weighing carefully whether the benefits that we are receiving equate with the detriments on the other side. That is all I am saying.
I do not think I need detain the House very much longer. I have, I think, presented the procedural considerations. There were various alternatives available to those who felt that we ought to know the facts before we plunged. One was to ask for the matter to be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration, and it seemed to me that this was not appropriate if we did not know what the planning inquiry was going to say, because it may be that the planning inquiry is so conclusive in favour of the noble Earl that I shall not dare to raise my voice again—it is an unlikely eventuality but it could happen—and then the opponents of, the Bill would be totally silenced. However, it seems to me that as that is of course a possibility it would be wrong to refer the matter back to the Select Committee since there may be nothing for them to consider.
There was also the matter of this new planning inquiry Commission—I say "new"—which is an immensely elaborate device for dealing with the matter. A great deal of the evidence has already been heard and, although this might well have been appropriate at an earlier stage, some of us took the view that it was better to allow the evidence that had

719
already been carefully considered to be weighed most carefully by the inquiry which now has it, and for its result to be considered by the Minister.
Finally, may I say this: the evidence that has been considered by the inquiry and was not, unfortunately, available to the Select Committee is cogent and valuable evidence, particularly that presented by one acknowledged Continental expert of total impartiality. I have glanced through his evidence—I cannot understand a word of it—but what is absolutely clear is that he was recognised by the inquiry as presenting responsible, valid and important evidence and his evidence was accepted as being of relevant value in relation to its deliberations. I ought to say no more than that. I am not urging the inquiry to give heed to what he said, or to attach any particular value to what he said; but it is quite clear that it was considered by the inquiry as relevant evidence. That being so, there is relevant evidence which has not been heard by the Select Committee, and therefore there is relevant evidence that ought to have been heard before we are asked to give this Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, "That the Bill be now read 3ª", to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Third Reading until it has had an opportunity of seeing the inspector's report on the planning application inquiry held at Amlwch from the 5th of October to the 5th of November, 1971, and the Minister's decision thereon.")—(Lord Goodman.)
4.57 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the House has just listened to two very convincing speeches on different sides, and on thinking about it I feel that had both leading counsel been knocked down by buses during the sittings of the Select Committee the noble Earl who has now moved the Third Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, could have taken their places and been just as successful as counsel who were themselves appearing before the Committee. But perhaps it is fitting at this moment that I should be listed as the next speaker in this debate because I had the responsibility of being the Chairman of the Select Committee
720
which considered the Bill. In all, we sat for eight days, morning and afternoon: six days covering the original hearing and two more days after the House had recommitted the Bill because of new evidence which had come to light regarding spillages.
In my capacity as Chairman of that Committee, I first want to say quite clearly that I do not regard it as my position or my duty here, during the course of the Third Reading debate, to plead the case either for the promoters or the petitioners. I am assuming that those noble Lords who are interested in this matter to-day will have already read the two special reports which the Select Committee have presented to the House, and I am not seeking to add a great deal in my contribution to-day. However, there are one or two things that I feel I must say. On the two occasions when the Committee said that the Bill should proceed to a Third Reading I should like to make it clear that those decisions were majority ones. It may transpire during the course of the debate how that division of the Committee worked. It is not for me to say how my colleagues voted, but I would like to declare myself as one of the majority.
May I say that when the Bill was first published my sympathies tended to be with the petitioners, as they were at the time of the Second Reading, which was a very interesting one. As a Lancastrian I love Anglesey and North Wales very much indeed, and as a Socialist I have no particular love for a great capitalist organisation like Shell. So I hesitated as to whether or not I should accept the invitation to be a Member of that Committee; but I regarded it as a duty to the House, and so I accepted the invitation and was appointed Chairman. After eight days of very keen attention to everything that was said by counsel and in the evidence, I reached the conclusion that the Bill must go forward because the evidence had convinced me that the risk of harm to the amenities of the area were minimal and certainly less than the risks which would exist from the transferring of crude oil at sea from the new generation of tankers to the smaller tankers which could go down through Liverpool Bay and unload at Tranmere.
On the question of the interference with the beauty of the island, I went between

721
the two hearings—I hasten to say under my own petrol—to look at the sites in question. I had known them very well years ago and I wanted to see if there was any change. From the time I first knew Amlwch there has been a tremendous deterioration. I agree with the noble Lord that at present the harbour is untidy and littered, and there is not the slightest incentive for it to be used as a small boat holiday base.
I have a feeling that if the Bill becomes law the Shell company will clean up the harbour and make it attractive; they would have the powers so to do. They must do it, because the launches which are envisaged in tile evidence to service the great tankers two miles out could not get into the present harbour, so Shell have to do something about the harbour. And what a difference it would make if they cleaned it up! The site proposed for the tanks to receive the crude oil from the single-buoy moorings—the noble Lord is right again—is at present a stinking burning tip. It is appalling in the extreme, and it would be an under-statement to say that properly landscaped tanks would be preferable to what exists now. Quite close at hand is the associated OCTEL set-up. That in itself is not very picturesque.
It will be seen from our reports that the Committee had some doubts about the possible uses for the terminal other than for the discharge of crude oil to the shore; for example, a possible refinery near the site, the possible loading of oil rather than the discharging of it. In evidence, and in counsels' statements, we received complete assurances on these points. Perhaps I may quote very briefly from our first report of last July. Paragraph 11 reads:
"The petitioners, not unnaturally, expressed the fear that, if the single buoy mooring scheme was brought into operation, the next step would be an application to construct a refinery, or petro-chemical complex. in Anglesey; and the Committee note that an assurance was given in evidence by the chief technical witness of the promoters that the Shell Oil Companies have no intention of building a refinery or a chemical plant or any other type of installation ' (apart from those referred to in the Bill or the subject of the current planning applications) in Anglesey."
My other quotation concerns the question that I mentioned. This is on page 31 of our second day's hearing on the second
722
occasion. This is myself speaking in the Committee:
"The Committee … propose to make a further special report and they note that the Promoters have given an undertaking on behalf of Shell in the following terms, which I quote: `Except with the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the Promoters undertake that they will not use the works authorised by the Bill, or permit them to he used, for the export of crude oil.'"
I asked counsel whether he would give that undertaking and he immediately gave it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, will my noble friend permit me to interrupt? Can he enlighten me? These are no doubt perfectly well intentioned and honourable undertakings, but exactly what force do they have in relation to the Bill before us?
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I cannot imagine that assurances given by a responsible organisation to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House could possibly not be carried out.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, this may well be so now; but how on earth can pressures to extend development in the future be resisted? This is nothing to do with the assurances given to the Select Committee.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, assurances were given with regard to the present condition of the industry and of its ramifications. I repeat that when assurances like this are given to a Select Committee of this House they cannot be ignored in the future; I feel sure that they must be carried out. We have heard several suggestions—and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred to this in the course of his speech for his Amendment—that the Bill might be submitted to a Planning Inquiry Commission under the 1968 Act. My noble friend Lord Kennet talked to me about it at great length before he had to go away. It must be stressed that the Ministers concerned had refused this procedure when we were considering the matter in the Select Committee. On the other hand, the local planning inquiry—as has been said—has been held, and its report is awaited. My latest information on the passage between the two noble Lords is that it has reached the Minister, but the Minister may take two or three months before he expresses his decision upon it. This, I feel, should certainly

723
not interfere with your Lordship's view at the present time as presented.
With the considerations that we have published to the House by Special Report and with what I have had to say, I can only add that it is always very difficult for this House, or the other place, to decide between amenity and the nation's economic needs. But after listening for eight days with patience and great interest, and having read and re-read all the proceedings—and in spite of the new evidence on spillages—I can only be presumptuous enough to advise your Lordships that you should give the Bill a Third Reading…and I add the word, "Now".
5.8 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall be very brief. This is a Private Bill and the Government are neutral on its merits. It is up to your Lordships to decide whether you give it a Third Reading, and whether you give it a Third Reading now. I should like to say a few words on the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has moved, not as to its merits, but simply to draw attention to some of the relevant considerations on the procedure.
The noble Lord's Amendment draws your Lordships' attention to the fact that related planning applications are now under consideration by the Secretary of State for Wales. The Bill is concerned with the proposed offshore installations, the single-buoy moorings, submarine pipelines, a breakwater and jetties. None of these installations is subject to the Town and Country Planning Acts, and therefore the promoters have had to seek Parliamentary authority through this Bill. On the other hand, the related land-based installations are subject to the Town and Country Planning Acts, and it was therefore necessary for the promoters to apply for planning permission. My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Wales, called in the most important applications—for reception, storage and booster facilities at Amlwch and for storage tanks at Rhosgoch, some 4 miles inland—for his own decision. A public local inquiry was held in October and November, and the Secretary of State will announce his decision soon after he receives his inspector's report. But I can-
724
not, I am afraid, solve the dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, as to whether this will be a matter of weeks or months. The inspector's report has not yet been received.
My Lords, this is not by any means the first time that a Private Bill and a related planning application have run together in parallel. The same situation arose, for example, when Esso and B.P., and more recently the Amoco Oil Company, put forward their development proposals in Milford Haven. The fact that related matters are examined in this way under different procedures has indeed caused concern on many occasions, and this concern has been voiced this afternoon. The relationship between Private Bills and planning applications was one of the matters that were discussed in this House only last Tuesday in a most interesting debate on a Motion by my noble friend Lord Molson. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has suggested that the Third Reading of the Bill—
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister leaves that point, may I say a word? He referred to a somewhat similar case of a Bill and planning permission in the case of the oil companies Esso, and so on, at Milford Haven. In that case, was a Bill passed by Parliament before the planning decision was dealt with?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I understand—I should like to confirm it definitely to my noble friend—that in one case it was before and in the other case it was after. But may I confirm that definitely when I have full information?
There is one argument that I think it right to put. Although the offshore and land-based installations would be closely related technically and operationally, they raise somewhat different environmental considerations. The offshore proposals raise, in particular, the question of possible pollution resulting from oil spillage at sea. The land-based proposals raise quite different questions of land use and visual impact in a mainly rural environment. It is therefore quite likely that the inspector's report and the Secretary of State's decision on the land-based proposals will not contain any useful

725
guidance for your Lordships on the environmental issues raised by the Bill. It is necessary, as has been freely admitted, that to postpone the Third Reading would considerably delay the progress of the Bill, which still has to be considered in another place: my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, I think, used the words "fail altogether". It is relevant to point out that of course in the case of a Private Bill the Chairman of Committees in either House could table carryover Motions which would allow the Bill to carry over into the next Session. However, as I have said, the decision is entirely for your Lordships and my duty is simply to point out these facts.
I have had further inspiration so far as the question of my noble friend Lord Molson is concerned. The Esso Bill had passed through all its stages by the time that the planning inquiry was held. The Amoco Bill was finally passed after the planning permission was given.
There is just one other point that I should make clear, because reference has been made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Royle, and also in an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the suggestion that the entire question of this oil terminal should have been put, or might be put, to a planning inquiry commission. It is relevant to make quite clear that in this particular case my right honourable friend was unable to use this particular method of operation because the procedure for a planning inquiry commission comes under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, and this would not have been able to cover the offshore installations, for which this Bill has therefore had to be introduced; and the land-based installations by themselves would not have satisfied the stringent criteria for planning inquiry commissions which are laid down in the 1968 Act. So it is relevant in this debate to say that in this particular case my right honourable friend did not have the opportunity of using this planning inquiry commission procedure to cover the offshore installations as well. That is not, of course, to say that our procedures are perfect and that there should not be some procedure whereby the whole scheme should have been considered, but I thought it right to say that in this particular instance this was not open to him.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I wonder whether I might invite him to have a shade more inspiration. On what he said, it appeared to be rather a side reference, but it is wholly crucial to our discussion. He said that the environmental considerations relating to the marine operation would not be relevant in relation to the public inquiry. But would he agree that other considerations, such as the economic arguments, the social arguments and the technical arguments which had been considered by the planning authority, would be highly relevant to the marine installations as well, and have not ever been heard by any body considering the matter?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, I think the noble Lord is right. There are many considerations that overlap both inquiries.
5.16 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a beneficiary of a trust which has a small holding in the Shell company. May I first of all, before proceeding to my argument, deal with one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he spoke of this Bill on several occasions as being a late Bill which had not allowed the objectors sufficient time to marshal their ammunition before the public inquiry was held. Of course this is not true, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, except in the very limited sense that the present Bill itself was late. But as virtually the identical Bill had been presented by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, I think in the first week of the Session, the objectors could not say that they had inadequate time to prepare. They had as much time as it was humanly possible for them to have to prepare, if a Bill was to be proceeded with entirely in the course of one Session. I thought it was as well that I should dispose of that point at the outset of my remarks.
I am not expecting all my noble friends to agree with what I am going to say because this Bill is not by any means a Party one, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said. It is a matter for each individual to make up his own mind. But I have known Anglesey extremely well for many years. I used to go there every summer before the war and have been many times on holiday since. I

727
know both Amlwch and Rhosgoch and have been there during 1971. I have also thoroughly studied the evidence given on behalf of the objectors, and particularly the evidence mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—at least I think this was his reference when he spoke of the Continental expert who was brought in to give evidence on behalf of the objectors. I think he was referring to my old friend Professor Peter Odell, who is now a Professor in Rotterdam and whose evidence I have not only read very thoroughly and examined; I also had an opportunity of discussion with Professor Odell when he visited the United Kingdom for a few days earlier last month. Also, I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Grove-White, the Chairman of the Objectors' Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned, I have had some argument in the columns of the New Scientist with representatives of the objectors. So I hope no one will say that I have looked at this question in a superficial way. I have taken the trouble to examine it as thoroughly as it is possible to do, and I would not accept the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, put: Because we have not had the opportunity of seing the report of the inspector, that makes it impossible for us to evaluate the evidence that was given before the public inquiry. Any noble Lord who wants to can obtain a copy of the transcript, and he can discuss the views of the objectors with them. They would he only too delighted to speak on the telephone or to meet anyone who inquires about their views.
There can be no dispute, and I think there has not been any during the course of the public inquiry and debates in this House, that Britain will need more energy in the 1980s and that oil will continue to account for an increasing proportion of the total, but since no official estimates are published by the Government one has to rely on forecasts made by the industry itself. For example, that made by Sir David Barran. the charman of Shell when speaking before the Institute of Purchasing and Supply Conference at Harrogate last October. He said that total energy demand would increase from 327 million tons of coal equivalent in 1970 to 440 million in 1980, and that in this period oil demand would increase from 44l½ per cent. to 53 per cent. of the
728
total. All this oil that will be required in 1980—according to Sir David, 159 million tons—has to be brought into this country either by tanker or by pipeline. I do not think there is any dispute thus far, nor is it disputed that to meet the components of increased demand served by the Stanlow refinery, the present expansion of capacity there from 10 million tons a year to 18 million tons a year by the end of 1973 was necessary and inevitable.
After 1973—if I may attempt to summarise the arguments of the objectors and to put them in slightly different form from the speeches of noble Lords who have spoken so far—they say that further expansion of Stanlow to as much as 25 or 30 million tons may not be required because oil demand in the North-West is growing more slowly than in other parts of the country. Secondly, since as much as 100 million tons a year may be produced by North Sea oil fields in 1980, it would be more economical to feed Stanlow by means of a trans-Pennine pipeline. Thirdly, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has said that it can accommodate an increase of 50 per cent. in tanker traffic coming into the Tranmere terminal and therefore Amlwch is unnecessary. Fourthly, that whatever Shell or the Anglesey County Council may say, the existence of the terminal at Amlwch will create pressure by other companies for refineries and even petro-chemical plants elsewhere on the island. Finally, that the local public inquiry and the two Select Committees have not been able to examine the scheme in its entirety or to consider the alternative choices from the standpoint of the public interest. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, that we want to consider whether the 1968 Act procedure does not enable us to consider offshore and land installations at one and the same inquiry and whether some Amendment to the 1968 Act is not now required.
As things are, the Select Committee has looked at the offshore installation; the public local inquiry has examined the shore station and the tank farm, and later on there will be a separate inquiry under the Pipelines Act 1962 into the pipeline between Rhosgoch and Stanlow. Having got thus far, I think it would be utterly unreasonable to the Anglesey County Council, to the Shell company

729
and to the consumers who will depend on Stanlow and who will ultimately have to bear the increased costs if the terminal is not constructed, if the whole of the last year's work were to be set aside, because that is what the appointment of a planning inquiry committee at this stage would mean, or indeed the acceptance of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
Moreover, the limitations on the procedures followed have been at least partly overcome in that the inspector permitted discussion of matters that were not strictly within his terms of reference. It has been pointed out by the objectors that the inspector is not obliged to include such evidence or to make any reference to such evidence in his report to the Minister, but I would certainly expect that the Minister, in making his decision, would thoroughly examine all the evidence in his Department, whether or not it is mentioned by the inspector.
As to the threat of further development, it is said that Anglesey, with an S.B.M. terminal, would become an extremely attractive location for a company wishing to enter the North-Western market. We have already heard about the categorical assurance given by Shell to the county council and to the Select Committee that the company will not build a refinery, a chemical plant or any other project associated with these works not provided for in the scheme now under consideration, and no one has questioned this undertaking. What is being said is that some newcomer entering the field will request permission to develop on the island. So where is this hypothetical oil company going to get its oil from? Certainly not from Shell, which has good commercial reasons for minimising the competition which it has to face in the North-West. It is worth recalling, as Sir Elwyn Jones did in his summing-up speech at the public inquiry, that there is no way of compelling Shell to permit another company to make use of their offshore S.B.M.s or the local pipeline between Amlwch and Rosgoch or the tank farm at Rosgoch. With the approval of the Secretary of State, they could be made to allow another company to use the Rosgoch—Stanlow pipeline, but if that question ever arose the
730
would-be competitor would obviously be thinking of a site on the mainland, nearer to the centre of the market.
In fact, Anglesey would be a most unsuitable location for the refinery of any oil company and not just of Shell. The objectors have pointed out that there are only two crude oil import terminals in Western Europe, at Finnart and Wilhelmshaven, which lack oil refineries, and they say this is because special geographical factors prevail in both those cases. But, my Lords, special factors operate in the case of Anglesey. For a start, road and rail access is extremely poor, so that most of the products would have to be moved by tanker. That means that such a hypothetical refinery would have to be located on the coast, and would need to be accompanied by installations for loading the products into tankers. The Amlwch harbour, even with the improvements that are to be made by the Shell company would be far too small for this purpose. Maybe there could be, theoretically, a loading S.B.M. for this hypothetical company to take products of the tankers, but I recall that the average size of a product batch is far too small to make an S.B.M. suitable for this purpose. Nor is there any site for a refinery at or near Amlwch that would be suitable on planning grounds. Most of the coast of the island is already designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, including the coast on either side of Amlwch itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, obviously has not been to Amlwch or he would not have dismissed my remark about the Corporation rubbish tip by saying, "Oh well, there are corporation rubbish tips everywhere". This is the only place on that stretch of the coast which is unsightly, but as soon as you leave the town you have some of the most beautiful stretches of coastline that could be imagined. If a site could be found somewhere away from Amlwch and not on either side of it but still on the island, it would defeat the supposed object of this exercise, which is to take advantage of Shell's terminal facilities. A new pipeline would have to be constructed to serve the refinery, and this would clearly be more expensive than using the pipeline that will already exist from Rosgoch to the mainland.

731
In theory, I should imagine that it would be possible to continue to use Tranmere, and of course there is no alternative until the new terminal is completed. But the existing facilities can only handle vessels of up to 90,000 tons full laden. This means that the very large crude carriers have first to discharge some of their load into smaller vessels before they can enter the terminal and unload there.
The Select Committee found, in paragraph 8 of its Report:
"The whole of the North coast of Wales is exposed to risk of major oil pollution arising from accidents to tankers going to and from the Mersey through the congested sea lanes of Liverpool Bay, and to a lesser extent from the transfer of oil cargoes at sea. These risks are bound to increase as the volume of oil brought into the Mersey by present methods increases."
That was the view of the Select Committee as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has reminded us. So although it would be possible and perfectly legal to carry on with present methods, at least for the next few years, it would be highly undesirable to do so for any longer than is necessary.
Much attention has been focused in the Select Committee on the problem of spillage, and the reconvened Select Committee has examined new evidence from Shell on the experience of S.B.M.s in various parts of the world. It is a matter of common sense, I suggest, that if the risk is equal every time a coupling or uncoupling operation takes place, transferring between one tanker and another at sea and taking both into a terminal is an operation three times as risky as taking one very large carrier into a terminal at an S.B.M. and having one coupling and uncoupling operation at that terminal. And this, of course, assumes that no greater risk arises from transferring oil between one vessel and another at sea than transferring between a tanker and a shore installation where you have personnel who are well trained, permanently stationed at the shore and very experienced in the operation concerned. Apart from the dangers of pollution from the continuing use of Tranmere, it is going to be very expensive indeed. If this Bill were not passed we should be denying to consumers in the North-West and in the other areas served by Stanlow the benefit of cheaper fuel.
732
May I say one word about the prospects of oil discovery in the North Sea? Professor Odell obviously attached great importance to this, and the objectors say that it has become more critical since the inquiry was held. No one, not even the company themselves, nor the D.T.I., can forecast how much oil will be produced from the North Sea. But let us assume that Professor Odell's estimate of 100 million tons a year by 1980 is correct. He tells me that at the time of the inquiry he was thinking in terms of 75 million tons, but in the light of developments since then he feels that the higher figure is now probable. But where are the largest oilfields going to be found? By far the highest figure paid for any block in the August, 1971, auction was the £21 million for 211/21, which is 430 kilometres North-East of John o' Groats. The depth of water in this block is up to 150 metres, and the nearest land is over 50 kilometres away, the Shetland Islands.
If one bears in mind the formidable difficulties of even drilling in such depths and the fact that no oil company has yet laid pipelines in water 150 metres deep or in anything approaching such conditions, it is a fair assumption that the Shell-Esso consortium would have paid £21 million only if they were reasonably certain of finding very large quantities of oil. And, to a lesser extent. the same arguments apply to the Mobil Group's bid of £6·3 million for block 9/13. It is clear that if oil is discovered in either of those two blocks, or in the next allocation which is shortly to be awarded to the West, on the other side of the Orkneys and Shetlands, it would have to be brought ashore in the islands and taken from there to the mainland by means of oil tankers. This means that you will have a loading S.B.M. in the North of Shetland, and you would have physically to import this oil, even though from the balance of payments point of view it is British oil.
Secondly, oil found in these latitudes is not necessarily going to be processed in East Coast refineries. It makes very little difference whether you take it to Amlwch, to Grangemouth or to Teesside. There would certainly be no point whatsoever in building a trans-Pennine pipeline, as suggested, if it has to be brought to the mainland by tanker first.

733
Looking at the map again, there is a cluster of blocks awarded last August roughly on the latitude of Aberdeen, including 15/26 for which B.P./Deminex paid £3·4 million. I hardly imagine that anyone is going to suggest constructing a pipeline from Aberdeen to Stanlow. The North Sea is a very large area and it does not finish opposite Hull, as the objectors seem to imagine. It is wrong to assume that if it does yield as much as 100 million tons in 1980 that would make any difference at all to the need for a terminal at Amlwch. Incidentally, it is not right to assume that North Sea oil will necessarily be processed in the United Kingdom, because it makes no difference to the balance of payments whether you use this oil in the United Kingdom or whether you export it and use the foreign exchange thereby generated to pay for other sources of crude which may be more suitable for the requirements of this country, where heavy fuel oil dominates the market. In the North Sea the oil found so far is of very light specific gravity.
Even if demand on the Stanlow refinery stopped at the 18 million tons projected for 1973, the Amwlch terminal would still make sense, from both environmental and economic points of view. It appears to be the opinion of the objectors that because oil demand has been rising more slowly in the North West than in the country as a whole, the forecasts of the company are of doubtful validity. To this there are two answers. One is that Stanlow serves not only the North West but part of the Midlands and the North, extending as far as the Borders of Scotland. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from a study of the economy of the North West by itself are useless. Secondly, the company does not make forecasts, as Professor Odell appeared to be suggesting at the public inquiry, just by the crude process—that is not meant to be a pun—of extrapolating from past experience. What they do is to break up the; market into its components and assess each one separately in the light of all the available commercial intelligence. Forecasting is not an exact science, but the better the data available to you the more likely you are to be right. Therefore I say that Shell is more likely to be accurate than the objectors. And, after all, if Shell makes a mistake, it is the company who will
734
pay and not the objectors who will suffer any loss.
Finally, considering the terminal as a development in itself, without regard to wider national considerations, if I may say sum it up, the Corporation rubbish tip will go and be replaced by the shore installations, which will be more sightly. The single buoy mooring offshore 2 miles away will hardly be noticed, while the very large crude carriers moored at them will be an added tourist attraction. The harbour at Amlwch will be greatly improved and could become, as Sir Donald Gibson pointed out at the inquiry
"a major asset on this part of the Anglesey coast ".
The trades council is on record as supporting the proposals, as are several individual trade unions and the local unemployed. The tank farm at Rhosgoch will be visible only from a few places of outstanding natural beauty, and from practically none on the coast where most of the tourists go. The risk of pollution on the beaches is going to be less than if the terminal is not constructed.
The Member of Parliament backs the scheme, as does the County Council itself, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that the views of the people of Anglesey are a more important test of acceptability in this case than the views of the Minister and the public inquiry. With great respect to all those whose views about the preservation of the environment I share and applaud, I think all the arguments are on the side of the promoters. And even if this were not so and the balance were to be more finely drawn, I think it would surely be improper for the non-elected House to make the final decision on this Bill. I hope, therefore, that even those who still believe, in the face of all the evidence, that the Bill should not be supported, will at least allow it to go forward to another place without a Division.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I do not intend to take up the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because he speaks with great expertise which I do not command; he admits that other experts take a different view. His expertise illustrates perhaps an example of the difficulties which this House, or even a Select Committee, must have in assessing these matters.

735
I think it is my function to explain the point of view of the two of us on the Committee who did not agree with the three who were the majority. At the moment, Parliament is being asked to approve a scheme to which it cannot consider alternatives. It is as though Stansted were before us and we were forbidden from considering Cublington or Foulness. A Planning Inquiry Commission, so far refused by the Minister, would have been empowered to consider alternatives and undertake research—for instance, a computer model—and to look into technical aspects, but not a Private Bill Committee of this House.
I think I should say that I have a great respect for the Shell company, both as enlightened employers and as good citizens of the world. Lately I have heard about the splendid work they did in Nairobi in establishing the Starehe School for unfortunate lost boys after Mau Mau, but that is characteristic of their good citizenship in the world. I must declare an interest since I am one of their shareholders—as so many people seem to be —but also a counter-interest since I am a member of the National Trust and the Wildfowl Trust, and so on.
Shell's judgment on matters of planning, on winds and currents, on the effects of pollution, and even more on minor spillages, on the noise and on the smell of installations, and on their effect on bed and breakfast holidaymakers, so important in a predominantly agricultural area, cannot be infallible. And on the proposals of this Bill they are to some extent, subject to the decision of Parliament, in the position of judges in their own cause. So far as I can see, if the Bill proceeds and is not referred to some independent body able to consider alternative sites, nobody will have been in a position (other than Shell themselves) to say whether this deep water terminal could not be placed elsewhere, in some position that would involve less risk to a clean and beautiful stretch of coast—I am not talking about the harbour but the coast—and conflict less with the principles of planning and conservation, which surely demand that, when so much of our coast is contaminated already, the cleanliness of the rest should be preserved.
We are faced, my Lords, with the problem of whether some parts of our
736
natural resources are not too valuable to be sacrificed even in return for generous compensation. Shell, with the power of their long purse, have felt able to offer compensation in advance—so much per ton on oil landed. This offer of permanent compensation has "squared" the Anglesey County Council who, as might be expected, first opposed the Bill when it was brought forward by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, acting, someone said, as Shell's catspaw; and the County Council have "squared" the Amlwch Urban District Council, who were indeed petitioners against the Bill when it first came before us. There is nothing improper about such "squaring" —it is a matter of compensation for this and that—and everybody has been financially generous. It is perhaps interesting to note that it came out in evidence that some members of the Anglesey Tourist Association at first hesitated to oppose the County Council's Bill because of a grant they receive from the Council and which they feared they might lose. The Council never actually threatened to withdraw it, but the power of the long purse can be seen working right down the line.
Shell first presumably looked at the economics of their proposal, and these economics are of course of great importance to us all. It was stated in evidence that their proposed terminal would be the first in North Western Europe to take these tankers of 300,000 tons, and that this would lead to economies of great value to industry. Such considerations obviously enable Shell to be generous. But, my Lords, is finance to be the only yardstick? In any event, the evidence of Professor Odell—whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has mentioned—given last October before the Minister's inspector, sheds serious doubts as to these economic advantages. I do not want to go into that because I must confine myself mainly to the evidence given before the Committee.
Shell contend that the larger, and so the fewer, the tankers, the less the risk of collision—and that by avoiding the neighbourhood of the Mersey that risk would be further reduced. On the other hand, two sea captains with close knowledge of the coast told us that in certain conditions they regard the position two miles North of Anglesey as a high risk area for collisions. Captain Williams said the terminal would be at a focal point

737
for traffic in and out of Liverpool. Captain Davy, Master of the car ferry from Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire, said:
"The traffic fluctuates greatly. At low water at Holyhead the traffic is considerable because ships are making for the high water at Liverpool. They take the inside channel of the recommended lane round The Skerries. The same applies to outward bound traffic."
He considered it an area of high collision risk at these times, and, my Lords, a collision involving one of these enormous ships would be disastrous. The risk seems to me to be increased by the fact that they would swing their great length through 360 degrees at their moorings.
There is shelter outside Amlwch only from the prevalent South-West winds, but none whatever from the North, and we heard from a sea captain of Shell's that, in a gale, their vast tankers would have to seek shelter in Liverpool Bay. We also heard from Captain Davy that however sheltered the North coast of Anglesey may be from the South-West, there can on exceptional occasions, when the wind is Northerly, be a wave 30 feet high—and that waves from six to eight or ten feet high occur regularly between five and 10 per cent. of the year. We have only to consider these maritime factors and that the sea lanes to the Mersey pass not far beyond the two miles to feel some grave anxiety about the risk of collisions. Furthermore, the tankers on turning round to go South would have to cross the sea lanes.
On spillages we heard, first, that such things were virtually unknown at single buoy moorings, but this evidence was somewhat modified as our hearings proceeded. In shore oil installations (not at single buoy moorings) frequent spillages were mentioned, for instance at Milford Haven. I mentioned the prosecutions for spillages referred to in the Irish Parliament as taking place at Widdy Island in County Kerry, and these were not denied. It is hard to believe that Shell have techniques for avoiding spillage unknown to the other oil companies, or that intake on a heaving buoy from a heaving ship is less likely to lead to spillages than pumping ashore in a harbour. I could not help feeling that the relatively clean record of single buoy moorings was that spillages at sea in remote places often pass unnoticed except by the dying sea birds who are not able to report them.
738
It is noteworthy that at the comparatively new single buoy moorings at Durban, where particularly careful records have had to be kept, 23 spillages were observed from 91 tankers in 12 months.
After the inspector's inquiry in October, the Shell company had to come back to Parliament because they had discovered evidence of many more spillages. The Bill, as your Lordships know, had to be re-committed, and the new evidence is the subject of our second report. We heard that there was greater risk of spillage from oil being pumped into ships than when pumped ashore, and that Shell were only concerned at Amlwch with that but in any case oil for bunkering will have to be pumped ashore there and then pumped out into the tankers. It is quite obvious to me that there would be some spillages, and a biologist said in his evidence that numerous smaller circles of oil were particularly deadly to diving birds—who, after all, never in fact reach the centre of a large oil slick; it is the edge that matters.
The importance of the coast of Anglesey to the Faculty of Marine Biology at Bangor University, a faculty for which that university may be said to be internationally famous, was explained to us; and it appeared further that it was the clean unspoilt beaches of Anglesey which are the main attraction to its holiday visitors. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, although he mentioned that Amlwch itself was not so beautiful, will bear witness, because he said so in private conversation, to the great beauty of those beaches.
For myself, I rate what I regard as the inevitable pollution of the beaches from time to time under the Bill as much more serious than the siting and landscaping of installations, regarding which Shell's architectural witness, Gordon Graham, showed that they were prepared to take great trouble. However, no witness was able to satisfy me that at this place, where townsmen come on holiday in search of peace and quiet, there would not be a noise from pumping all night long which it was admitted would be necessary, or that there would not be some aroma of oil. I put to a witness the suggestion that an oil spillage in a harbour was more easily detected and contained than in the open sea. The reply

739
seemed to be "Yes". I put to another witness that 10 or 20 miles out would give a better chance of dealing with an oil slick before it reached the shore than 2 miles. Again, the answer seemed to be "Yes". Since we sat, it has been reported in The Times that on July 15 an oil slick six miles long was breaking up 12 miles off the coast of Anglesey. One wonders whether if the slick had occurred only 2 miles off it would have reached the coast.
It was admitted that there were other places which could be considered for pumping operations to Shell's refinery at Stanlow, but it was not in our competence to consider these. The most powerful argument produced by Shell for landing from tankers was that large tankers at present need to be lightened at sea before proceeding into the Mersey, by transferring oil, with consequent risk of spillage. However, this argument seemed to contradict the promoters' suggestion that there would never be spillages at the single-buoy moorings. As I have said, a heaving buoy is surely not unlike a heaving ship, with all the hazards of undetected spillage in the darkness of the night when much of the pumping would be done.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will agree that there is a difference between a ship lightening at sea under uncontrolled conditions, and a ship off-loading to a single buoy mooring under highly controlled conditions, with every kind of anti-pollution provision on hand, with launches standing ready, with qualified crew and with qualified supervisors, all under the control of an authority which is in turn under civil and not under Shell control?
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, of course I must accept that, but one thing which is not under control is the weather.
I welcome the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, since, by the agreement of all concerned, additional evidence on marine and economic aspects was given at the local inquiry which might well have affected our Committee's decision. It seems to me that Professor Odell's evidence, in particular, might cause the Minister to change his mind and have alternative sites considered by a planning inquiry commission, or otherwise. But which Minister—Wales, the
740
Environment, or Trade and Industry? A Mr. Jones gave evidence before us of the attitude of the Minister for the Environment, expressed in a letter to the noble Marquess, Lord Anglesey. When I asked him whether it was like the laws of the Medes and Persians, he said, "I suppose it would always be possible for him to change his mind." The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, asked him whether the Minister had considered the question of oil supplies generally, but Mr. Jones said that that was a matter for Trade and Industry. Was there ever such an example of inter-departmental confusion and buck-passing?
Anyway, our Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Royle, was determined to clear up the obscure position of Ministerial attitudes, so we adjourned until another Mr. Jones could come along from Trade and Industry. The second Mr. Jones said that it was his Department's basic policy to leave it to private industry to devise means and methods of supplying the customer. He concluded:
"We leave the siting of refineries and terminals to the industry, and we leave it to them to push it through the various procedures."
The Third Reading in this House is one of the various procedures, and I hope we shall resist the pushing process and insist that the proposals and alternative arrangements are at least examined by the Ministers concerned, with a view to seeing whether they will change their minds and have the question of the nation's oil supplies properly looked into by some independent and qualified body.
5.55 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, if I may join in this debate as someone whose maiden name was Jones, we have before us two quite distinct matters. One is the merit or demerit of the Bill, and the other is the question raised in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—the satisfactory nature, or what some of us regard as the profoundly unsatisfactory nature, of the procedure which we are required to follow in determining these matters. I should like to make it quite clear on the merits of the Bill that my own personal inclination would be to support it. But I say that with considerable hesitation which I shall I explain in a moment, because I do not

741
think we have been put in a position to reach an adequate judgment on the matter this afternoon.
I am moved to support the Bill by a very strong feeling of sympathy with the people of Anglesey in their need for further employment. The situation in Anglesey, as I know only too well, both as a Welsh woman and as someone who at one time had responsibility in the Welsh Office for employment, has been intractable in the extreme. I should particularly like to pay tribute to the right honourable gentleman Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, the Member of Parliament for Anglesey, for the efforts which he has made over the years to attract enterprises bringing further employment to the island. No one could have worked harder or been more devoted in the cause of his constituency. Also, the County Council, which is the promoter of the Bill, has been one of the most enterprising county councils in a situation which is far from easy, because they have to try to reconcile the need to preserve the amenities of a holiday area with the need to provide year-round employment—not just seasonal employment—for the inhabitants of the island. So, from that point of view, anything which would bring even a relatively small number of new permanent jobs would in itself be welcome. Similarly, I must say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as against the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, so far as the rubbish tip is concerned. One has only to see the place to realise that almost anything Shell could do would be an improvement on what it is. Therefore, so far as the immediate proposed location of the shore works is concerned, I should not be in any way averse to the Bill's going through.
But where I am much worried is that, in spite of the devoted labours of the Select Committee, to whom I am sure we should all pay tribute, those of us who are lay persons are, nevertheless, not really in a position to make up our minds on the merits. I had the temerity to interrupt my noble friend Lord Royle when he was referring to the undertakings given—one in the First Report and the other in the Second Report of the Select Committee—because the mere fact that those were called for and specially mentioned by the Select Committee meant that they had some sense of unease
742
about those two matters. One, which is referred to on page 11 of the First Report, is the possibility that the next step after the present application has been accepted—if it is to be—might well be an application to construct a refinery or a petro-chemical complex at Anglesey. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rather poured scorn on this, but we should at least bear in mind that the original plan at Milford Haven was very similar to this one in the sense that it was built in order not to refine the oil on the spot but to pump it to Llandarcy, which is comparable with the proposal to pump oil from Anglesey to Stanlow. But what happened was that once that had been established, other oil companies looked at the area and said, "This might be a good place for us", and we now have a whole series of refineries, more or less landscaped, up and down Milford Haven. So, with great respect to Lord Avebury, I should have thought it was at least conceivable that in the future some other company might come along and suggest that this was a possible place for establishing some other sort of works.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the companies concerned had the encouragement of the Pembrokeshire County Council in putting refineries on that land, and was it on land which was designated as of outstanding natural beauty?
BARONESS WHITE: If I may answer that, my Lords, I do not think it is either here or there whether that particular county council took one attitude or another. I should have thought the haven at Milford Haven is something of natural beauty which has not been improved (shall I put it?) even with all the safeguards which, I must admit fairly, have been observed by the various oil companies concerned.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but as a former director of the Milford Docks Company I have some slight knowledge of the affairs about which she is speaking. Does she really think that the sheltered waters of Milford Haven, which have proved suitable for jetties plus refineries, are in any way remotely comparable to the situation on

743
the coast of Anglesey, which is to any layman obviously suited only to S.B.M.?
BARONESS WHITE: If you can have one S.B.M. presumably you might even have another. This is a matter on which, again, I do not think we have necessarily had complete information.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but was the noble Baroness not saying that the danger was more refineries, and that these would be brought into being, or could be brought into being, by the existence of S.B.M.s? I thought that was the argument.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, what I am suggesting is that if one company goes to a place, other companies are apt to follow. I take the noble Earl's point that refineries are not necessarily suited to Anglesey, but there are possibilities, if you once start an establishment of this kind, that thereby you may attract others. There I think we have again the dilemma in which we are always placed: they might bring some slight employment, which is valuable in itself, but they might further damage an area which, I must put firmly to your Lordships, has already been considerably damaged by the Octel company. Anybody who has been to this place will have great sympathy with the local residents who are opposing this Bill—and some of them most emphatically are—because they say, "A few years back we were approached on just the same sort of grounds, that employment is needed in Anglesey and therefore we should accede to the application of", at that time the Octel company, which distils sea-water, as I understand it, but which has been allowed to erect the most hideous buildings on a very conspicuous headland immediately to the side of the harbour which Shell is applying now to develop. Therefore there is some substance, I think, in the apprehensions of the petitioners that in the future there may not be, as there has not been in the past, satisfactory control over this kind of development on a very sensitive coast.
So this particular assurance, given in paragraph 11 of the First Report, while it may be entirely valid—and I would accept this without hesitation—so far as the Shell Company is concerned, may not necessarily be entirely conclusive so far as
744
other enterprises are concerned. Similarly, the assurance given in the seventh paragraph of the Second Report. This assurance is given in these terms:
"That except for the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales, the company undertake that they will not use the works authorised by the Bill, or permit them to be used, for the export of crude oil".
The point about this, of course, is that if the crude oil was exported instead of imported the danger of spillage would be greatly increased; that is common ground. But this is the assurance of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales at the time, whoever they may be. There will be no Parliamentary control whatever over such developments. It is not written into the Bill. This is simply a general undertaking which would then pass entirely from our hands; we should have no control over it at all. So I am a bit concerned about these two matters which are specifically referred to by the Select Committee. As I say, it seems to me that they have only very limited validity as assurances for the future.
Now, my Lords, I do not wish to go into the many other points of detail which have been touched upon already in the debate, but I do want to come to this question of procedure, because it is this which really worries me. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is going to press his Amendment, but if he does I will vote for it, and I will vote for it for this reason: not because I do not have sympathy with the objects of the Bill—I do—but because I do not feel satisfied that we have had an opportunity to look at the whole question of this type of development in its full context. I would suggest that, particularly in your Lordships' House, if we are in a situation of this kind we must at some point make some protest, and the only way in which I think we can do this on this occasion is by following the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I had first intended to make some critical remarks about the refusal of the Secretary of State for Wales at an earlier stage to appoint a planning inquiry commission, but I now understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has told us that in fact he could not do so under the existing law; that is to say, under the Town and

745
Country Planning Act 1968. This surely, my Lords, indicates that there is a defect in our legislation, because he ought to have been able to do so. This was a case in which the whole complex situation ought to have been examined as one project in all its aspects.
But, far from that, we have a Private Bill before Parliament; we have no fewer than three Secretaries of State concerned with one aspect or another of this matter; we have not yet had the report of the inspector, still less, of course, the decision of the Secretary of State for Wales, on the planning aspects; and we have not even the evidence officially before us. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that one could read the transcript. One can do so by courtesy, I think, of Shell: one cannot do so officially. I myself went last Friday to the Welsh Office, where I was received, naturally, with the greatest of courtesy, and asked if I could see a transcript of the public hearing, which lasted nearly five weeks. I was told, "We are very sorry; we do not prepare transcripts". There is no official verbatim report of one of these public inquiries. The inspector makes notes, which, as I understand it, are personal to him and on which his report to the Secretary will be based. Now we just do not know whether or not the inspector will go into the evidence of, for example, Professor Odell, of which I have in fact obtained a transcript. He is not under any obligation to do so, if he does not wish to. I am not quite clear how the Secretary of State is to take cognisance of this evidence. He can presumably apply to Shell or to the petitioners for a transcript; but he is under no obligation to do so.
Nor, with great respect, do I believe that the inspector at the planning inquiry is qualified to judge the sort of wider considerations which were indeed admitted as evidence but which really are not normal planning evidence at all. Therefore it seems to me that those of us who are, as I say, lay people in these matters are put in a very difficult position, because we cannot judge adequately to-day, to my mind, the wider issues raised by a question of this sort. I repeat: we just do not know whether or not these wider issues of the whole business of planning of oil supplies, and of how they should be handled in relation to amenity and other matters, are going to come into the inspector's report. This
746
certainly would be profoundly unsatisfactory. Then, when the Secretary of State for Wales has made up his mind on the planning inquiry, and has let us know what he thinks about that, we still have the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who, under the Pipelines Act 1962, has to look at the pipelines proposals; and we also have the Secretary of State for the Environment who has to make up his mind under Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 on what he thinks about the expenditure on the harbour.
As the noble Lord, Lord Royle, pointed out in the Select Committee this is of some relevance, because there was a previous occasion, on the Bristol Docks Private Bill when the Bill was given to the promoters by the House but the then Minister responsible turned it down on economic grounds. So we have a very large number of cooks in this particular broth. It seems to me therefore that if it was not possible for the Secretary of State for Wales, on perfectly proper grounds, to set up a planning inquiry commission we ought to indicate by our voices to-day that we feel he should have been placed in a position so to do. If the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 is inadequate to cover a situation like this, then that Act should be amended.
My Lords, it is for those reasons, with considerable sympathy for the objects of the Bill but with complete and profound dissatisfaction with the procedures that we are being asked to follow, that I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. There is a further reason, one which I mentioned on Second Reading months ago. It is the position of the voluntary societies, of the amenity societies in this matter. They are now expected to make their representations not once but at least twice, and it may be three times. This seems to me to be a quite intolerable burden in a situation of this kind. They should be given the opportunity to bring forward their evidence on just one occasion and not have to appear at a five-week hearing on a planning application, at an eight-day hearing in this House and a further hearing in another place, and to have to bear the expense of bringing their witnesses, taking time off work, using up their holidays and so on. They should be asked to do that once in a good cause, but not twice or three times.

747
This again is a strong reason why we should make it plain that we find the present procedure a defective one that should be amended.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT HOOD: My Lords, as I have the pleasure of following the noble Baroness, Lady White, perhaps I may start by adding a word on the point she raised referring to the assurances given in the two special reports. I do not need to add anything about the refinery, which has been dealt with; but so far as the use of the mooring for the purpose of exporting crude oil is concerned, it was explained to the Committee that in order to enable that to be done it would be necessary to make changes in the installation in the shape of introducing stronger pumps and various different kinds of valves. That, I assume, would become subject to a local planning inquiry; so there is control beyond the mere assurances of the Secretary of State.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with respect, I understood that the marine works are not subject to planning.
VISCOUNT HOOD: My Lords, these works, I think, will be on land. If the crude oil is to be pumped from the land to the ships, the pumps must be on land. That is why new apparatus must be installed at Amlwch itself.
On the main issue before the House, I do not favour this Amendment because I think the time has come for decision. This project has been under consideration for over two years. It has been given careful examination and has been fully discussed. As a result of that examination and that discussion, the original scheme has been substantially modified. I should not think of mentioning all the changes, even if I could remember them; but I think that the significant fact is the one mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale: that, whereas the original scheme was opposed by the local authority, this Bill has been accepted by the Amlwch Urban Council and is being promoted by the Anglesey County Council. Even if the Bill is passed it is still possible to introduce further modifications in the project—for instance, in order to give effect to any recommendations which there may be in the inspector's report.
748
But I think it would be an illusion to imagine that further modifications will make this project generally acceptable. Those who still object to the project, object not so much to particular features but to the whole idea of establishing a terminal in Anglesey. On the other hand, any delay in starting work on the project is bound to put off the time when we can expect to enjoy its benefits. Those benefits were fully described by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and therefore I need not repeat them. If one believes, as I do, that those benefits are of national importance, then one would like this country to begin enjoying them as quickly as possible.
We have been told that the extensions to the refinery at Stanlow will be ready by the end of 1973. On no estimate can this terminal be ready by then; but let us keep the time-lag as short as possible. I think that there is a risk of making it greater if we accept this Amendment—even if it only a question of Parliamentary time. It has been pointed out to-day that there is a real danger of slippage into the autumn. But I think we are dealing here not simply with the hazards of the Parliamentary Timetable. This Amendment is intended to pave the way for more delay, for examination of other sites and other possibilities. In the Select Committee we heard quite a lot about the idea of a planning inquiry commission. I noticed that the subject of the planning inquiry Commission had been dealt with during the debate last week on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Molson. The Government spokesman then pointed out what a very unsatisfactory procedure it was—costly, cumbrous and exceedingly time-consuming. Since we have heard to-day that under the existing law a planning inquiry commission would in any case be unable to consider the seaward works in this particular project, I hope that we have heard the last of any ideas of referring this subject to such a commission.
But there has been mention to-day of a wider inquiry of another kind: whether the whole subject of the exploitation of North Sea oil ought to be examined; whether there should be examination of the national oil policy, or perhaps even of the fuel policy as such. Yesterday, in the course of the debate on coal, the

749
noble Baroness, Lady White, suggested that the whole question of procedure should be looked into. It is certainly not for me to say whether any one, or all, of these are not worthwhile things to do; but I submit that this proposal is not relevant to the passage of this Bill. I think that it relates to a completely different time-scale. In considering the exploitation of the North Sea or a national fuel policy, surely we are addressing our minds to the last years of this decade, or to the next decade. The Bill that we are now considering is designed to meet needs that will arise at the end of next year. I should have thought that we cannot within the foreseeable future dispense with oil from the Middle East, and therefore it is only prudent to try to arrange to bring it in cheaply and safely, and to do that as rapidly as possible.
We have heard of alternative sites. Amlwch was not haphazardly chosen. Other possibilities were considered, but they were not pursued because the other sites did not meet some of the requirements. It is not simply a depth of water that is required; it is a depth sufficiently near the shore and sufficiently sheltered. The distance from the refinery is also relevant. The site at Amlwch seems to fulfil these requirements. The Shell company believe that they can operate successfully from that site and they are ready to back their judgment and to invest large sums of money. The Anglesey County Council, after a careful study lasting over two years, have come to the conclusion that the disadvantages of this site, the harm to the amenities, the risks of more oil spillages close to the land, are not so great as to outweigh the benefits for the nation and for the island. I hope that your Lordships will endorse that conclusion and give the Bill a Third Reading this afternoon.
6.22 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, much to my regret, I have no financial or any other interest in this huge company. I wish to deal with environmental and conservation issues and the company's attitude to points that obviously greatly concern my noble friend Lord Moyne. I happen to know from personal experience that Shell, the company involved in this project, has done more for the conservation
750
of wildlife and the environment than most other major companies in the United Kingdom. They are substantial contributors to the World Wildlife Fund and to the Nature Conservancy. They give unrestricted research grants to a number of scientists in the conservation field and also make contributions for specific projects such as the conservation unit at Newcastle University where work is being done on oiled seabirds. In addition, my Lords, work on conservation is being carried on all the time in their own laboratories.
An important point is that Shell are one of the few companies to have a conservation committee on which every major function of the company is represented at a high level. This committee, I understand, reports directly to the Chairman. Every aspect of environmental conservation of the group is watched most carefully to see that standards are maintained. Shell, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, produce a large number of publications on flora and fauna. There are, for instance, the Shell East Africa guides on birds, flowers and wildlife parks, etcetera, and the excellent maps which cover the distribution of fauna throughout the African continent.
I have been granted most valuable practical assistance from Shell. After traveling: 1,550 miles through the Sahara I re-established that the Addax still existed in that country. My paper on this species was published in the International Union Conservation of Nature bulletin in July/September, 1969. My trip was materially assisted by Shell, and I am very happy to have this opportunity of confirming to your Lordships Shell's dedication to the cause of conservation. It is a very strong one indeed. As an amateur naturalist I am convinced that this project will not threaten our natural environment, but failure to go ahead may damage another species in which I am interested—homo sapiens, whose biggest problem to-day in this country is unemployment.
The project before your Lordships involves an expenditure by the company now estimated at £55 million, an increase on the figure which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, put forward, which means work for a large number of our people. That is an argument which

751
no one in this House can contest, with to-day's dreadful unemployment figures. Therefore, my Lords, I give my very strong support to this Bill, being convinced that it will not damage our environment, and that it will result in additional work for our factories and employment for our people.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he is aware, and agrees, that although they brought employment, the Rio Tinto Works caused more unemployment? People came in and jobs were taken and economists are puzzled by what happened. But is not there a danger that the same thing may happen at Amlwch? People will come in and settle there. But can all the jobs, technical as they are, be taken by local people?
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising this point and I hasten to admit that I am not qualified to answer him. Undoubtedly, a number of technical jobs will have to be handled by specialists who will have to be brought into the area. When he addressed us earlier this afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, made the point that there would be some 60 local people needed to work on a permanent basis. Also, my Lords, there is the other point, that where you have a project involving £55 million a very large element of the bill must relate to capital goods. I assume that these goods—pipes, drums, pumps and all the other machinery which is necessary—will have to be produced in our factories. This means a very substantial increase of orders for all the companies involved in that sort of work, and I hope it would result in more employment for the work force in those industries.
6.30 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I am neither the right person nor qualified to comment on the exact location of the terminal; instead, I should like to take a step back and take a broader view of the whole question of bulk shipment which has led to this Bill which we are considering to-day. We are in the midst of a very far-reaching revolution in the national and international shipment of manufactured goods and raw materials.
752
This revolution, which has been kindled and fanned by the demand for increased speed of shipment, lower prices, and so on, has led, among other things, to this very widespread development of containerisation and shipment in bulk. These moves stretch across all industry sectors and, as we know, have in the past decade dramatically influenced the methods of shipment by road, rail, air and sea. It is one of these developments that affects us to-day.
In the few moments before me I should like to look at the existence and the desirable or undesirable future of the giant oil tanker and its methods of unloading at its United Kingdom port of call. There is here an underlying trend which we must accept and recognise, and this is the trend towards larger and larger tankers. We must recognise, too, that there are now—and there will be more in the future—major changes in methods of loading and unloading and in final distribution. What we are worried about is ensuring that any economic benefits which this trend will bring are not offset by the increased risks and potential dangers in the pollution area at whatever points in the chain they may be caught. As one might expect, we have a conflict of interest. I cannot, as I say, comment on the exact location of the terminal, but I tend to accord very much with the views of my noble friend Lord Hood.
We have at the moment in the world some 350 tankers of over 100,000 tons; 240 of these, classified as V.L.C.s are of over 166,000 tons; several are of a quarter of a million tons or more; and the one million tons tanker is perhaps more than just a gleam in the designer's eye. These ships are no longer, I believe, ordinary cargo ships: some people might call them artificial islands on the high seas. They need special consideration and special facilities for loading and unloading. I think, from the little that I know of the subject, that of these the single buoy mooring system is perhaps the simplest, most effective and safest that has been designed to-day. There may be better designs in the future, but for the moment I think that is the best. Those who doubt its viability and its safety should bear in mind that all the oil companies have a very heavy investment, a heavy stake, in this—one they have not made, and will not make, lightly.

753
The other point is that they have an equally heavy investment in the tankers themselves. I gather that a giant tanker to-day can cost as much as £18 million, and that its cargo can have an insured value of £2 million to £3 million, which gives it a value of over £20 million and places it in terms of market capitalisation comfortably among the top 200 companies in this country. I do not believe this is the sort of investment that people play around with lightly.
Another point arises when one talks of these large sums of money. The large tankers carry insurance for pollution risk of around £15 million; but I think it would be totally wrong to assume that damage to the environment by oil pollution can always be compensated for by hard cash. The insurance should be at the other end, by making sure that any risks, however small, are guarded against in advance.
This leads me to a point which worries me in particular, and that is whether the current safeguards for tankers on passage, particularly when they approach the coast, are sufficient, and whether the time may not have come to place them in a special category. We have three elements involved here: the competence of the captain and the crew; the equipment and the performance of the ship itself; and the safety of the route which she takes as she approaches the coast. I cannot comment upon the competence of the crew, except to say that no responsible oil company is likely to entrust £20 million to anyone without the highest standards and qualification. There is of course the nagging doubt that some companies are not as responsible as others, and I cannot help querying whether ships that sail under a flag of convenience are likely to show the same responsibility as those which do not.
People have raised the question of the design of tankers and their safety in rough seas. I feel that there need be no cause for concern here. Under normal conditions—non-emergency conditions—these ships perform remarkably well. They are extremely manæuvrable. I must say that I myself doubted this and wondered how quickly they could alter course in a given situation, and I gather that such a thing as a 5-degree alteration in course can be achieved in as little as 8 seconds. These tankers, from what I
754
have been told, appear to become almost more manæuvrable as their size increases.
This brings me to the one major area which does give me concern, and that is the safety of these tankers on passage as they go up and down the coast. Unfortunately, there is always the third party. There is the merchant ship under way on automatic pilot with the crew below making tea—and I know that this has happened. Then there is the single-handed yachtsman, exhausted and asleep; or the ship steaming too fast in thick fog; or—a general fear of some mariners—the submarine which surfaces and cannot hear the propellers of these vast ships because they have no warning noise and their noise is protected from above. These are worries, and trouble from any one of them, however small, could cause a major pollution disaster.
I think it is important to encourage these large tankers to keep out of the congested shipping lanes where they could be prey to the folly of others. They need special treatment, and perhaps even special rules of right of way. Maybe as they get bigger their movements should be reported and recorded; and perhaps when they reach one million tons they may need to have an outrider escort. Let us do one thing: let us try to keep them out of the English Channel. I certainly welcome any move that will take big ships out of the Channel. I think that somewhere between 300 and 400 ships move up or down the Channel every day, and not all of them behave responsibly. I think this is my main reason for wanting to support this Bill to-day.
A secondary one is the standard one that people comment on, that there is perhaps too much weight in the South-East of England at the moment—it is dipping into the sea—and anything that can be done to direct industry to the West and the North is a good idea. As I have said, my Lords, I am not qualified to talk about the individual aspects of this Bill, but in principle I think it is a right one. I am a little surprised that it should have taken such a long time to reach this stage. I hope that it will not be delayed any further, and I support the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, my noble friend said that these tankers are very

755
manæuvrable. Has he any knowledge, for instance, of how long a 200,000-ton tanker going at 18 knots would take to come to a dead stop?
LORD SELSDON: Yes, I think it is something like 15 times the waterline length, which would be about three miles under normal steam at sea, and assuming that no emergency operations are taken into account. If full emergency is taken into account, I am not sure what the distance is; but it dramatically narrows down. These vessels draw 65 feet, fully laden, and this gives them much greater manæuvrability. I am often amazed that these larger ships should have this manæuvrability. I doubted it, and I actually raised it with some of the people concerned: with the Department of United Kingdom General Shipping, with Shell and with a large shipping broker. Frankly, as I say, I did not really believe it; but it is a fact.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, we all seem reluctant to let the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, sit down. Does he agree with the views of the sea captains I quoted: that two miles out is very close to the sea lanes?
LORD SELSDON: As I say, I do not know the environment, and I should hesitate to answer my noble friend on that point. Obviously, the further you are away from the shore and the sea lanes, the better. There is an ideal, and there is the right answer; but unfortunately they are not always the same.
6.38 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, because he is invariably well-informed and cogent, and I entirely agree with his arguments. The basic fact that we have to face to-day seems to me to be that Lancashire and all the area that it serves needs more energy, and it really is time that we began to think how this is going to be obtained. They need more oil, and they need it cheaply. I agree with those who say that this type of development in Lancashire is likely to be very important, because the extra refining capacity and the extra throughput of oil is likely to provide more raw materials for other industries, and this is all likely to provide not only the energy, but extra em-
756
ployment in the area. I believe that these considerations are very important when we have such great unemployment in this country, particularly in the North and particularly in an area where some old industries have declined. I would not want it to be thought that for that reason I was against proper account being taken of environmental considerations. Nothing has been more disastrous in my lifetime than the disregard paid to the preservation of the amenities of our shores and rivers, and I certainly think that when we undertake a new development such as this we ought to ensure that the best possible scientific and industrial advice is obtained and the matter fully gone into.
I am very impressed with the way in which this inquiry was conducted by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Royle. They seem to have gone into the matter carefully, to have been prepared to reconsider further evidence when it was produced, to have further meetings, and to produce a second report. I really think that the Select Committee deserve the thanks of your Lordships' House. I was also very impressed by the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Some points have been raised about the siting of the buoys. If you take a map of Anglesey and look at it carefully you will see that if you were to place a buoy 10 miles off Amlwch, as has been suggested, it would really not get shelter from the South-West wind—and the waves that come up the Irish Channel with a good South-West gale blowing are pretty formidable. I think there is no doubt therefore that a site further inshore offers more security for the safety of the shins, for the oil and for the amenities of the shore. In support of this view I mention that the Mersey pilots were very fully consulted in the course of the inquiry and they were at first not much in favour of this scheme because they did not think that the buoy was going to be correctly sited. It was on their advice that it has been placed two miles from the shore, where the shelter is better. Therefore I think the site now chosen is probably the best one. In any case, there is another consideration: that the further out from the shore you place the buoy the more likely you are to have collisions. I thought that the objections raised by

757
the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, were inconsistent with each other in this respect—the further out you place the buoy the more likely you are to have collisions.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for a moment, regarding the two points, the nearer in the more danger there is of pollution inshore, and the further out the greater the risk of collision. The two things are consistent, from two different aspects.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I fully take the noble Lord's point, but the further the ships are from the shore the more they are in the sea lanes, and I think that was the view of the Mersey pilots.
I personally hope that we shall not delay this Bill. I thought that the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in moving his Amendment really cut both ways. It is true that it would be interesting for this House to wait and see if the ministerial decision comes down in favour of the pipeline and the associated installations. But, on the other hand, it could be argued that it would be of great help to the Minister, when deciding whether or not to grant the pipelines, to know whether this House approves the Bill.- If the House were to reject the Bill there would be no question of the Minister having to take a decision, and he might very well he thankful for this excuse to avoid taking one. Therefore I think that we have to "get cracking" on this. The time for decision has come. We need the oil and we need a decision. If we delay now I am not at all sure that the Bill will get through in this Session. There may be delay in the autumn, and at this time next year we may be considering the matter again.
We certainly need more industrial development, and we certainly need to delay less on these inquiries. While I am entirely in favour of the greatest care being taken of environmental considerations, I do hope, having regard to unemployment and to the needs of our economy and the great care that has been given to environmental considerations, that a decision will be taken to-night and that we shall give the Bill a Third Reading.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he expand on his reasons for saying that he considers the site chosen to be the best one? No one will dispute that the employment arguments are important, particularly in the North-West of England, but surely there is plenty of coastline which is already developed industrially and where a site like this could be put and where it would be welcomed?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords. I cannot say that I know everything about the charts for this area but when a company the size of Shell, with the support of the local authorities and the Mersey pilots, says that this is the best position where you can get great ships reasonably close to the shore with safety, and unload them with reasonable security for environmental considerations, then it would not occur to me really to go round the charts searching for a better site. I would say that the experts had made their decision and that it was really better for us, all things considered, to accept that decision.
6.48 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I will be very brief. I am by no means an expert on the matter under discussion, but it is a matter of principle at least a matter of my principle in that in March 1970 I returned to this country from a sojourn in the North-West of Australia, where they have mountains of iron ore. I discussed with the people there their projects for exploiting this bonanza—it seems that they mine 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of this commodity as against as little as 30 percent. by America, and so it is obviously something of vital importance as a raw material. I asked the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, at the time what facilities this country was going to make available to enable us to take ships of this size, because I gathered from the people in Australia that they were planning to send their iron ore in palleted form. The answer was most unsatisfactory, and the only reason why I intervene this evening is to emphasise that these bulk carriers are obviously going to be the things of the future. I am supporting this Bill purely because this is the first step in the preparations that I have been urging should

759
be made for these bulk carriers of the future. If we do not get cheap iron ore in palleted form and if we do not get comparatively cheap hulk oil, then it seems to me that some other country is going to get them. That is the only reason why I support the Bill.
6.50 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. I made my speech on Second Reading. I made it not because I have any interest in oil or in Amlwch but simply because last year I spent a holiday in North Wales. I do not know when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was last there, but I must say that the picture he painted or Amlwch did not represent itself to me when I looked at it. I went there and enjoyed it immensely; and I went because, as many people know, I was Parliamentary Secretary for a number of years to my good friend Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, when he was Minister of Agriculture, and of course Anglesey is his constituency.
I suggest, very respectfully, that we should remind ourselves what this proposal is. At the present time the Stan-low refinery currently uses about 10 million tons of crude oil per annum which is supplied from the Tranmere terminal in the Mersey. Expansion is now in hand and is due to come on stream towards the end of 1973, which will raise this to 18 million tons. It will then increase over the next decade, in progressive stages, to 25 and 30 million tons per annum.
Your Lordships might do well to consider the economic contribution that makes to the country when one remembers that this refinery supplies industrial products to the whole of the Lancashire hinterland, as far North as the Scottish Border, and as far South as Sheffield. So it is of considerable economic value to a substantial part of the country. It seems to me that if there is any justification for the scheme, there are two advantages: it will ensure an economic supply of oil to this area; and secondly, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, it is going to minimise to a considerable extent the danger of oil tankers being interfered with. So it has those twin purposes, both important to us.
760
It was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that the opponents of the scheme were given little time to prepare their case. I thought it was very well pointed out by the noble Lord, Lora Avebury, that this was the second Bill. The only correction I would make is this: when the Mersey Docks and Harbours Bill was withdrawn and the present Bill was introduced, I was not altogether carried away by Lord Goodman's picture of this great oil "mogul" swallowing up a few poor petitioners. This Bill has been promoted by the Anglesey County Council. Of course there is a considerable Shell interest in it, but the promoters are the Anglesey County Council. And do not let us pretend that there was any fear; the only fear they had was that the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Board might get permission to promote this Bill and the consequent income would be denied to Anglesey County Council. This would be an important part of their income.
I think the other argument has been disposed of: I do not claim to be an expert, but I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, say that single buoy moorings are as safe as any to-day; that we do not know a safer one. So from that point of view I should have thought that everything that was asked of them technically has been met. The question was asked why there should be hurry. "Hurry" is a comparative word. When one thinks how long this Bill has been going through your Lordships' House, I can assure you that those outside who want it passed do not think that we have been dealing with it hurriedly. They think we have been taking too long about it. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was quite right to point out that one of the problems that the big firms have to contend with is that the longer the delay, obviously the greater the expenditure which has to be made to provide the machinery required. Because no company is going to spend sums such as are involved in this particular proposal without having a cast iron assurance that they are going to be used.
As I say, I have no personal interest in the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, confessed that he has some interest through some little trust with which

761
he is connected. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that he thinks he has some shares in the company and that he may well be delaying increased dividends, an action for which he will not be thanked by his fellow shareholders. But I beg him to consider the other people who are involved. It could provide work for 60 men, and it may well be 100, in direct employment. They have no alternative to play off against it; they either get employment through this proposal or they face the possibility of getting no employment at all. I do not think that we should seek to minimise this point by saying that there may only be 100 jobs involved. A hundred jobs in the context of this Bill, and of Amlwch, means that it is 100 employed out of 300 unemployed. I suggest that if anybody could give the Government a proposal which would reduce unemployment to-night from one million to 700,000, they would get an O.B.E. immediately. I do not think that we ought to underestimate what this proposal may mean economically to this community. Neither can I agree that we ought to delay the Bill and not make a decision. If there was any strength in the noble Lord's argument, he should have intervened earlier on, because there is no good reason that I can see for your Lordships taking the trouble to appoint a Committee to examine the Bill, to ask them to sit for eight days doing so, and then to say, "Make no decision to-night; we had better wait until we hear what somebody else is going to do". If that is the view that we are going to take we shall have to consider whether we ought to have appointed the Committee at all.
The last argument of the noble Lord, in moving his Amendment, did not impress me very much, either. I admit that he said that my noble friend Lord Kennet ought to have been here to move the Amendment. I can only suggest that he did not get a very good brief from my noble friend when he undertook the job. The noble Lord said that there was one other opinion that ought to be considered —one foreign expert. I do not think I am misquoting the noble Lord, but he said that he did not understand a word of what the expert had written, yet he highly recommended him. I thought that was rather a doubtful witness to quote in support. The expert turned out to be Professor Odell.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I only want to say this: he has totally misquoted me.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord said that he did not understand a word of what had been submitted, and I thought that the submission was so technical that the noble Lord was making a confession. I am sorry if I misquoted him in this respect.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, did very well to explain the procedure to us. May I pick up, with his speech, the point made by my noble friend Lady White? First of all, may I say to my noble friend how grateful I was to her for the tribute that she paid to Mr. Cledwyn Hughes for the work that he had carried out. Indeed, she might have claimed some of the credit, for she was Minister of State at the Welsh Office. It will not be forgotten by my noble friend or by any Member of your Lordships' House that it was Mr. Cledwyn Hughes who designated the coast of Wales a place of scenic beauty, except for this bit of the coast which he felt he could not include. There can be no doubt about how he felt in the matter.
I will not argue with any noble Lord in the House about the procedure; the procedure may be a little distorted, and certainly it is costly. But when my noble friend makes a complaint about the procedure, she is complaining not about Anglesey County Council but about some defect in both Houses of Parliament. If the procedure is wrong it is because the procedure has been laid down by this House and another place. If that is so, then there is nothing that the Anglesey County Council can do about it. They have to operate under the Act of Parliament laid down by us. If your Lordships want to make an issue of this matter it ought not to be made with Anglesey County Council. I am a little surprised that my noble friend should choose to do that on this occasion. I should have thought—and there seems to be great unanimity of opinion—that the procedure ought to be revised; it ought to become less costly and give greater opportunity to people who find a difficulty in raising money to put their case. I would agree with all that; I should not dissent for one

763
second. But I think that to use that as an excuse for delaying this Bill is not a very good argument and I do not see the logic of it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to intervene for one moment? Surely he will appreciate—he has been in Government himself—that unless one takes particular instances and makes some protest on them, Governments pay no attention to general comments on procedure.
LORD HOY: My Lords, there are various ways of making protests. When we take a county such as Anglesey, with an unemployed population of 121½ per cent.—among the highest rates in the country—and choose that as an excuse for doing it, then I do not accept that argument. I am agreeing with the principle of the argument, but what I am saying is that this is a bad occasion to choose to bring it to the attention of Government. It may be that the Government will note it as a result of all that has been said in your Lordships' House to-day, but in my view it is not persuasive enough to send me, and I hope most noble Lords, into the Lobby against the Third Reading of this Bill which has been recommended to us on two occasions by a Select Committee appointed by your Lordships.
7.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, a few technical points have been raised which 1 must answer now since I speak, I hope, by leave of the House. It would have been wrong for me to continue to intervene in other noble Lords' speeches. On the question of the best site—the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey—if he will look at the National Ports Council's progress Report published in 1969, and available since that time in the Printed Paper Office, he will see, on page 139, a chart. He has only to look at that chart to see where he can find 20 fathoms of water sheltered inshore and close to the Midlands. The question of distance from the shore is something about which the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, was very fair. The problem is to strike a balance between nearness for scrutiny and distance for maximum early warning if
764
one is thinking of pollution. Of course, there is also the need to be as near shore as possible for operational reasons such as shelter and the power of the pumps concerned. But what matters is that the Mersey pilots, having been fully consulted and having originally protested, are now in accord with the site chosen. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, referred to wave heights of 30 feet. We are well aware that this spectre was raised by two ferry captains at the inquiry. But according to the National Institute of Oceanology, who have perhaps a wider experience, such waves are very unlikely to occur except at rare intervals, and it is certainly the case that if anything serious of that kind arose then a tanker at the mooring would be sailed away to somewhere else.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke about Milford. Without reopening what she said then, I should like to tell her that the director of the Field Studies Council of the Oil Pollution Research Unit in Pembroke has stated that their surveys show that no long-term changes in flora or fauna can be attributed to the oil terminals there and the refineries. My noble friend Lord Moyne also said by implication—and he also mentioned it in the Select Committee, so I take it up again—that possibly construction jobs that may be expected have the effect of increasing unemployment in the end, because people come in to take these jobs, they like Anglesey and then they stay. This story about the "negative multiplier"—and I think it was my noble friend who used that phrase before the Select Committee—is something I have looked into, and so have others; and so far as Anglesey is concerned experience seems to talk in the opposite direction. Between 1961 and 1971 when the Wylfa power station and the R.T.Z. smelter were built, population went up 16 per cent., from 53,000 to 60,000, but jobs went up 25 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, also spoke a good deal about Shell's long purse, and I do not think it is necessary for me to spend a great deal of time on that. He referred to Bangor University. I do not know whether he was referring to Professor Crisp, head of the Marine Biology Department at the University College, North Wales. I understand Professor Crisp was speaking, when he did, purely

765
in a personal capacity, and the Faculty have said nothing of that general sort.
A good deal has been said, directly or by implication, about the resistance and opposition to this proposal throughout Anglesey. I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady White, did not herself refer, as I propose now to do, to the Anglesey Defence Action Group. This is a most resourceful organisation which claims the support of many others. Indeed, it rallied—and I give this to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, because he confessed lie had difficulty in getting on top of his brief beforehand—some 7,000 signatures to a petition against the Bill. These 7,000 signatures included a number of people from as far afield as Mexico, many people outside Anglesey, a large number of school children, and one or two surprising signatures such as those of the Chairman of Esso, Mr. H. Wilson, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Heath.
One does not want to take up the time of your Lordships unduly, but I come now to the nub of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I cannot help feeling that his renowned and respected capacity for disguise has extended both to his visit to Amlwch and to his erudition. He has confused the function of this House with the inquiry procedures. As the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has just said, Parliament is responsible for these procedures and Parliament can change them. But to pick on a particular case like this, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, by way of a protest—in other words, to offer Amlwch as a burnt sacrifice purely to draw the Government's attention to shortcomings in procedure, about which we are all in agreement—surely is not necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, also made some play of an unnamed expert, whom it was not difficult between us to identify as Professor Peter Odell. The arguments of the Professor I had already anticipated in my opening speech (they referred to North Sea oil), and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave us a useful picture of the geography involved. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also said, going back to the procedure point, that it may well be that, even when the report from the inspector is received and the
766
Minister has given his decision, it will give us no guidance on the technical aspects of the marine terminal, which is what we are discussing. He admitted that it might give some guidance on economic points. But whether that is so or not, the fact is that these procedures, objectionable and unsatisfactory as they may be, are those made by Parliament; and, as I say, to use this occasion, and include it in the unemployed of Amlwch as the opportunity for a protest, seems to me to be gravely irresponsible, to put it no worse.
My Lords, the Anglesey County Council, the elected authority, want this Bill; the Amlwch U.D.C.—albeit, according to my noble friend Lord Moyne, as a result of the long purse of the Shell Company, for better, for worse—have said they want the Bill now; the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board who sponsored it in the first place want it still; the pilots want it; the unemployed want it. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to recognise that he has made, in his own incomparably charming and effective way, a most useful and helpful protest, but I beg him not to press his Amendment to a Division.
7.9 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I gather that I have a right of reply, but I shall be merciful by restricting it to the briefest possible length. First I must say, almost sobbing with emotion, that I must resist that last appeal. There would be absolutely no logic in this debate if my Amendment were not pressed to a Division. Hence, I am afraid, however late the hour, it must be pressed to a Division.
The second thing I want to say is that with great reluctance I am anxious to reject some of the arguments advanced in my favour. I particularly want to reject the suggestion that this occasion is being used to demonstrate the inadequacy of Parliamentary and other procedure, and the unfortunate Shell company are being used as a butt for that purpose. That is not in the remotest fashion the way in which I advanced this case. What I was saying was that the inadequacies of Parliamentary procedure in this instance have left a situation in which a full and thorough investigation has not been undertaken.

767
It is possible to deal with this matter very briefly indeed. There are two considerations. First, has all the evidence been heard, weighed and considered, so that we may arrive at a conclusion? If it has not, nevertheless should we proceed to a Division and to support this Bill on the basis that the consequences that would ensue if we were to adopt an alternative course are so severe and so grave that we should take the risk of making the decision without knowing any further facts? May I deal with the first point first? The suggestion is that there will be an intolerable delay. The fact of the matter is that we are told that the inspector's report is ready and either has reached the Minister or has not yet quite reached him. It seems to me to be an absurdity that the Minister has colleagues within earshot of my observations, and he will know that it is being urged upon him by this House that serious considerations of unemployment (about which I shall have a word to say in a moment) rest on this decision. Is it not therefore the fact that a responsible Minister will immediately call for the papers, urge the inspector to make greater expedition, and reach a decision on this matter within seven days? This is not a matter where, if the Minister takes the papers home and works day and night, there are such crucial and economic issues that have to be borne in mind that there will be any difficulty at all in his assessing the situation in the relevant time. That is not an argument that to me is very impressive.
Nor—and I venture to say this with the utmost respect—should the issue of unemployment have been raised in the fashion in which it has been raised in this debate. I venture to think that there is no Member of this House who cares more about unemployment than any other Member; we are all desperately concerned about it. But if we are to accept the logic of this argument, why have planning considerations at all? If it is a question purely of unemployment and purely of economic considerations, and they are so compulsive, then it is a great nonsense that we should have gone through this procedure for two years to consider all the complicated issues that are part of the safeguards that exist in this country to ensure that we preserve amenities.
768
This debate has taken a rather lighthearted course. I do not say that I regret it. We have ranged over a number of fields. We were told, for instance, how well Shell supported conservation and wild life. I may say that they have been most ungratefully rewarded by the appearance of the Wildlife Fund among the objectors to the Bill, but I hope that will not in the least affect the extent of their contribution. Perhaps they may even increase their contribution. But none of this has any relevance. The apotheosis of big business was reached in one speech from one Bench—I will not even designate the speaker—who said it was quite wrong for us to have any views about where the installations should be installed. If Shell had once arrived at a conclusion, who were we to say otherwise?—because obviously they know better than any of us.
I may venture to say this: I do not think that I know better than Shell about where installations should be placed. I do not think that Shell are anything but a great and responsible company, and I said that at the outset. However, it is clear that they have a point of view; they have interests to serve that may necessarily be in conflict with other people's interests in relation to conservation, the preservation of beautiful spots and the preservation of amenities, and it is for us to weigh the two cases. There is nothing wrong in their advancing their case with great vehemence and force, but equally there is nothing wrong in our advancing the contrary case with equal vehemence and force.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether this matter has been the subject of consideration of all the relevant interests? The course of this debate has conclusively established the contrary proposition, because one member of the Committee says, "Yes, we did not in fact hear a certain amount of evidence". That was the speech that came from the Chairman of the Committee, and he obviously discharged his duties most conscientiously, just as the Committee discharged their duties most conscientiously. They bring in a report based on the evidence; but he said to us, rather confidentially, as though giving us, as it were, a metaphorical wink, "There was some other evidence, but frankly I advise you not to worry about it. I do not

769
know what it was. I did not hear it, but I am quite convinced that it could not have much relevance to this issue."
Another member of the Committee said, "Yes, there was other evidence and I think it was very germane to this matter and I do not think you ought to proceed to adjudicate on this matter without hearing it". Now that evidence has been heard by the planning inquiry, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, delivered a long, fascinating, well-informed and technical speech replying to all that evidence, he being the only person in this House who knew what it was. There was not a single Member of the House who had any notion of what it was that he was replying to. He was replying to evidence given to the planning inquiry, and unknown to us.
My Lords, I do not want to keep you any longer at this moment. I would only say that in relation to the considerations of unemployment we earnestly hope that employment will be made available on
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly; Bill read 3ª.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
all fronts and that the Government will exercise themselves as they should to remedy that matter. But unemployment should not be used as a lever in a debate of this kind. In my opinion it is faintly improper that we should be told by speaker after speaker that all the considerations that weigh in planning matters, all the considerations in deciding whether to preserve the coast line, whether to preserve the beauties of the countryside, must be overridden because we shall find 60 jobs. Of course 60 jobs are crucial, but I doubt very much whether, if you took a plebiscite among the unemployed, and asked them whether they wanted these amenities of the countryside to be destroyed so that a consideration of this kind might be introduced, you would have very much in the way of a majority.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24: Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Anglesey, M.

Glasgow, E.

Raglan, L.

Boothby, L.

Goodman, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Burntwood, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vernon, L.

Chalfont, L.

Kinnoull, E.

White, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Molson, L.

Wise, L.

Conesford, L.

Monson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Crawshaw, L.

Moyne, L. [Teller.]

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Dundee, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Arwyn, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Milverton, L.

Avebury, L.

Greenway, L.

Morrison, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balerno, L.

Hankey, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Headfort, M.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hood, V.

Selsdon, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Carnock, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Terrington, L.

Champion, L.

Wheatley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Margadale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Essex, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUNDAY CINEMA BILL [H.L.]
7.26 p.m
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the proceedings of this day in respect of the passing of the Sunday Cinema Bill be vacated. I must offer an apology to your Lordships for moving this Motion, but it is necessary for a privilege Amendment to be made to the Bill before it is sent to the Commons. A privilege Amendment should have been moved after the Third Reading this afternoon, but by inadvertence this was not done, and in order, therefore, to put the matter right it is necessary for me to move that the proceedings in respect of the passing of the Bill be vacated, so that I may then, if it is your Lordships' pleasure, move the privilege Amendment in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings of this day in respect of the passing of the Sunday Cinema Bill be vacated.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the privilege Amendment be agreed to.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, the Amendment (privilege) agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL MARI TIME CONSULTATIVE ORGAN ISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1971
7.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, a draft of which was
772
laid before this House on December 16, 1971, be approved. This Order, which has already been approved in another place, will put on a statutory footing the exemption from vehicle Excise duty already enjoyed by senior officers of IMCO under administrative action.
In 1968 Her Majesty's Government signed a Headquarters Agreement with the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMco, the only Specialised Agency of the United Nations with its headquarters in London to regulate the status, privileges and immunities of the Organisation in the United Kingdom. It was intended to accord financial privileges—but not, I should stress, immunities—on a diplomatic scale to the senior staff of IMco; that is, to those officers whose status is comparable to that of a diplomatic agent. However, the International Organisations Act 1968 did not make the necessary provision in regard to vehicle Excise duty, exemption from which is in fact accorded to diplomats. As a matter of good faith, since it was understood during the negotiations with IMco that this exemption would be included, it has since 1968 been accorded administratively on the understanding that the position would be regularised at an early date. The necessary statutory authority was secured when Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Act 1971 became law. As was explained to the House on that occasion, an amendment to the Headquarters Agreement has been negotiated with IMco, laid before Parliament, and will enter into force when this Order comes into force.
I hope that the House will approve this Order, which involves no issue of principle and merely regularises a concession which our previous assurances require us, as a matter of good faith, to accord. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1971, laid before the House on January 18 last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian..)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921 (LONDONDERRY SHOOTINGS)
7.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I have been asked to move, and do move, the Motion standing in his name: That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, January 30, which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.
I want to be as short as possible, for reasons which I will endeavour to explain. Faced with the news which has dominated public attention in the last two days I believe that the Government were faced with two alternative courses of action. I do not believe that there was a third course. I do not believe that there was an intermediate course of action which any Government ought seriously to entertain. Either we had to stand pat on the account of the facts given by the Army Command, or we had to order an inquiry of this kind. Quite clearly, there were serious arguments in favour of what I have described as "standing pat". They cannot be derided or set aside. One national newspaper at least has expounded them and embraced them in its leading article this morning. I think, therefore, that I ought to explain quite quietly what they are, and why we have chosen not to accept them.
The arguments would, I think, run something like this. The situation that we have to face is a serious situation; our troops in Northern Ireland are not there by their own choice, they are obeying military orders; their presence there has been expressly approved by Parliament; they are there daily subjected to violence, including carefully prepared murder by riflemen and bombers; the civil population are being terrified by bombs, and their lives and property endangered and destroyed by bombs which are, after all, the most indiscriminate of all weapons; every weapon of propaganda is being employed and is being levelled against those whose duty it is to enforce the law there, and sometimes even against those whose duty it is to speak in favour of moderation. An order
774
to restrain processions and parades in this atmosphere was deliberately defied, and there are no doubt in existence those who will use perfectly peaceful demonstrations as cover for more sinister activities and who try to bring the troops into the open by booby traps and riot. In such circumstances, it is inevitable that life would be lost.
I say now, and I do not believe that I shall be contradicted, that it is unthinkable that any British Government, of whatever complexion, would authorise the indiscriminate destruction of life. I believe it quite unthinkable that British troops would obey such an order if it were given. Obviously, we cannot order inquiries into every incident that takes place; nor can we be sure that other incidents will not take place. There have been three Inquiries into this sequence of events: the Cameron, the Compton and the Scarman. None of them has been wholly satisfactory. When Mr. Justice Scarman does ultimately report he will be dealing with events almost three years past, and his report, when it comes, may be more interesting, alas! to the historian than to the contemporary political world. That is no criticism of the Chairman of any of these Inquiries.
These were powerful arguments, and they cannot be derided. Nevertheless, my Lords, the fact remains that 13 people were killed and about 17 were wounded between a quarter to four and sunset on Sunday afternoon. There have been wild and sometimes reckless charges hurled at the troops—charges which, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, are wholly without foundation. In these circumstances—and it is in these circumstances that I ask your Lordships' approval—Her Majesty's Government reached the conclusion that it was important to establish the facts, to establish what actually happened. To quote the Leader of the Opposition in another place—I am not using his actual words, but I am quoting his sentiments, and some of his words: "In order to establish the facts there must be an inquiry. It must he judicial. It must be speedy, and it must be impartial." The terms of reference must be devoted simply to establishing what happened; in what sequence it happened; where it happened; when it happened. For this purpose I would submit to the House that the Cameron, the Scarman and the Compton models are not

775
really a possible solution to our difficulty if we are to fulfil these conditions, and I think these are the conditions which it was agreed yesterday on both sides of both Houses ought to be fulfilled.
A secret inquiry would not carry conviction. On the other hand, we must protect witnesses from intimidation and victimisation on either side. We must seek the facts, and we must not allow the inquiry to be diverted by opinions or propaganda. To fulfil these conditions, and all of them, I see no alternative but to employ the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, the only instrument we have to hand which is both constitutional and flexible enough to provide what we want. It was clear to me that only the most experienced and skilful judge could head the Inquiry. I therefore thought it right, despite the inconvenience of removing the linchpin of our judicial administration here, to inquire of the Lord Chief Justice himself whether he would be willing to accept this difficult and disagreeable task if he were invited to undertake it. With admirable patriotism he agreed to do so, and I do not myself believe that it is possible to imagine a better choice.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—who has explained to me that he cannot be present at the moment—criticise that choice, and suggest someone from outside this country. Indeed, he mentioned the name of Mr. Lester Pearson, for whom I desire to express nothing but admiration; but an Inquiry conducted by him would not have been speedy, and it would not have been judicial, as Mr. Lester Pearson is not a professional judge. I doubt whether it could have been got into operation within a reasonable amount of time. I must express profound regret that anybody, in either House of Parliament, could actually suggest that anyone in the world will say that the Lord Chief Justice of England is not an impartial person. Many things have been devalued in my time, but the standards of impartiality in the English Judiciary have never been devalued, and I must express profound regret that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, thought fit to make the remark he did.
I pointed out to the Lord Chief Justice, and I point out to this House, that it is common (although it is not
776
necessary or universal) for a Tribunal formed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act to be composed of two or more members. But he expressed his preference in the peculiar circumstances of this particular case for acting alone, and in the peculiar circumstances of this particular case I must tell the House that I think he was right, and the Government therefore propose to give effect to this decision. The Lord Chief Justice hopes to embark on his task very soon indeed—I would even venture to begin to hope at the beginning of next week—and to complete it speedily. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in wishing him Godspeed, and to express our gratitude to him for undertaking this disagreeable but vital task.
I think the less I say about the merits of the case the better. We have decided on an Inquiry and I hope the House will agree to an Inquiry; we have decided on using the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act and I hope the House will agree that it was the only possible choice if an Inquiry was to be held; and we have decided on Lord Widgery as the head of the Inquiry, and I hope the House will applaud that choice. We are asking, for constitutional reasons which were contained in the Statement that I read this afternoon, the Stormont Parliament to pass parallel resolutions. That I think is necessary in order to make quite sure that the Inquiry is legal and is not limited to reserved subjects, but can inquire into transferred subjects.
We are debating Northern Ireland to-morrow. I shall not be taking part in that debate. I do not wish tonight to prejudice Lord Widgery's Report, but I must emphasise in concluding my remarks that our appointing an Inquiry does not imply the smallest doubt on our part of the account of the matter issued by the Army Command. On the contrary, the appointment of the Inquiry emphasises that neither we nor, in our opinion, they have anything to hide. If there be anything to hide, let it be brought out into the open and let those who have issued rash condemnations before the facts are sifted be men enough, if they be proved wrong, to apologise for their error. Great is the truth, my Lords; let it prevail. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into

777
a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday January 30, which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.—(The Lord Chancellor)
7.44 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made a most powerful and convincing case for the proposal set out in the Motion which he has moved, and I, for one, am grateful for the detail that he went into in the matter of the choice of the Lord Chief Justice—I am not sure what the head of the Tribunal is called—and into the reason why he has chosen to sit alone. I must admit that some doubts were expressed as to whether this was wise, but I am quite sure that the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Widgery, in this matter, with which the noble and learned Lord himself agrees, is right. Of course the decision has the great virtue that it will mean that the Inquiry, while being at the highest judicial level, will almost certainly be conducted a great deal more speedily. I therefore welcome the sort of timetable which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has set out. My great anxiety was that it would be like the Scarman Inquiry—and there is no more energetic or admirable Judge than Sir Leslie Scarman—whose Report has only recently been finished, so far as I know, and has not yet been published. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may not be able to answer the question to-day, and it does not directly arise on this Motion, perhaps to-morrow we could be told that the Reports of both the Scarman Inquiry and the Parker Inquiry—two important Inquiries—are going to be published. I do not press the noble and learned Lord on this point, and I mention it only in order to say how much one welcomes the urgency in this matter. I have no doubt that Lord Widgery is taking on what is bound to be a very difficult and unpleasant task, and I echo, as I am sure the whole House echoes, the appreciation which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed for his willingness to undertake it.
If I may say so, I thought the noble and learned Lord was a little unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of
778
Whitley, but I shall be able to check in Hansard what he said. Although I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I do not think he said that, in his opinion, the Lord Chief Justice was not acceptable or would not do the job, but that there would be others in Ireland who might decline to cooperate because of the deep emotions that have been aroused and because of the fears that a British Lord Chief Justice might somehow seem unacceptable. I hope that those fears are not realised. I think that to have the most senior figure of the British Judiciary, rather than inviting somebody from outside who would not have the same facility, is a measure of the seriousness with which we view this matter. I do not think we need say any more.
It certainly will not be for me to form any opinion to-day, and I hope not to-morrow, on what actually happened in Derry on that day. The noble and learned Lord was very careful how he put his case, and said that this decision in no way implied that the Government accepted any charges against the soldiers, but if noble Lords to-morrow, out of a sense of duty, and indeed believing it, defend the Army, they cannot, I fear, expect that those who are critical and believe the terribly circumstantial eye-witnesses' stories will not choose to repeat them. But I shall not myself do that and I only hope, as the noble and learned Lord so eloquently said, that the truth will prevail and that we shall know the facts of this dreadful and distressing business.
7.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am deeply grateful both for what the noble Lord has said, and for the way in which he said it. As regards to-morrow's debate, I have said that I shall not be taking part. But I think it is legitimate for my noble friends who will be taking part to put forward what they believe to be the true facts, because so many other facts have been stated on the contrary side and I think it would be utterly wrong for those who are responsible for the Armed Forces not to see that their case is as forcibly presented as the cases of their detractors have been. Although I speak where I do, and on the Motion that I am speaking on, I would not wish in any way to

779
prejudge the Inquiry, and I know that Lord Widgery will approach the matter with a completely open mind.
I do not think I was unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. If I created the impression that he had said it was his opinion, I think that a reference to Hansard to-morrow will show that I did not in fact do so. But it seemed to me lamentable that anyone should suggest that anywhere in the world a Lord Chief Justice of England, simply by reason of his national origin, was not acceptable as an impartial Tribunal. I say fervently that to seek to support in any way the reason for such a point of view is something which I personally very much regretted when I heard it said this afternoon. But I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I note also that he expressly dissociated himself from that opinion. With those words, I hope that we may proceed to the passage of the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

URBAN HOUSING AND RENEWAL
7.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, following the Report New Homes in the Cities, what steps they consider necessary to assist the urban renewal problem facing a number of the major cities in the country. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in raising this Question to-night on what steps Her Majesty's Government now consider are necessary to tackle the problem of urban renewal, which faces a number of our major cities to-day, I am mindful that this issue is both sizeable and complex and not, perhaps, the easiest to cover comprehensively in an Unstarred Question. The size of the issue is such that informed prophets have predicted to me that the problem will be with us at least until the end of this century. It is the framework in which the problem is to be tackled, and the part which central Government, local government, the construction industry, building societies, housing societies, housing associations and other interested
780
partners are to play, which concerns those interested in this problem. It is this framework upon which the success and progress of urban renewal hangs; and it is this framework, and the role my noble friend's Ministry is to play in it, that is the prime purpose of my Question to-night.
My Lords, urban renewal, or in simpler terms modernisation or replacement of older housing areas within our cities, is no new topic, and it has been on or perhaps under the plate of the Minister of Housing for a number of years. It was, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, who in 1968, as the then Minister of Housing, initiated a study on this subject, with specific reference to the role that the private sector could play. This initiative by the noble Lord deserves, I believe, our warm congratulations (and I am sorry that he has not been able to be here to-night) particularly as it recognised the valuable part the private sector could play if allowed to—a view, if I may say so, which was not advocated with any great consistency or enthusiasm under the previous Administration.
As I think all noble Lords who have followed the Report will know, a Committee was set up to examine the problem of urban renewal and to identify the conditions under which private enterprise could participate, and to make recommendations as to any change of policy or legislation that may be necessary. It completed its task and published its Report, which was entitled New Homes in the Cities, last year. It is, I believe, as I am sure other noble Lords will agree with me, a most valuable Report, and spells out the difficulties and realities of the problems that face successful urban renewal schemes. If one was to generalise as to the size of the urban renewal problem facing us in a number of our cities to-day, it would, I believe, be true to say—I am sure my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that at least 2 million homes are involved. In the Report, a figure of some 40 per cent. of all our housing stock was quoted as being in need of attention, 12 per cent. of which was virtually slum areas in need of redevelopment. A further 30 per cent, was in need of basic amenities. These figures, one noted, were taken from a sample survey made in 1967.
The latest detailed information on unfit dwellings that I have been able to obtain was the result of a study made in 1965, which showed that cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Salford, Oldham, Blackburn, Bolton, Sheffield. Coventry, Portsmouth and, of course, London all face the problem of major urban renewal schemes. It would be interesting, I think, to learn from my noble friend to-night what up-to-date figures, surveys or information his Ministry have on this particular problem. For instance, has a detailed survey been made since 1965? What are the up-to-date figures on unfit homes and houses? Does his Ministry know what rate of deterioration is taking place in our older housing stock? There is, I believe, somewhat of a dearth of information on these points, and I hope my noble friend has brought with him to-night a bundle of information to illuminate our knowledge on the conditions of our housing stock.
My Lords, the Committee, in their Report, examined a number of formidable problems that face any urban renewal. The three major problems it stressed were: first, the assembly of sites; secondly, the high cost of land, making it virtually impossible for urban renewal schemes to be viable on their own; and, thirdly, the arrangements for redeveloping the sites. As regards the assembly of sites, the Committee came to the conclusion—and I am sure they were correct—that the proper vehicle and responsibility for this was the local authority, who in the last resort had the use of compulsory purchase powers if a scheme was being frustrated; but it reminded us with a caveat that local authorities were occasionally subject to political obstacles leading to the possible freezing of a scheme. Although, of course, political obstacles are not the sole prerogative of local government, the Report's comment, I believe, emphasises the important role the Ministry of Housing must play in future to ensure that real progress is made with urban renewal schemes. It is interesting to note as well that consideration was given by the Committee to the setting up of an independent body, an urban renewal commission, to assemble sites, but that they came to the firm conclusion that such a body would only be duplicating what local authorities could do. This argument, of course, one
782
recalls, was used when the Land Commission itself was set up.
As to the second major problem—the high cost of land the Report stressed that, what with the cost of land—plus the cost of clearing sites and of rehousing people, the total costs made it impossible for an urban renewal scheme to stand viably on its feet; and to overcome this the Committee recommended what they termed a planning loss subsidy, to reduce the initial total costs to a cleared site value, thus making the scheme viable, attractive and interesting to the private sector by way of participation. It is, I think, to the credit of my noble friend's right honourable friend that this recommendation of a planning loss subsidy, which in essence is the central core to a successful urban renewal scheme, has been adopted and incorporated in the new Housing Bill not yet before us. It shows a welcome support to a positive policy of seriously tackling the urban renewal problem. But, having said that, I think it would be widely welcomed by local authorities if, before the new Housing Bill leaves another place, consideration could be given to widening the scope of the planning grants under the Bill and making them, perhaps, more flexible. Whilst one recognises that it is a Housing Bill, one is told that the qualifications of the grant are drawn a little narrowly. In a number of cities where urban renewal schemes may well be considered it is not only the slum areas which are included but the poor housing areas and even the old and out-of-date industrial areas. It would assist urban renewal schemes generally if the planning loss grants under this Bill could cover such situations.
My Lords, the third main problem the Report touched on was the sensitive argument of how in practice an urban redevelopment scheme would be carried out. Would it be carried out by the local authority alone, or would the site be sold as a whole, or in parts, to developers? Or would a partnership be formed between the local authority and the developer? The Report concluded that the most successful method would be to sell to a developer at a full market price, at a cleared site value, subject to the consent of the Minister of Housing and subject to certain time guarantees. Now the framework in which these schemes are to be developed is, I believe,

783
a matter of crucial importance for the successful progress of urban renewal schemes, and I hope my noble friend will be able to comment a little on this aspect.
When public funds are used to reduce the site cost by subsidy payments to a figure that makes development a viable proposition, it will seem hard to certain people—no doubt the local authority councillors—that a developer, with his special skills, should be enabled to make a handsome profit out of the scheme. Whether or not that developer has created a market after taking on a considerable commercial risk may be forgotten in the subsequent argument. If one were to be so bold as to criticise any of the conclusions in this excellent Report, it would be the conclusion that was reached on this single point; because no stress, or insufficient stress, was laid on the possibility of partnership between local authorities and developers. For the aim, surely, for a successful urban renewal scheme is to plan a mixed community, a ratio of residential development including an element of local authority housing, of housing society development for letting and a mixture of private housing development for sale, to give and to retain a balanced environment of the area.
One would hope as well, and without detriment to the scheme, that there would be some element of commercial and industrial development to help subsidise the residential costs. Such a scheme requires considerable skills, experience and vision. I believe that the private sector can offer this. It is both at this stage of the planning of the scheme and its development that I believe the local authorities should get together with developers who could act both as consultants and, subsequently, contractors. By this means, the element of excessive developers' profit could be avoided. I believe it would be to the benefit generally of urban renewal schemes, both in timing, planning and cost, if local authorities could see their way to becoming partners with the private sector.
My Lords, I should like to conclude by asking my noble friend two questions concerned particularly with the welfare of urban renewal. The first is whether his right honourable friend will consider setting u p, in conjunction with local
784
authorities, a number of trial schemes of urban renewal up and down the country in order now to get the ball rolling. I believe that a start now is essential and that whatever influence Her Majesty's Government can bring to bear will be extremely valuable. Secondly, in view of the considerable funds available through building societies, will his right honourable friend consider a change in the law to allow building societies to take a more active part in urban renewal schemes, participating both in funding and the owning of sites? I believe that in a carefully controlled way and with a limited change in their existing rules, building societies could prove of great help to urban renewal requirements. They have shown a very great interest and a wish to do so.
My Lords, I said at the outset that this subject was a rather complex one to be dealt with in an Unstarred Question. I was, of course, reflecting only my own inability and not that of other speakers. I have every confidence that my noble friend, with his usual flavour of conciseness, will strip to the bone the problems facing a successful urban renewal programme, will clarify beyond doubt the Government's intentions, their policy and the part it intends to play. I hope that he will be able to answer the questions that I have put to him; but, above all, I hope that he will be able to express the Government's recognition of the importance and seriousness of the subject which was so clearly emphasised in the excellent Report to which I have referred.
8.5 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl for promoting this debate on the Report of the Working Party which considered what role the private sector could play in urban renewal. He put his Question with clarity and pursued it with purpose. With him, I regret that the debate should come at the end of a fairly long day; and I, too, think that probably it is a subject that is not best dealt with by way of an Unstarred Question since there is so much that ought to be said and considered about it. I regret very much that my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale is not here, because I should have been interested to hear what he had to say. The fact that he is out of the country prevents his being here

785
this evening and accounts for my presence at the Dispatch Box.
The Report itself, a fairly considerable document, is very interesting and informative. Our thanks are due to those who prepared it. One of the most challenging and most urgent problems that confronts us is that of urban renewal; and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has given a number of detailed figures in that connection. It involves, inevitably, change in the character of our towns and cities; and although it often means clearance of slum areas, it brings a sense of loss when people who from birth have been integrated with a neighbourhood community are dispersed. We have had many schemes for dispersal, areas of new development, towns designated for overspill populations, places like Haverhill and other towns in East Anglia. I must say that I am mindful of the fact every time I go to such places that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of empty newly-built homes—empty for far too long because of failure to secure the transfer of industry.
I was very interested in the fairly lengthy coverage in yesterday's The Times of what is being aimed at at King's Lynn. The Times' articles yesterday showed how local initiative can face up to development, can plan and can get on with the job. For my own part, I hope that the optimism expressed in those articles indicates that the growth that had been steadily taking place in places like King's Lynn and other expanding towns catering for overspill is about to return. I must say that in this I feel that the Government carry considerable responsibility and cannot avoid that responsibility.
My Lords, many who have moved from areas about to be re-developed have been re-housed in unfamiliar surroundings, and despite the change to a healthier environment it has not always been a change to a happier one. Towns and cities lose sparkle when they lose resident populations which give them life for 24 hours a day; and it is therefore highly desirable when urban renewal occurs that planning for re-housing displaced communities should include some re-settlement or replacement of them within the area of redevelopment. People are the most important element in the composition of a town or city. We have to think of them not
786
only in terms of housing need but in the whole context in which personal relationships are shared and where shared community services are vitally important. So, in planning it must be recognised that housing problems are but a part of urban renewal as a whole and that planning is likely to be all the better to the extent that we are able to involve people and organisations in the exercise of that plan. The aim should be to bring together town planners, architects, social workers, educationalists, community leaders and local councillors to secure their participation in creating a community which will contain people from a variety of walks of life and which will contain the amenities and services necessary for satisfying life.
The terms of reference of the Working Party are set out in the preface of the Report. Because of the lateness of the hour I will not repeat them, but I should like to refer to the fact that in their summary of the main conclusions and recommendations the Working Party say that the provision of land for private housing redevelopment in inner areas should be the responsibility of the local authority, and the Department of the Environment should take responsibility for ensuring that adequate progress is made with private redevelopment. They further recommend (and the noble Earl referred to it) that the planning loss arising from the disposal of cleared sites to private builders should be met in part by ratepayers and in part by the Exchequer.
My Lords, the loss overall is likely to be wide. On that score the whole of Chapter III of the Report deserves close study. I do not know with what favour local authorities would look on the proposal that, having acquired an area for redevelopment and cleared it at a pretty high cost, they should provide from it sites for private development at a substantial loss. But I think I can appreciate the reaction of ratepayers and taxpayers to the proposal that they should bear the loss involved in selling, at far below cost, for private exploitation, land originally purchased for public development.
I would draw attention to paragraph 223 on page 16 of the Report. There the Working Party had in mind that the Land Commission, which possessed compulsory purchasing powers, might be a

787
suitable body to have responsibility for acquiring and holding land until redevelopment was carried out. It occurs to me also that the Land Commission might have financed the operation out of gains made elsewhere. But, my Lords, the Land Commission was one of the first ritual sacrifices, along with the Consumer Council and the Prices and Incomes Board, after this Government took office. It was because the Land Commission was no longer there that the Working Party resorted to the proposals to place the onus of providing sites for private developers on local authorities and the inevitable loss on ratepayers and taxpayers.
May I say, frankly, that I see no good reason why local authorities should do so or why ratepayers and taxpayers should be so penalised. This is an area of activity where local authorities should be free to provide a wide variety of homes within a scheme of urban renewal which would ensure balanced development. I believe that they could provide such a variety as would make for a good social mix. If they were minded in some cases to make sites available to private developers, it ought, I think, not to be on the basis of a sale but rather on long-term lease. I do not favour the sale of land by local authorities for private ownership. I believe that once land has been brought into public ownership it is good policy to retain it, so that any gain that follows from rising land prices accrues to the advantage of the community. If land were leased, instead of being sold, at least it would have the merit of avoiding re-acquisition of the site at some future date when another scheme of redevelopment became due.
My Lords, the introduction of so-called fair rents by the Government does nothing to help the problem of urban renewal. They will have the effect of putting a premium on market values and altogether have a considerable inflationary effect. In saying that I do not forget or overlook that mortgagor owner-occupiers are enjoying a subsidy of about one-third of their interest payments, totalling, in 1971, something like £302 million a year on an average of £60 per mortgagor owner-occupier. I cannot anticipate what reply the Minister will give to the Question. But I feel that the problem which it
788
raises is not one for consideration in isolation. It is bound up in the context of national housing policy and urban renewal generally. However it may be approached, I hope that at least we may avoid what appeared to me the undesirable developments in areas of urban renewal that I saw in Chicago when I visited it last year. I may add that in Indianapolis last year there was an international conference called, "Conference on Cities". I found the report of that conference very interesting reading, and in some degree helpful.
There has been a great deal of talk recently about more freedom for local authorities. Shortly we are to have local government reorganisation, with the creation of larger local authorities. I venture to suggest that it would perhaps be an excellent thing to call those local authorities into a discussion and to have the closest consultation with them that the Government could possibly have. I think that some might wish to undertake urban renewal themselves; and members of local authorities, at their best, and when they give their minds to this kind of operation, can be outstandingly successful. I have in mind the quite remarkable achievement of the old London County Council in creating the finest architects' department in the world, and the Council's outstanding record of house building. Some local authorities might wish to set up a consortium; or it might be that some would feel that there ought to be regional or provincial organisations to consider how this problem may best be dealt with in the area. But, whatever happens, if any question of selling sites at a loss to private developers arises, I hope that a method will be found to recover that loss from the very handsome gains that have been made from land values elsewhere. I repeat, I think that the noble Earl is to be congratulated on having raised this matter, and again I feel it a cause for regret that we are likely to have a somewhat short debate on the Report.
8.18 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising the question of urban renewal, because it affects the wellbeing of so many inhabitants of London and other major cities. It is possible to discuss the question in terms

789
of plot ratios, compensation cost, benefit ratios and other esoteric terms in the planning jargon. On the other hand, I should like to look at twilight zones in the housing distressed areas and the educational priority areas in human terms. If we do this, we find that we are dealing with old people living in cold, draughty attic rooms, and with families with children living in cold, damp basements. A proportion of these families are single-parent families, and they are the most vulnerable of all to conditions of housing shortage. Evidence recently given to the London Council of Social Service spoke of the deep misery caused from lack of housing, or poor and inappropriate housing. Surely "deep misery" will be the spur to remove squalor and prevent decay in the inner residential ring of our cities.
We can take action because we care about the quality of family life and the proper growth of children—in short, because we are moved by compassion—or we can act because the cost of doing nothing is excessive. Slum conditions, disrepair, overcrowding, multiple occupation—all these impose immense costs on the health, welfare and social services. No one yet knows the extent of these costs, but they must be very great. The report, New Homes in the Cities, shows that private enterprise cannot by itself solve the problems of urban renewal. Market forces are constrained by Green Belts, by rent control and regulation and maximum permitted densities in residential areas. When market forces do operate, what tends to happen is that executives, young single workers and students push out families and old people because they can pay more for a flat or house. A process known by the ugly term of "gentrification" has been seen to he happening in London. This means that houses that were built, perhaps, for coachmen, or artisans' cottages, are modernised for the affluent middle classes. This is good, it must be said, for the buildings and the environment when seen from the æsthetic point of view, but it can be bad for a balanced community and bad for the original population of an area.
The question that we are faced with is how to bring about the needed renewal. Here I take issue to some extent with the "Neddy" report, and it may be helpful
790
if we turn back to the Report of the Milner Holand Committee, Housing in Greater London. This Committee, in Chapter 5 of their Report, pointed out that unfitness, lack of domestic amenities and bad maintenance were found mainly in the private rented sector, and that these conditions were cencentrated in certain definite parts of London. The Committee went on to say that their evidence showed that:
"Areas like this called for a drastic and comprehensive attack on bad living conditions, using whatever remedies seemed best suited to the particular circumstances. They might be designated as 'areas of special control'; and some authority might be set up, with responsibility for the whole area and armed with wide powers to control sales and lettings, to acquire property by agreement or compulsorily, to demolish and rebuild as necessary, to require improvements to be carried out or undertake such improvements themselves, and to make grants on a more generous and flexible basis than under the existing law. Many of the necessary powers are already available to local authorities, but they need substantial extension, and there might be advantage in drawing them together in a comprehensive measure which would enable the area to be dealt with in a more flexible manner with due regard to pressure on housing waiting lists, the need to preserve an adequate pool of rented accommodation, and the need of local authorities for space for redevelopment."
The Committee went on to say that these suggestions were outside their terms of reference, but they felt that they should be considered at greater length.
Nothing very much happened as a result of these suggestions of this Committee. But the idea did not die entirely. In 1968, Mrs. Rose in a book called The Housing Problem, proposed that authorities with powers akin to those of New Town Development Corporations should be set up to carry out urban renewal within large cities. This idea has recently been taken up again by Mr. George Clark, Director of the Notting Hill Housing Service, and by the chairman of one of the major building societies—I think it was the Abbey National. I urge the Government to look carefully at the question of new institutions to do a new job. I hope they will not say; "Oh, that is the job of the local authority". Local authorities, after all, are political animals; they are not entrepreneurs by nature, and they have a lot to do already. Further more, in London, borough boundaries are somewhat arbitrary and artificial.

791
The "Neddy" Report shows that more is needed than just general improvement areas. On this point the Municipal Journal for January 21 of this year is quite relevant. The journal discussed the question of general improvement areas, and in an article called "Speculator's Paradise" Messrs. Rayner and Raynsford pointed out:
"That in areas of acute housing shortage improvement programmes not only tend to change the whole character and class of an area, but they can also create a speculator's paradise, as has happened in two areas of Hammersmith."
I hope that the Government will also take note of the remarkable experiment being carried out by the Shelter Neighbourhood Action Project in Liverpool. This project, known for short as SNAP, has taken a tract of Liverpool 8 and is in the process of co-ordinating the work of two housing associations, Liverpool City and the local people resident in the area. It has secured a much greater take-up of improvement grants and real participation by the local inhabitants.
As regards London, I urge the Government, first, to renew their sense of urgency because of the very real and great human misery and need; secondly, to make sure that there are adequate powers to get the job of urban renewal done; and finally, to make it possible for both public and private bodies to take part and for both statutory and voluntary agencies to be involved. Local authorities, public companies, housing associations, housing aid centres and perhaps new purpose-made institutions all have a part to play, and none of them should be excluded if this urgent work of renewal is to be done.
8.28 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for inviting our attention to this Report on the housing aspects of urban renewal. I should like to set it against the background of the Government's broad policies over the whole field. Before I do so, however, perhaps I may answer a couple of the noble Earl's specific questions. He asked me about the involvement of building societies. There cer-
792
tainly has been some thinking by leading figures in the movement about greater involvement in urban development, but we are not aware at the moment that there is any agreed policy by the societies that they want to act in this way. Before the Government form a view on this fairly radical suggestion, we should want to be clear that the building society movement as a whole wanted it. Meanwhile, there could be other ways in which the building societies might be involved, and we are studying that.
My noble friend also asked me about trial schemes. Of course we are keen to see local authorities making full use of the new slum clearance subsidy to which I will refer in a moment, and we recognise the desirability of actual schemes being formulated of the sort mentioned in the Report. But just how much further progress needs to be encouraged will depend on the reactions of local authorities and others to the opportunities afforded by this new subsidy. We shall have to see how we go before I can answer by noble friend more specifically on that point.
The first thing to do now, I think, in the context of this debate, is to ask what is actually meant by "urban renewal". The Working Party began its Report by suggesting that there was general acceptance for a concept of renewal as a continuing process embracing rehabilitation and conservation as well as clearance and redevelopment, all carried out as part of a general plan for the development of each place, including roads, traffic, offices, shops, houses, factories and everything else. It is this overall view of the process of urban renewal that we now stress. I believe that things go wrong if different elements and different emphases get out of balance. The whole matter is, of course, immensely complicated. Our large cities have wide stretches of closely packed housing in various stages of obsolescence—and it is about those that my noble friend Lord Hylton was talking. This fabric is subject to the rising pressures of wider car ownership. The demands of traffic call for positive intervention by local authorities in short-term traffic control, and also for more sophisticated techniques and longer-term planning for road works and the consideration of a renewed total transportation system.

793
The historic hearts of our cities are subject to huge concentrations of traffic, rapid changes in retailing and a flight of the residents to the suburbs. To cope with all this the local authorities have wide powers. They can shape private development by planning control, manage the traffic, build new roads, clear slums, improve the houses and clear and redevelop whole areas. In all this they are supported by substantial Government grants. But what we must try to avoid are unco-ordinated attacks on separate problems, however acute those problems may be: roads that ignore their effects on residents living nearby; wholesale and abortive attempts at redeveloping town centres; traffic management that disregards the environment, and clearance without regard to conservation. Therefore we talk of the total approach to the renewal of the urban environment, and that is an approach which our integrated Department of the Environment is designed to understand and encourage among local authorities. In the Department we have brought together housing, planning, and transport, both at Whitehall and at our regional offices. So if during the remainder of my speech I concentrate mainly on housing it is not that I see it—nor does my noble friend—as a subject in isolation, but rather because in this total approach we recognise that housing operations are among the main engines of urban renewal; and it is this aspect of the total field to which this Report addresses itself.
Here a great deal has been and is being achieved. The Report points out that, compared with other Western countries, we in this country are well to the fore in the post-war clearance of unsatisfactory housing. Slum clearance, the removal and replacement of houses that cannot be made fit to live in, is a long-established and well understood part of the urban renewal process, and it is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage local authorities to increase their efforts in this direction, particularly in the areas of hous-
794
ing stress, on which my noble friend Lord Hylton rightly concentrated his remarks. It may answer some of my noble friend's questions about the extent of our knowledge of this subject and of the surveys we have, and may also serve to show what progress is being made, particularly in areas of housing stress, if I mentiton just a few examples. Manchester still has 12,000 unfit houses to clear but they are clearing them at the rate of 4,000 a year, and at that rate they will clear them by 1975; the date for Leicester is 1976, and the London Borough of Newham 1977. I think that my noble friend will agree that, rather than give him figures which show the size of the problem to be solved, it is better to look at the date by which the solution will have been reached.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, may I intervene? Down the years we have always been told that a certain town can be cleared by a certain time. Could my noble friend give any indication of the number of new slums that will appear during that same period of years?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am just coming on to that because, as my noble friend will realise, slum clearance is a policy of last resort and is certainly not adequate on its own. I am talking now about those houses to which nothing further can be done. But it is just as important, as I am sure he will realise, to save those houses that can be made fit and to prevent them deteriorating into slums, thus inflating the already large figures. This is an aspect of renewal which has not been tackled until comparatively recently with the same determination as slum clearance. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, refer to the values and virtues of this approach but. I am surprised, in that case, that he and his Party did not do more when they were in the position to do so. It has the huge advantage that when houses are improved, the communities living in them are retained and the character of the area is conserved. This, as he rightly and very eloquently said, is a very desirable objective. Local authorities have had powers for many years to make grants towards the cost of improving houses. They received Exchequer assistance in paying these grants and in improving their own houses, but the grants were not large enough to be really attractive and rent control was a strong disincentive to landlords to improve their own houses.
The Housing Act 1969, which was passed by the previous Administration—and I gladly give them full credit for that—introduced the system of grants not

795
only for the improvement of individual houses but also for environmental improvement, through the machinery of the general improvement areas. Ministers in the present Administration have stimulated local authorities to make the greatest possible use of these new powers, and we have run a series of housing improvement campaigns up and down the country, as have a number of other organisations such as the one in Liverpool mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Hylton. Thanks to all that, the results have been really quite dramatic. In 1971, many more grants were approved than in any previous year. The final total was close on 200,000 in England and Wales, compared with 156,000 in 1970. This represents a 30 per cent. increase for 1971, on top of a 45 per cent. increase over the year before; and, anticipating the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, we have in mind a special campaign in Greater London for this spring.
The special higher grants and contributions for a limited period made available in the development and intermediate areas under the recent Housing Act 1971—our own Act—as well as increasing the number of private improvements have also encouraged local authorities in those areas to put in hand the improvement of a further large number of houses. The description in this Report of urban renewal refers to it also as part of a general plan for the redevelopment of whole places. The new development plan system provides a vehicle for local planning authorities to present their proposals in a broader way than in the past—not just in terms of land use but on the basis of physical, economic and social planning. It provides much greater flexibility in the way in which they treat and draw up the contents of their plans. The new system also requires the public to be involved in the formative stage of the preparation of these plans—and again I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for this approach. We attach great importance to getting on with these structure plans, and the system is being introduced for considerably more authorities than was contemplated not so very long ago. The opportunity is being created for an increasing number of authorities to tackle their urban renewal problems comprehen-
796
sively by reference to wider issues of strategy, and over a period broadly of twenty years, and over wider geographical areas. This is the general framework that we now work in.
From what I have said, noble Lords will see that the present emphasis of the Government's policy is on rehabilitation by improvement and on a large slum clearance programme. Many people—including this Working Party—feel that the land that becomes available as the result of slum clearance should not necessarily be used for more council housing. I think that perhaps that is not the view which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, shares. I believe we want to avoid the kind of social stratification and polarisation which follows from clearing large areas and putting nothing but council housing down.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I may say so—and it is simply that I want to keep the Record straight—if the noble Lord will read to-morrow what I have said, I suggested that local authorities could be relied upon to create a good social mix in schemes of resettlement or replacement.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will study the noble Lord's words with care and interest to-morrow. The desire to avoid stratification, whether it is done by mixing the housing or mixing the people in the housing, is a desirable social objective, and it is particularly relevant in our historic towns and centres. The Working Party concentrated their attention on this group of problems. Their main conclusions appeared to us to be that three things seemed to stand in the way of an effective private contribution to the redevelopment process. First, as they point out and is undoubtedly the case, builders do not themselves have the power to acquire and assemble suitable sites. Secondly, the economics of redevelopment are unfavourable and, thirdly, there are special difficulties in marketing new houses in redeveloped areas. They suggested three ways of overcoming these obstacles. First, they suggested that local authorities should use their powers of compulsory purchase to assemble sites; that the Exchequer should share with the ratepayers the burden of what the Working Party called the "planning loss", and that steps should be taken to make the

797
purchase of new housing in redeveloped areas more attractive.
The local authorities have the power to acquire and assemble land in these sites. The planning redevelopment grant provides for the sharing of the cost of any loss on general redevelopment in any area on a fifty-fifty basis between the ratepayer and the Exchequer. But since this Report came out the details of the Government's reform of housing finance have been announced, including details of the new slum clearance subsidy. So far from doing little to help, this subsidy will provide, in relation to slum clearance areas, even more generous financial assistance from the Exchequer than the Working Party suggested. The new subsidy will relieve authorities of 75 per cent. of their burden of any loss that they make in acquiring, clearing and redeveloping slum clearance land, leaving half of the burden that would be left to the local authorities in general development grant cases, and this enables them to put the clear land to the use best suited to local needs, whatever they may be. This opens up a real possibility of securing a mixture of private housing in a new development.
There remains one point not much stressed by the Working Party; that is, the general responsibility on the local authority for the renewing of the infrastructure on any cleared land, such as the renewing of sewers, conserving the character of the area and enhancing the appearance of the whole environment.
798
When all this has been done or undertaken by the local authority—acquisition, assembly, use of planning grant, renewal of the infrastructure, the enhancement of the area, including any necessary traffic management—there is every reason to expect that private enterprise should be ready to take the remaining risks and, after assessing the market, make an increasing contribution in providing private housing. The powers are there; assistance from the Exchequer is there; advice from this report is there. Her Majesty's Government look to the local authorities and private enterprise together to make full and effective use of all of them.

  CARE OF PSYCHO-GERIATRIC PATIENTS
  CARE OF PSYCHO-GERIATRIC PATIENTS