Sitting of 3 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
  WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Prices (London)
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Employment what effect he estimates the Confederation of British Industry initiative has had on the level of prices in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): I regret that it is not possible to estimate the effect of the C.B.I. initiative on its own. However, I have no doubt that it has contributed significantly to the slowing down in the rate of increase in the cost of living since 22nd June, 1971.
    Mr. O'Halloran: Does not the Minister realise that the cost of living in London is much higher than it is in any other part of the country, and that house
    648
    prices, land prices and rents are particularly high? Will he suggest to his right hon. Friend a special London allowance for old-age pensioners to alleviate the hardship caused by this high cost of living?
    Mr. Bryan: I appreciate the sentiments behind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it would be extremely difficult to do. As he probably knows, a committee has been sitting to consider the subject of a regional price index, and the results of that committee are now being considered.
    Mr. Redmond: In view of what my hon. Friend has said about the rate of price increases slowing down, would it not be useful for the T.U.C. to start a wages initiative following the C.B.I. prices initiative?
    Mr. Bryan: Again that sounds a good idea, and if it were as successful as the C.B.I. initiative has been it would be of great advantage to the country. One has to realise that Government policy, for instance, on purchase tax and S.E.T., has had a good deal to do with the way in which the rate of rise in prices has dropped, as also has the moderation in wage increases.
    Mr. Stallard: Will the Minister accept from me that his reply will convince few of my constituents in North St. Pancras, where the cost of housing has risen at an astronomical rate in the past few months? Is he aware that a house which a few years ago would have been difficult to get rid of at £2,500 was recently advertised for £30,000? How can he say that this initiative has had any real effect on the cost of living and prices generally in central London?
    Mr. Bryan: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the price of houses is a worrying factor, but the Question was about the general rise in prices and I think my answer adequately deals with it.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the latest unemployment figures published by his Department.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I have already made it abundantly clear that I regard the level

    649
    of unemployment as unacceptably high and that it is the Government's first priority to reduce it as swiftly as possible.
    Mr. Fraser: Would not "deplorable" be a better description? Does not the Secretary of State realise that cuts in public expenditure must contribute to unemployment and that, if public expenditure were increased to reverse the present downward trend of public authority house-building and to remove the restriction on secondary school improvements, some measure of relief would be given to the large number of unemployed building workers?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is on a very bad wicket when he talks about school-building, which has been extended considerably since the present Government came to power.
    Mr. Thomas Cox: Absolute rubbish!
    Mr. Carr: The hard fact with which we all have to grapple is that within the space of only one year British industry is producing slightly more output with 400,000 fewer people. There is little doubt that the main cause forcing British industry to that dramatic and sudden economy of labour was the wage explosion which started in 1969.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are a substantial number of vacancies in certain areas of the public service, such as the police force, the fire service and public transport undertakings? Would it not be appropriate to suggest that suitably qualified unemployed people should apply for these vacancies, thereby taking advantage of an admittedly difficult situation?
    Mr. Carr: I agree with my hon. Friend that, even in this time of heavy unemployment, a surprising number of vacancies are not being filled. Through my Department's offices I intend to see that as much as possible is done, and perhaps more than has been done in the past, to get unemployed people into the vacancies which exist.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the Minister tell us whether the Cabinet has given any consideration to the 12-point programme outlined by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opopsition in his speech on unemployment recently? If so, do the Government intend to carry it out?
    Mr. Carr: Long before the Leader of the Opposition put forward his rather bitsy and piecey 12-point programme, we announced that the whole question of regional policy was under fundamental review. But, more important, whereas we have put an enormous boost into the purchasing power of the economy in the last 18 months, in the whole of the six years of the Labour Government they were concerned with taking it out.

    Stirling and Falkirk
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take to reduce the level of unemployment in the constituency of Stirling and Falkirk Burghs.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I am confident that the extensive measures taken by the Government to stimulate the economy of the country as a whole, and of the development areas in particular, will, when they have had a chance to bite, lead to an improvement in the unemployment situation in the Stirling and Falkirk Burghs.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that his confidence is certainly not shared by my constituents in the Stirling and Falkirk Burghs? Does he accept that the level of unemployment in my constituency is at an all-time high and that officials in his Department, realistically in my view, are forecasting that the position will get much worse before there is any light at the end of the tunnel? Does he also accept that tragically contained within those figures are youngsters who have never had jobs and who are now 17 and 18 years of age?
    Mr. Smith: No one is attempting to disguise that the situation is other than bad, but it is not entirely bleak. The average in the hon. Gentleman's constituency area is below that for Scotland, which is admittedly very high. Job opportunities are coming along. In the next four years about 1,259 new jobs will be available. A new factory of Gestetner Limited is to open shortly and will give employment to 70 people, and probably many more by the end of the year. The massive measures which the Government have taken to help Scotland will assuredly help the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    Development Areas
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of unemployed males in Great Britain who are registered at employment exchanges in development areas; and what was the corresponding figure in January, 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): Out of all males registered as unemployed in Great Britain, at January, 1972, and January, 1970, the proportions registered in the development areas were 33·7 and 35·5 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Under-Secretary agree that those figures, which reflect a high national level of unemployment, cannot be interpreted as indicating that the regional problem has diminished? In fact, the only true measure of unemployment in development areas is the absolute rate of unemployment. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that there is a crying need for a new initiative from the Government on regional policy? Furthermore, will he bear in mind that the percentage of unemployed in Scotland has increased and that to that extent we have a particular Scottish problem?
    Mr. Howell: Certainly the regional disparity remains as it was before. The figures show that it has fallen a little, but, on the whole, I agree that it remains. As for the need for further stimulus, an immense and powerful stimulus has been given in a variety of ways and in a variety of programmes. This will work its way through the economy and will help.

    West Germany
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many British workers were assisted in the second half of last year in taking up employment with West German firms as a result of vacancies circulated by employment exchanges in this country.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: One hundred and six British workers are known to have accepted offers of employment made by German employers through the British and German employment services during the second half of 1971.
    Mr. Duffy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I should like to ask, first, when he expects a reverse flow of these 106 workers; secondly, whether reciprocal arrangements exist between West Germany and this country for the movement of workers; and, thirdly, when he envisages a flow of German workers into Britain.
    Mr. Smith: There are already signs of a slowing-up in the number of workers wishing to go to Germany, and there are indications of some who have gone wishing to come back. The numbers who have gone because they were unemployed are comparatively small as there are considerable language difficulties.
    Regarding German workers who will come here, presumably under the Common Market arrangements when we become members of the E.E.C., it is impossible to give exact forecasts; but, as has been stated several times already, we do not anticipate that, certainly in the initial years, there will be much movement of labour between the countries.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel a certain difficulty today. Most of the Questions relate to unemployment. I think that it would therefore be better if I go through the Order Paper fairly quickly and not allow many supplementary questions.

    Education Authority Services
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will except the proposed metropolitan districts from his proposals to give to education authorities powers to provide a careers guidance and placing service.
    Mr. R. Carr: No, Sir.
    Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these education authority areas bear no relation to travel-to-work areas or to areas for career opportunity? Would it not be advisable for schools to deal direct with the Department of Employment? Will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend on this matter?
    Mr. Carr: We believe that, on the whole, there is advantage in local education authorities continuing to run their

    653
    own service. If they are to do that, the area on which that service has to be based should be the local education authority area, whatever that may be. I think that is certain.
    We considered carefully the alternative possibility of the whole thing being done by my Department. However, we must recognise that the education authorities have built up very great expertise. They are dedicated to this work and I believe that, on balance, it is right to leave it with them. Whether it should be mandatory on them is, as I said in our publication People and Jobs, a matter for further consideration and consultation.

    "People and Jobs"
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he had with the National Youth Employment Council and the Institute of Careers Officers before issuing the booklet entitled People and Jobs.
    Mr. Carr: Both the National Youth Employment Council and the Institute of Careers Officers set out in detail their views on the future structure of the Youth Employment Service and these were carefully reviewed before People and Jobs was issued.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet in the Youth Employment Service and amongst many career teachers in schools about certain sections of the document People and Jobs? Will he assure me that he has not closed his mind to the matter and that any further representations that these or other bodies may make will be carefully considered before further legislation is brought before the House?
    Mr. Carr: Indeed I will. It may interest the hon. Gentleman and the House to know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is meeting representatives of the Institute of Careers Officers on 14th February.

    Disabled and Handicapped Persons
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes have recently been made in the employment service for disabled or handicapped people; and what further changes he proposes to make.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The measures I announced last year have been actively pursued. The initiatives taken by Rotary International the Round Table and the Junior Chamber of Commerce, combined with the strengthening of the Disablement Resettlement Officer Service and increased inspections of employers' records under the quota scheme, enabled over 60,000 jobs to be found last year, in spite of the generally difficult situation.
    We are now examining the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts to consider what changes are necessary.
    Mr. Madel: I welcome the action which the Government have so far taken. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the review of services for the disabled is being pressed ahead with urgency and that, when the review is complete, he will ensure full publicity for its recommendations so that no opportunity of employment for the disabled is lost?
    Mr. Smith: We shall certainly consider publicity for any new provisions. Particular attention is being paid to the effect of the provisions made under the Act, such as industrial rehabilitation, vocational training and sheltered employment, for securing the satisfactory resettlement of disabled people. We are also looking into the quota provisions to see whether they succeed or fail in getting employment opportunities for disabled people. We intend to keep up the initiatives which we have started in this sphere.
    Mr. Ashley: is the Minister aware that the greatest contribution which he can make to getting employment for disabled people is to persuade employers to accept the quota of 3 per cent. for disabled people? Half of Britain's employers are not fulfilling their quotas. Will the Minister try to do something about it?
    Mr. Smith: We are very conscious of this problem. That is one of the reasons why we are having a special look at it. We take every opportunity to persuade employers to engage the disabled. There are difficulties. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are some spheres of activity which are not suitable for certain types of disabled people. In addition, many of the disabled are quite old. However, we shall certainly pursue this point.

    Women
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the total number of women unemployed, whether registered or not.
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the numbers of women who are made unemployed and do not register at the labour exchange.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: There were 127,566 women registered as unemployed on 10th January. It is not possible to estimate the number of women who do not register. Further information about the total number of persons seeking work will, however, come from the 1971 Census of Population. Preliminary results are not expected for a few months.
    Mr. Ashley: I have a great respect for the Minister, but is he aware that that answer was vacuous? By the time the census figures are announced they will be out of date. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Minister estimating the number of women unemployed. What does he propose to do to improve the employment prospects of women as part of the Chancellor's campaign in the so called war on unemployment?
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Member probably knows, there is no accepted way of defining or measuring the number of people unregistered and unemployed. But certainly the employment services of my Department are available equally to men and women. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a lack of employment opportunities for women as compared with men. On the contrary, for every 100 men registered as unemployed in Great Britain last month there were 8·7 unfilled notified vacancies. The corresponding figure of vacancies for women was 45·6, so there are still plenty of opportunities available for women workers.
    Mr. Ashton: Why is it not possible to have figures for unemployed women who do not register? Surely it would be a simple matter to take the number of women who were paying industrial injuries contributions 12 months ago and compare it with those contributing today? Would not that show a drop in the numbers, of women who have jobs?
    Mr. Smith: The matter is not as simple as that. It sounds simple on the face of it, but many women want to work only part-time or on a temporary basis, and many often want to work only locally. If they become redundant and they have domestic responsibilities, they wait at home until other local employment appears. It is difficult to identify the total number of women who are unemployed but unregistered.

    Coal Miners' Strike
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers in the last month; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: I met national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers on 21st January, 1972. I have nothing to add to the statement about that meeting which I made on 24th January.—[Vol. 829, c. 968.]
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the strike is still on'? It was a week last Monday that he last came to the House and made a statement on the issue. When will he meet again the miners' officials and the National Coal Board in order to take a fresh look at this matter so that a settlement can be negotiated honourably? Is he aware for instance, that 6 million days have already been lost and that we shall have massive power cuts next week? Is it not time that the Secretary of State and his Government stopped taking the rôle of bully and started taking the rôle of peacemaker?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman's last words do nothing to contribute to a solution. I assure him that I am ready and anxious for a suitable opportunity to meet both sides, with a reasonable opportunity of bringing about a conciliated settlement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not take the initiative?"] But unless and until there is some indication that conciliation can lead to success, I have to take the view which all my predecessors, of all parties, have taken: that one can do more harm than good by calling in the parties when the gap is so big and when there is no chance of bridging it.
    An Hon. Member: Do not lean on the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Holland: Will my right hon. Friend very much bear in mind the vital importance of timing in all matters relating to industrial relations and negotiations?
    Mr. Carr: Yes. I must once again say that I am not leaning on the National Coal Board. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in power, the Coal Board and all other employers were being leant on by a specific statutory incomes policy which set limits to the offers they could make and arbitrators were also instructed to keep to those limits.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that even at its most rigorous, with the exception of the six-months' freeze, the Labour Government's policy always provided for exceptional treatment for exceptional cases? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing public disquiet at the Government's inactivity? Are the Government doing anything to facilitate a settlement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with every day that passes attitudes harden, positions become more deeply entrenched and the costs of an eventual settlement are escalating'? Is it not time that the Government took a helpful and constructive initiative that takes into account the very widespread public sympathy for the miners and recognises, too, the exceptional nature of their case?
    Mr. Carr: If the hon. Member believes that his Government's policy took account of special ases—[Interruption.]—as far as the miners were concerned, while his Government were in power miners' earnings fell from being above the national average to being below it. That was the result of a policy of special cases. We have to face the fact that if we want to improve the position of those who are worse off, the rest of us must be prepared to accept a little less ourselves. That is a statement from the previous Government's White Paper, published only six months before the General Election. When the party opposite, when the Trade Union Congress and when individual union leaders come forward with a firm commitment and statement of policy of that kind, it may be possible to make special cases.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fidler, next Question.
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order. This is the first opportunity that we have had, Mr. Speaker, to question the Secretary of State for Employment on this very important situation. As we are miners' Members of Parliament who are responsible to some extent for thousands of miners being unemployed, we are entitled, I suggest—[Interruption.] Yes we are. We are responsible; but the real responsibility is on the Government Front Bench. We are entitled to voice an opinion in the House today when we have the opportunity of questioning the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. His statement today takes the prize for complacency.
    Mr. Concannon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Twenty of my constituents are in court today about a matter of intimidation, I should say, about this strike, with orders coming from the Department. I also should like the opportunity of questioning the Secretary of State. I have tried to put down Private Notice Questions and have been refused. It is time that we had the chance of questioning the right hon. Gentleman further on this matter.
    Mr. Speaker: With regard to the point of order, the Chair is in a very difficult position when it is trying to make progress and to call as many Members as possible. The time taken on the particular Question was rather longer than usual because of the length of supplementary questions and answers. But I must establish that Question Time cannot be an opportunity for debate. Other ways should be found for debating these matters.
    Mr. Concannon: Further to that point of order. I have just had the disturbing news, Mr. Speaker, which reinforces my argument, that one of the miners' pickets has been killed on duty today. Therefore, it is worth while extending Question Time at this moment.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) wishes to put a supplementary question on that point, he may do so now.
    Mr. Concannon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State aware

    659
    that the present attitude that has been taken by his Department is not only doing the mining industry a great deal of harm but is turning the men even closer together in a willingness to fight and to go all out not for a settlement, which could have been honourably arrived at previously, but for either all or nothing? It is time that the Secretary of State, instead of waffling across to us and lecturing us, got his finger out and did something about it.
    Mr. Carr: May I first say to the House that I, of course, do not know any more than the House does about the tragic event to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I am sure that we would all wish to express our very deep sympathy.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is not good enough. Why not do something about it?
    Mr. Carr: I assure the House again that I will not lose any hopeful opportunity for conciliation. But the House really must leave the timing of these matters, for better or worse, with the Minister who occupies my position. My predecessor on one occasion waited as long as 11 weeks before she believed it was right to intervene. No Minister in my position takes any joy in waiting one day longer than necessary. But to intervene and then to fail in conciliation can have very serious results.

    Hotel and Catering Industry
    Mr. Fidlerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 100,000 unfilled vacancies in the hotel and catering industry have now been filled; and what plans he has for retraining unemployed persons with no previous experience in that industry to fill these vacancies as a contribution to the utilisation of those at present unemployed.
    Mr. Bryan: During 1971, 168,000 adults were placed in hotel and catering occupations by employment exchanges. On 1st December, 1971, unfilled vacancies in these occupations notified to these offices totalled approximately 7,500. Training facilities provided by the Government are being expanded and courses in a range of relevant skills are in operation or planned in Government
    660
    training centres, colleges of further education and with employers.
    Mr. Fidler: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and welcome the proposals in the "Training for the Future" document issued by his Department. Is he aware of the statistical information I received yesterday from the Director of the British Hotels and Restaurants Association indicating that the hotel and catering industry, which employs 414,000 people in hotels, 285,000 in restaurants and 450,000 in catering, including industrial catering, had a shortfall of 8 per cent. of the total at the last count? That represents 93,000 vacancies, two-thirds of which are unskilled or semiskilled. Bearing that in mind, will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure a reassessment of job opportunities to replace the term "servile" by "service"? Will he undertake a drive to get people into the industry so that they can take advantage of the employment opportunities?
    Mr. Bryan: Recruiting is very much the responsibility of the industry, which is a thriving growth industry. My Department will certainly co-operate as much as it can and we are already doing so in training. The best co-operation we could receive from the employers is the registration of more of their vacancies. We have 7,500 vacancies registered, but from what my hon. Friend says it is obvious that many have not been registered.

    Professional and Executive Register
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the restyled Professional and Executive Register envisaged in the report "People and Jobs" to be in operation.
    Mr. Bryan: January, 1973, is the target date for the introduction of the restyled service.
    Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information and I am glad to hear that the Department is keeping to programme. Unhappily, older people form a large proportion of those in the professional and executive groups who are out of work. Have the Government any steps in mind that might be helpful to those older people?
    Mr. Bryan: The date I have given is a calculation. Between now and then we shall be speeding up the process as far as possible. My Department gives priority to older people if it can, but these matters must be judged on their merits and the person in question must be able to do the job before he is recommended.

    Wolverhampton
    Mrs. RenéeShort asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to reduce the unemployment amongst young people, including school-leavers, in Wolverhampton, especially those who have been unemployed since leaving school last summer.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The great majority of the summer term school-leavers in Wolverhampton have now found jobs. In January there were 301 unemployed young people, including 68 school-leavers. Careers officers are doing all they can to find work for them and the Government's economic measures should improve job opportunities.
    Mrs. Short: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the West Midlands for over 25 years the unemployment level has been below 1 per cent. but that now over 100 young people who left school last summer have not yet been able to find a job? The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well when the next lot of school-leavers will be looking for jobs. Is it not time he shook himself out of his complacent attitude and did something specific for the young jobless, who will be turning to other kinds of activities less acceptable to society if they are unemployed for much longer?
    Mr. Smith: Far from being complacent, the Department has done reasonably well in assisting the placing of school-leavers in the area. Despite the decline in industrial activity, less than 3 per cent. of the 2,000 or so summer term school-leavers are still registered as unemployed. I know the situation is not good in Wolverhampton, but as a Midlands Member myself I am confident that in due course the prosperity of the area will be maintained and improved.

    Industrial Training
    Mr. Selwyn Gummerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what
    662
    proposals he has for increasing cooperation between industry, industrial training boards and the employment and education services at national and local level.
    Mr. Bryan: The Government's plans for the future of industrial training—"Training for the Future—A Plan for Discussion"—were published on 1st February. The booklet includes positive proposals to strengthen co-operation between industry, the training boards and the employment and education services through the establishment of a National Training Agency.
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he make special efforts to see that in the extra year at school every effort is made to give school-leavers an intimation of the sort of life they will lead, so that there is less unemployment among school-leavers?
    Mr. Bryan: I am not sure that that is exactly what my hon. Friend asked his Question about. I think that the National Training Agency which we are establishing is about the best answer we can have on the question of co-operation.
    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman referred to the consultative document. Is he aware that the proposal in it to phase out the training levies and grants has been greeted with dismay by many people who follow these matters closely? Is the proposal regarded as a firm Government decision or as something that may be withdrawn in the light of discussions the Government will hold with interested parties?
    Mr. Bryan: My right hon. Friend made it clear the other day that that is part of the consultative part of the document and is open for consultation. But he also made it clear that the proposal is not viewed with dismay by many of the training boards, because several of the more experienced boards were already going in that direction. When the right hon. Gentleman studies the matter, he will find that to be so.
    Mr. Dell: What is it about the employment service that makes it impossible to hive it off and join with the proposed National Training Agency in a national labour market board?
    Mr. Bryan: That may happen in years to come but we are not in a position

    663
    to do it yet. Before such a step could be taken, we should have to separate the payment of benefits from the employment services, and we are nowhere near doing that yet. Therefore, we are talking about quite a long time ahead.
    Mr. Raison: Are the Government likely shortly to announce details of improved financial incentives for workers seeking retraining?
    Mr. Bryan: That was announced last August. A person being retrained receives about £5 more than unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further effects rising unemployment has had on industrial training; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: Applications under my Department's Vocational Training Scheme have doubled during the last six months due to an increased demand from unemployed workers. There is evidence that training provided by employers decreased in 1971 as compared with 1970.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply must be very disheartening? Is he aware, further, that because of his Government's policy of deliberately creating mass unemployment there is a deleterious effect on all those involved in industrial training, since they believe that it is producing not technicians craftsmen and scientific workers but more and more young men and women to go on the dole?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman has indulged in a pack of rubbish. It is a travesty of everything that has happened to suggest that the change in unemployment is due to the deliberate policy of this Government. The hard fact is that we are getting slightly more output with 400,000 fewer people. That is the great difficulty. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I find it very satisfactory that, in these circumstances, the number of applications for Government training schemes has doubled. Many people ask me what is the good of having training because no one will want it, but twice as many people appear to want it.
    Mr. Tom King: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the ritual
    664
    tirade from the benches opposite and on recognising that this matter is very much more complex than the Opposition ever care to admit. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, further, on his decision to visit Germany. Recognising the woefully inadequate manpower planning policies that my right hon. Friend inherited from his predecessor, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he accepts that in Germany he will be able to study the German Government's plan for creating 19 million new jobs in the next 10 years with which to combat what they recognise to be the problem of technological change?
    Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to assure him that we regard the need to improve our employment services in every way as being extremely important if we are to maintain full employment in the future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Maintain?"] It is an area of policy in which we in this country have fallen behind, and we must now catch up.
    Mr. James Hamilton: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have always been a great advocate of industrial training and have said so in this House many times. Is he aware that in Lanarkshire we have 9ç8 of the insurable population unemployed? Will he ensure the House that to assist Lanarkshire and Scotland there will be another training centre in the area? Can he assure us, further, that when men are trained there will be jobs for them? This is vitally important.
    Mr. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to commit me to saying precisely where new training centres are to be. However, I can assure him that Scotland will not get any less than its proper share of the big expansion that we have in mind.
    Mr. Prentice: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are becoming more and more sick of the complacent nature of his replies on our employment troubles? Is not the Government's failure to deal with the unemployment problem underlined by the appalling forecast by the C.B.I. today that manufacturing industry is not likely to increase its labour force between now and May and that, within that period, many large firms may reduce their labour forces even further? Does not that indicate that the

    665
    inadequacy of the Government's policies is even worse than we have assumed?
    Mr. Carr: It indicates that the measures to expand and boost economic growth should have been started long before June, 1970.
    Mr. John Page: Can my right hon. Friend indicate what proportion of those who receive training at Government training centres get jobs soon after they leave the centres?
    Mr. Carr: Last year about 80 per cent. got jobs within the first month. That was a little lower than the year before but it was still satisfactorily high. It is worth bringing out the point that, even today, well-trained people have much better employment opportunities than others.
    Mr. McBride: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the provision of more training facilities in Wales will be looked at with interest? Is he aware, further, that what would receive a warmer welcome is more employment? Knowing that the flow of industry has been reduced to a mere trickle, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the Principality has a better share of employment opportunities? The time for platitudes is long past. What the 56,000 jobless in Wales want is a policy which gives them work.
    Mr. Carr: The amount of money that we have pumped into the economy to boost demand in the past year is not a platitude. It is a hard reality. The growth is coming. What has happened, though, is that for various reasons industry has suddenly increased productivity enormously to the point where we are producing the same amount with many fewer people.

    Construction Workers
    Mr. Greenasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction workers were placed in employment by his Department during the last 12 months; and what proportion these represent of the vacancies for construction workers notified during the same period.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The precise information is not available but for the occupations most closely associated with the construction industry the number of
    666
    men placed in employment by employment exchanges during the 12 months ended 1st December, 1971, was 152,858. Expressed as a percentage of all vacancies for men in these occupations notified to my Department the figure was 71·5.
    Mr. Green: Is it not likely that in the coming months the construction industry will be one of those in which there will be shortages in certain skills and trades? Does not that underline the value and urgency of the Government's retraining proposals?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir, it certainly does. As the economy picks up, those shortages will be accentuated. Not all vacancies are notified to my Department, alas. We believe there are far more in the construction industry than are revealed by the current figures. As stated in "People and Jobs" we are doing quite a lot to try to improve the notification of vacancies to the Department.
    Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that if the Government decided to increase investment in public sector housing starts, so that 100,000 more starts were undertaken this year, there could be a reduction of at least two-thirds in the total number of unemployed in the building industry in the coming 12 months?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister, knows that is not a question for me. However, if he refers to the present Government's record on housing so far, he will see that it bears very favourable comparison with that of the previous Administration.

    UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements to attend the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in April, 1972.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister accept the element of regret that I detect in that reply? Will he accept, further, that a major topic at the conference is likely to be the failure of the recently

    667
    negotiated international monetary package to solve the problems of international trade and the needs of the developing countries?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is not customary for Heads of Government to attend U.N.C.T.A.D. conferences. I attended the first one as Secretary of State. The second one, during the term of office of the party opposite, was attended by the President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be representing this country at Ministerial level at the forthcoming conference.
    As for the main topics of discussion, certainly those aspects of the present monetary situation which affect the developing world will be very much under examination. The purpose of the last Washington conference of the Group of Ten was not specifically to deal with the problems of the developing world but to get an arrangement amongst the major industrial countries on their parities. At the same time those countries undertook the obligation to work for the reform of the international monetary system.
    Mr. Tapsell: Has my right hon. Friend noted the disturbing indications that the world may be heading for another international monetary crisis? Will he use all his influence to try to persuade other Governments not to deal with this by raising tariffs and getting back into a trade war?
    The Prime Minister: That is our own approach and we shall use our influence to that end. The point that my hon. Friend raises is not directly a matter for the next U.N.C.T.A.D. conference.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Following the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not agree that any period of stability following the December Washington agreement on parities shows signs of being peculiarly short-lived? What plans have the Goverment to deal with the menacing situation which is developing?
    Will the Prime Minister also bear in mind the growing concern throughout the developing world that monetary questions are settled too much by a small
    668
    group of developed countries without the voices of developing countries being heard?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the validity of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes in the latter part of his supplementary question. It is true that feelings amongst the developing world are quite strong on this matter. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman knows from experience the difficulty of getting agreement between even the Group of Ten on major questions, especially at a time of difficulty in international monetary relations. To have a much larger group which included the developing world to deal with these specific problems would produce difficulties that one could hardly hope to overcome. But as to the long-term problems I agree that the interests of the developing countries must be taken into account. I think that many would like to see them fully represented in discussions.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will the Prime Minister answer the question concerning parities?
    The Prime Minister: I would not like to comment on that today. It is possible to draw conclusions, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, but it is after all only a short time ago that many were arguing that the level of parities fixed was too high to produce a stable situation. Now the argument is exactly the reverse and there are dangers in it.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for taking the chair at the National Economic Development Council.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 9th November to a Question from the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert).—[Vol. 825, c. 126.]
    Mr. Ashley: As the Prime Minister has been so maladroit in his handling of the unemployment situation, is he now prepared to accept the O.E.C.D. view that the Government's policies are unlikely to have any rapid impact on the level of unemployment? Is he aware that that

    669
    view was supported by the C.B.I. today? Could he ask the National Economic Development Council to take account of the serious implications of the O.E.C.D. view?
    The Prime Minister: We can certainly ask the National Economic Development Council to take account of these views, and others which are published from time to time. The Council has been discussing particular subjects; in January it was industrial investment and yesterday it was manpower resources and the Bolton Report on small firms. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the O.E.C.D. report in full because some of the summaries which have appeared certainly do not represent the views expressed in that report. In particular the report comments that Her Majesty's Government's policies form a consistent strategy for dealing with the entire group' of economic problems.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Birmingham on 17th January, 1972, on regional policy represents Government policy.
    Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Birmingham on 17th January on the economy represents Government policy.
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on 17th January, 1972, on economic matters represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend emphasised that, to take full advantage of economic growth and entry into the Community, industry should invest now in modern equipment, to improve competitiveness and increase capacity. He also explained the essential part that regional policies would continue to play in the overall management of the economy.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread criticism
    670
    from the C.B.I. and the Industrial Policy Group on the one hand and the trade unions on the other hand of the Government's current regional policy, including in some instances the use of industrial development certificates? Will he say what is the virtue in sticking rigidly to an outmoded regional policy when almost the whole country has been reduced to the needs of a development area?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can quote the views of the C.B.I. and the Industrial Policy Group in the same breath because the members of the C.B.I. dissociated themselves from the views of the Industrial Policy Group. On the question of I.D.C. policy, it is well known that there is always a conflict of interest between those who believe that to get what industry is available into the development areas the I.D.C. policy should be absolutely rigid and those who believe that it should be flexible, because there are areas such as the West Midlands conurbation and the North-West which have to replace industry that is fast becoming obsolescent. Obviously, to achieve a balance must be a question of judgment by the Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Barnett: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State managed to make a speech on growth and investment which, remarkably, had no reference to unemployment? Would the Prime Minister care to confirm his promise—the 1972 one—that it is the Government's policy still to maintain full employment? Will he consider taking action to deal with unemployment and investment by considering, for example, a temporary investment incentive, preferably investment grants but some other method if he prefers it, to deal with the crucial problem of new investment in the next 12 months?
    The Prime Minister: The C.B.I. forecast showed that the outlook in the returns that it has received is much more optimistic than it has been, probably for the last two and a half years. This is an encouraging aspect of the survey. I would have thought that the whole purpose of my right hon. Friend's speech was to urge investment and thus to get growth, which is also a means of reducing unemployment.
    Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is absolutely nothing in the Secretary of State's speech that will encourage a reduction of unemployment in the West Midlands? In view of that, will he give serious and urgent consideration to the proposals I have put to him on behalf of every facet of economic life in the City of Birmingham—proposals which would produce projects that would help in the reduction of unemployment in the city?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman sent me a letter, which arrived on Tuesday afternoon, putting forward various proposals and giving me details of the group which had worked them out. This letter is now being examined by Government Departments to see which of these proposals can be implemented.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the North-East for the endeavours he makes to help our area? Can he let us know when we are to get an answer about the grants for old industries which want to expand? Is he aware that even if the grants are smaller than those given to incoming industries, we still need an answer urgently? Thank you very much for the effort you have made on our behalf.
    The Prime Minister: I am gratified to have my hon. Friend's appreciation and I will endeavour to let her have the answer she requests as soon as possible.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Prime Minister aware that with a bit more of this kind of help the whole area will be utterly desolate? Is he further aware that the comments of his hon. Friend do not represent the views of the people in the area?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what good the hon. Gentleman thinks he is doing for the North-East by using extravagant language of that kind which bears no relation to the truth. If he wants industry to go to the North-East he had better stop talking about a desolate area.

    MINISTERS (REPLIES TO MEMBERS' LETTERS)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Prime Minister whether he will now take action to ensure that, as a practice of his Administration, all Ministers give the
    672
    same priority to replying to letters from Opposition Members of Parliament as they do to replying to those from Members of their own party.
    The Prime Minister: Replies to letters from all hon. Members are sent as quickly as possible, and there is no discrimination between hon. Members of different parties as implied by the Question.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction on this side of the House about the length of time taken by some Ministers to reply to letters? Can he give us an assurance that there is equal dissatisfaction on the back benches opposite?
    The Prime MinisterAs I have said, if an hon. Gentleman has any particular instance about which he wishes to complain, the Ministers in the responsible Departments will certainly examine it at once. I have found general agreement in the House that with a very heavy burden of correspondence Departments do endeavour to answer letters as quickly as possible. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's particular complaint is but if he has a specific matter which he wants me to investigate I will do so. The only letter from him I have been able to find in recent weeks is one which he wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Services on 13th January, to which he received a reply on the 21st.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a couple of weeks ago I wrote him my first letter of this Parliament about the McMahon Treaty and British nuclear policy and that I had an answer in 48 hours which was unequivocal, objective, accurate and in every way commendable?
    The Prime Minister: I well recall the letter which my hon. Friend sent me. I must say that to achieve that standard it is not possible to reply in 24 hours—it does require 48.
    Mr. Lipton: On the subject of Ministerial behaviour, will the Prime Minister remind his colleagues of the polite convention by which a Minister visiting a Member's constituency notifies the Member concerned beforehand? Will the right hon. Gentleman in particular draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
    The Prime Minister: This is a longstanding convention which we wish to uphold to the utmost. We all know there are occasions when unfortunately, because of pressure of business, a private office slips up in giving notification. It is certainly not intentional and if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so I will look into this matter.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Prime Minister whether he will now dismiss the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Kaufman: Are we to take it from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman endorses the Secretary of State's petty-minded and vindictive interference with Manchester Corporation, which wishes to provide free hot drinks to children who receive free school dinners because they can no longer have milk? The Secretary of State has stepped in and forbidden this. Will the right hon. Gentleman now promise that he will preavent his right hon. Friend from meddling in Manchester's new plan to give these children these hot drinks at the charge of 1p per week?
    The Prime Minister: The Manchester issue was a legal one and not a question of a policy decision by the Secretary of State. The legal advice which was received was that it was necessary for a local authority in those circumstances to make some charge.
    Sir R. Cary: Will my right hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the grateful thanks of thousands of people throughout the country for all she has done in regard to primary schools—surely the first priority in education?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but the record of my right hon. Friend, in providing the largest ever building programme for replacing old primary schools, is a major achievement in education. At the same time, to have had the biggest ever building programme for polytechnics and other institutions of further education, to have
    674
    seen through the raising of the school-leaving age, which the party opposite abandoned, to have commissioned a major inquiry into teacher training and to have improved staffing standards are remarkable achievements in the 18 months that my right hon. Friend has been in office.
    Mr. Edward Short: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement, which will appear in a number of places in a letter tomorrow, that the Government would set the local authorities free to take their own decisions with the constant, monotonous decisions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reject local authority reorganisation schemes? Is he aware that last week the Secretary of State rejected a very important part of Worcestershire's scheme and a very important part of Surrey's scheme?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, a responsibility is placed on the Secretary of State to examine schemes in the light of the criteria set down and to make a judgment upon them. That is a statutory responsibility placed upon her. At least she has not tried to bully local authorities to accept one scheme.
    Mr. William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State's decision with regard to Whyteleafe School, retaining it as a grammar school, has pleased many parents in my constituency in East Surrey? Is he further aware that the decision to retain some grammar schools is in line with our promise to retain parental choice, which we on this side treat as of great importance?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we have always emphasised that the views of parents as well as those of teachers and local authorities should be taken into account.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Replying to the first question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), the Prime Minister said that this was a purely legal matter, implying that if there were no legal difficulties the Secretary of State would not take this view. Is he aware that she introduced last year one of the filthiest Bills that we have ever had in this House, to prevent local authorities from providing

    675
    milk? If she could introduce that Bill to prevent them, could she not now introduce a Bill to do as my hon. Friend suggested?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that the support and backing for the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is still as good as ever. My right hon. Friend was asked to give the best advice possible, under the existing law, on the action proposed by the local authority—[Interruption.] Therefore, so far as it affects the local authority, she was bound to advise what the present position is: that some charge must be made by the local authority. The local authority can subsidise at the same time, but some charge has to be made by it.
    Mr. Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question? If the right hon. Lady could introduce that Bill last year to prevent councils supplying milk, why could she not clarify the law in this matter by introducing a Bill to enable them to do it?
    The Prime Minister: Because we do not propose to change the responsibilities of local authorities in this way. We do not believe that they should have the power to dispense in this way without any charge at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"] If the right hon. Gentleman had thought otherwise, presumably he would have changed the law himself. As it is, when we introduced the Education (Milk) Act we allowed a supply of free milk for every primary child up to the age of seven and for older children who needed it on medical grounds. The right hon. Gentleman abolished it for secondary education without any exemptions of any kind.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Pavitt: I wish to raise a point of order concerning the transfer from the Prime Minister to the Secretary of State for Employment of my Question No. 27. I understand that it is not a matter for the Chair that the Prime Minister decides to transfer 90 per cent. of his Questions, but my concern on this matter is at the form that the Question takes.
    The Question that I asked concerned the possible unemployment of 500 of my constituents because of the closure of a
    676
    factory and a letter sent by the shop convenor to the Prime Minister. In the form in which the Question now appears on the Paper, I am guilty of a terminological inexactitude, because it says that a letter was sent by my constituent to the Secretary of State for Employment, when in fact it was sent to the Prime Minister.
    Will you give a direction, Mr. Speaker, that, when Questions are transferred, the sense of the Question is retained, so that one is not guilty therefore of making a statement which is obviously untrue?
    Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is not really a matter for the Chair, but I will certainly consider what he has said.

    COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE (PICKET'S DEATH)
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, during Question Time, one of my hon. Friends announced that a miner had been killed on picket duty. We were charged with showing a certain amount of emotion on hearing that news, but I think that the House will understand why there is no need to apologise for that. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Before we leave for our constituencies this weekend, would it be possible for a Minister to make a statement describing what happened and telling us why a situation like this should arise?
    Second, it has been drawn to our attention that pickets have been arrested and held in custody overnight without opportunity of bail. Some of them have been handcuffed. Might this not be related to the situation—
    Mr. Rost: For unlawful picketing.
    Hon. Members: Shut up.
    Mr. Eadie: When people are killed, the hon. Member cannot understand the emotion aroused.
    I hope that a Minister will give an explanation so that, when we go to our constituencies, we will know the facts, since the miners' representatives always try to take a responsible attitude to such depressing events.
    Mr. Speaker: I have already had notice from an hon. Member of his wish to ask a Private Notice Question tomorrow on

    677
    this matter. I will of course decide on that and take into account all the factors in the situation.
    Mr. Swain: Further to that point of order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1932 there was a tragic explosion at the Bentley Colliery and that on the very same day a statement was made in the House by the responsible Minister about the occurrence? He did not go into how and why it happened. He simply expressed the sympathy of the House and said that a public inquiry would be held.
    I rise on a point of order to seek your guidance, Sir. Should not the Government follow that 1932 precedent in view of the fact that today's tragedy is equal to that of 1932? [Interruption.] I agree that the circumstances are different, but this man was undertaking legal picketing in the strict sense of the word. In my constituency during the last week 13 men have been arrested, handcuffed and put in line—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker, and not the ignorant Members on the Government benches.
    I am speaking as a compassionate hon. Member for the Opposition and a representative of the miners' group. I should have thought that even the ignorant element on the benches opposite would be prepared to listen to me on this occasion—[Interruption.] This is no laughing matter. We are talking about a man's life. A man is dead and he leaves behind six children. This could be the start of another Ulster in the Yorkshire coalfield.
    I warn the Government here and now that if there is not an immediate statement from the responsible Minister, I shall go back to my constituency tonight and advocate violence [HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] A man has lost his life today in tragic circumstances—[Interruption.] I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the strong feelings that are held on this matter. I have indicated that I have had notice from an hon. Member that he wishes to ask a Private Notice Question about this matter tomorrow at 11 o'clock. It would not be in accordance with precedent if I were now to announce
    678
    my decision on that, but I assure the hon. Member that I shall take careful account of what has been said.
    Mr. Swain: With humility and sadness I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Marshall: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the person concerned in this incident was a resident of my constituency, may I be permitted immediately to express profound shock and sorrow at what has happened and sympathy for the widow and six children? May I underline—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I quite understand the hon. Member's feelings, but the time to make such comments will be tomorrow, if I allow the Private Notice Question to be asked. Mr. Roy Jenkins. Business Question.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order that has been raised with you, Mr. Speaker, and with very great respect, may I remind you that it is not impossible for an hon. Member to give notice of a Private Notice Question if need be weeks ahead? In this case the hon. Member gave you notice that he wished to raise this matter and has thereby pre-empted any other hon. Member's opportunity to raise what is an urgent matter immediately.
    I gave you notice shortly after 2.30 p.m. that I wished to raise this matter, and it was not until the 2.30 news that this information came out. I therefore know personally that no hon. Member could have given you notice of his desire to ask a Private Notice Question before I gave you such notice—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh over this, but it is not a laughing matter.
    I heard of this on the 2.30 news. I came straight to the House and spoke to you in the Chair. I said that I wanted to raise the issue today and not tomorrow. Tomorrow may be too late. The miners are extremely upset and worried over this. There could be ructions in the country tonight—[Interruption.]—and it is not good enough to allow this matter to stand over until tomorrow, because it should and could be discussed today.
    The subject which we are to discuss later is betting and gambling. Is that more important than the loss of a miner's

    679
    life? I therefore urge you to consider allowing this matter to be raised today rather than tomorrow.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Roy Jenkins, Business Question.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Further to the point of order that has been raised with you, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am on a point of order. Before asking the Business Question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether you had noticed that the Secretary of State for Employment was in his place? I thought he looked as if he might be prepared to make a statement. It might help if he were able to say something on this subject.
    Mr. Tapsell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House at Question Time that he was probably better informed on this tragic incident than any other right hon. or hon. Member, might it not be in the national interest if he now made a brief statement on the subject?
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As those who were present will recall, when the news of this tragedy was mentioned at Question Time by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) I immediately expressed the sympathy of the whole House. The first news I had of it was from that hon. Member and I have been trying to obtain information about the incident since then.
    The information I have been able to obtain so far is very scanty. The news appeared on the tape at 2.50 p.m. I did not have an opportunity to hear the 2.30 news, which apparently the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) heard. All I know so far is that the accident happened at the Keadby Power Station near Scunthorpe and that the name of the miner who has been so tragically killed was Mr. Fred Matthews, who was one of about 50 members of the union from Bentley who were on 24-hour picket duty at this power station.
    680
    As to the nature of the accident, all I know at present is that he was run over by an articulated lorry. I have not so far been able to discover any further information. I have, therefore, given the House all the information that is at present available to me.
    Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to exacerbate an already very difficult situation, but I, too, have a very large number of constituents who are miners and who are on continuous picket duty. May I take this opportunity to point out that an already difficult situation has been made more difficult by this tragic accident? [Interruption.] I am raising this point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—because I do not want to see any further disorder in any of the streets of Britain.
    Would it not be desirable for you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, to request the Secretary of State for Employment to come to the House at, say, 7.30 p.m. to make a statement on this subject and, more important, to make a statement on the miners' strike—[Interruption.]—given that at three o'clock this afternoon the Chairman of the National Coal Board said, "It is necessary for quick intervention by a third party to help end this dispute." There can be only one third party, and that is the Government.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Roy Jenkins.
    Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House might be able to assist. It is clear that the House would like to receive a statement on this matter at the earliest possible opportunity and at the same time would like to afford the responsible Minister—[Interruption.]—Hon. Gentlemen opposite should accept that this is a very serious matter—sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary information.
    In my respectful submission, there are precedents for Ministers making such statements. I think most recently of the statement on a very different matter, relating to gold, when at a very late hour the Minister intervened to make a statement. There are procedural ways—for example, an application can be made to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment Debate—which would enable such

    681
    a statement to be made. It would he helpful if the Leader of the House would indicate that, within the rules of order, it would be his intention that such a statement should be made at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we must conclude this discussion. What the right hon. Member has said will be noted. I have given a hint of what my likely course of action will be tomorrow, by which time there should have been adequate time for the matter to have been investigated. Mr. Roy Jenkins—Business Question.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not my wish to try to inflame the situation. I listened very intently to what the Secretary of State for Employment said. It seemed to me that he read out most of the contents of what appeared on the tape, which I read a short time ago. I hope there was nothing he is trying to hide, inasmuch as there were two statements on that tape which the Minister has not disclosed, namely, one—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This cannot possibly be a point of order. Mr. Roy Jenkins.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You yourself have pointed out that a Private Notice Question may be answered tomorrow. The Leader of the Liberal Party has made a suggestion that we might have a statement later tonight. As he has made a suggestion, may I make a suggestion, which I think would be in order? It is that, with your approval, the Government, if they are so minded, could move the Adjournment of the House and scrap today's business, which no one particularly wants. Betting, gambling and gaming are not the most important things. The Government could show that they are really seized of this situation and ask permission to move the Adjournment of the House so that we could have a debate on the whole subject of what may be a very serious situation, and we could have that debate tonight, not tomorrow.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems very much a question on business. Mr. Roy Jenkins.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY. Private Members' Motions until Seven o'clock. Afterwards, Second Reading of the Transport (Grants) Bill. Remaining stages of the Iron and Steel Bill.
TUESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY. Supply [11th allotted day]: There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on the Coal Industry dispute.
Motion relating to the Industrial Relations (Commencement No. 4) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY. Debate on a Motion to take note of the First Report from the Select Committee on Expenditure in Session 1970–71, relating to the British Council, and the related Special Report, and, if there it time, of the First Report in Session 1971–72 on Probation and After Care.
Remaining stages of the Local Employment Bill [Lords] and the Summer Time Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
THURSDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY. Second Reading of the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill. Remaining stages of the Electricity Bill.
FRIDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY. Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY. Supply [12th allotted day]: Debate on a topic to be announced.
Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman and the House will note that we have had to give a Supply Day on Tuesday to get a discussion on the coal industry strike, which has been going on for several weeks. The Government have been very unforthcoming about making a statement on this industrial dispute. Could we have a statement before the debate on Tuesday? Referring back to earlier questions which caused so much concern, I hope that the Government will consider making a statement this evening, but, whatever your

683
decision, Mr. Speaker, about the Private Notice Question, can we have an absolute guarantee that at the latest a statement on this matter will be made tomorrow morning?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point I of course appreciate that the Opposition have given their time for a debate on the coal industry dispute. I do not' think it can be said that the Secretary of State has not been forthcoming for he has come to the House whenever he has had something to report.
On the second point, of course I give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking which he seeks. I think I should say, and I think the House would accept it, that it is very important in these situations, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) underlined, that all relevant facts should be carefully and properly ascertained before a statement is made to the House. On that basis, certainly I give the undertaking for which the right hon. Gentleman asked.
Mr. Onslow: As it appears from the statement made yesterday about the Foulness Airport project that this will involve a fairly massive shift of the London conurbation eastward as well as the expenditure of about £1,000 million of public money, may I ask whether the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter before any irrevocable commitment is entered into?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement about progress in this matter, which was important. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, or the Minister for Housing and Construction, to make a statement next week about the refusal to see deputations of tenants on the subject of higher rents? As you, Mr. Speaker, know, this has been refused even when such deputations would be accompanied by M.Ps. However, there is a new development. The Minister has stated that he would not see deputations either from tenants or landlords, but would receive written representations only.
684
This week the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir G. Longden) has revealed, or admitted, that he has taken a deputation of landlords to see the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will put it to the Minister that he should reconsider this refusal and ask him whether he will also see deputations from local authorities, accompanied by their Members of Parliament. Surely when so many are affected so seriously, this matter must be considered. Could we have a statement next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I set out the position about receiving deputations on a previous occasion. I certainly would wish to check what I said then and naturally I would stick to what I said then. I think it was a reasonable statement, although I cannot remember the exact details. I do not necessarily accept as facts all the other points, but I will look into the whole question.
Sir G. Longden: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) did not give me notice that he was to raise this matter, but fortunately I was present. The deputation which I took to the Minister was not only long before the Bill was produced, but long before the White Paper—about 12 months ago.
Mr. Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has yet been able to conclude that it will be possible for us to debate whether or not we can have the proceedings of the House broadcast on television?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have had various discussions with some hon. Members interested in this matter. I shall have further discussions. I cannot say when this will be, but I am most anxious that, through the usual channels and other contacts, we could discuss the kind of a debate on the basis of which the House could come to a clear decision.
Mr. Ashley: Does the Leader of the House know about the Government's refusal to disclose the number of disabled people on local authority registers and the amount spent on them? Is he aware that this is a departure from normal parliamentary practice? Can we have a debate on it next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I could not find time for a debate on this matter next week, but I will certainly see that the matter is fully investigated.
Mr. Awdry: If we are to have a statement tomorrow on the tragic death of a miner, could we have a statement on illegal picketing so that everyone in the country may know exactly where he stands?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I should confine myself to the assurance which I have already given.
Mr. Peart: I want to raise a matter resulting from this morning's proceedings in Standing Committee H, considering the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It concerns the provisions of that Bill in relation to the E.E.C. legislation. There is a conflict of interpretation. Will the Leader of the House look into the matter and if possible arrange for Law Officers to appear before the Standing Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am assured that no Bill at present before a Standing Committee is expressly affected by the European Communities Bill. I will, however, look into what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Hastings: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider again the possibility of a debate on the Bolton Report, since a number of hon. Members are interested in the future of small businesses and would welcome a debate?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the interest and importance of the subject, but I could not give time for a debate in the immediate future. However, I note what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement to the House on what action he proposes to take about the contractors who were putting up crash barriers on the M1 between Watford and Hemel Hempstead and who, instead of using all the material available, sold quite a lot of it to scrap merchants, whereby the crash barriers were rendered unsafe?
Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong of me to accept the hon. Gentleman's assertions without knowing anything about the
686
facts. But I will draw what he has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend
Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Early Day Motion standing in my name, about the specific and quite exciting proposals that the new chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council, Dr. Reid, would like to put before Ministers with regard to further employment in the north of England? Does my right hon. Friend think that they will be able to hear what Dr. Reid has to say'? Could I have some sort of satisfactory answer?
[That, in the opinion of this House, the Chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council, Dr. Reid, should be immediately invited by Her Majesty Government to present to them in detail his specific and realistic proposals for creating new permanent growth in employment in the North-East and for improving the general climate for expansion, and that after speedy examination by the responsible Ministers, and co-operation by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, action should follow.]
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend knows my own special interest in the same area. She has already approached me on this matter. I will call it to the attention of my right hon. Friends most closely concerned. They will be only too anxious to hear Dr. Reid's proposals.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is about the twelfth time we have asked for a debate on the proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland, which, he must agree, are as important as those for England and Wales? Since he has each time given a dilatory answer, will he now say that he will some time soon arrange for a debate on these proposals?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman feels that I have been dilatory, but I believe that this matter can properly be debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. I think that is the best place for it. Certainly, that is what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) seems to think.
Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend promise an early debate on foreign affairs not concerned with Europe? Does he recall that, on the Motion for the

687
Adjournment of the House for the Christmas Recess, I asked for a debate on the Indo-Pakistan situation? Since then, we have the recognition of Bangladesh envisaged, and there has been a change in Commonwealth relationships and in the balance of power in Southern Asia. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that at least on the return of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from his Far East and Southern Asia tour we can have a debate on these matters?
Mr. Whitelaw: I take note of these various matters. I cannot say at this stage when such a debate would be possible. Of course, such debates do take place, quite rightly, from time to time.
Mr. Torney: May I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on the question of the proceedings in Standing Committee H on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware of any conflict between the Common Market proposals and any Bill in Standing Committee. Is he aware that this morning in the Standing Committee we sought legal advice? We asked for the presence of a Law Officer to advise us but our request was refused by the Ministers present. As a member of that Standing Committee, I am very seriously concerned about this matter, and I ask that a Law Officer of the Crown be present at a future meeting of the Committee so that we can consider the situation and whether there is a direct connection between the implications of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the proposals that are shortly to be before the House on the Common Market.
Mr. Whitelaw: I gave the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) the assurance, as far as I was capable of giving it, in a lay manner. I have, of course, undertaken to look into the further points he made. I cannot guarantee to go further than that now.
Mr. Marten: Are we to debate the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill on 15th, 16th and 17th February? If we are, does that mean that we are not going to get a chance
688
to debate the Treaty of Accession before-hand?
Mr. Whitelaw: Last week, various representations were made to me about the timing of the European Communities Bill. I noted those representations and as a result have not included the Second Reading of the Bill in next week's business, as my hon. Friend will have noticed. I will, however, put it down for the following week, which will be three weeks after its publication. It is my present intention to allow three days debate.
Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman has made a concession to what we asked for last week, it would certainly be churlish of us not to acknowledge it. But will he take account of the fact that his response does not go as far as we have asked for and that, since we have now been able to examine the Bill more fully, it becomes more and more evident that it includes a more far-reaching and extraordinary abandonment of the powers of this House and the rights of Members than has ever been proposed in any Bill presented to the House?
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore consider the further postponement of the Second Reading debate, particularly in view of the fact—I give this as one example only—that in Clause 1 reference is made to a whole series of treaties which are covered by the Bill and which the Bill proposes to make part of the law of the land, even though those treaties are not specifically referred to in the Bill or in the Schedule to the Bill? Will he undertake—and this is only one example before we even debate the Bill—to withdraw it and bring forward a new Bill which will include specific references to the treaties which it is proposed to make the law of the land? This, as I say, is only one example of the nature of the Bill, which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again postponing, because, if it ever becomes law, it will transform the rights of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks to the effect that I had paid attention to the representations made to me last week. I have indeed done so and I think that I have come to a reasonable conclusion. Three weeks is certainly longer than the normal period. I am giving three days for

689
debate and I think I am right in saying that only two other Bills in the last 30 years have had three days on Second Reading. These are reasonable positions for me to take and I shall stand by them. It would not be right for me to follow the hon. Gentleman into arguments which may be deployed when the Bill is debated.
Mr. Cordle: In view of the recent coup in Ghana and the other difficulties on the West Coast of Africa—namely, in Sierra Leone and Nigeria—is it possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange for a debate on these matters very shortly?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I could not. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, but I could not promise a debate on the subject next week.
Mr. Judd: There is a critical situation in Rhodesia and the responsibility for events in that country lies in this House. Hon. Members understand that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is about to leave for a visit to Asia. Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify precisely which Minister will be responsible in London for Rhodesian affairs during the Secretary of State's absence?
Mr. Whitelaw: The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. More: In view of the decline in the power and influence of this House which the European Communities Bill must entail, will my right hon. Friend next week consider his own position as Leader of the House, particularly in the light of his statement:
"I have no intention whatever of leading a House of Commons which is declining in influence … I want to see the effectiveness of this House substantially increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 872.]
Will he next week make a statement to the House, first, as to his own position in regard to this legislation, and, secondly, his own position in regard to back benchers as Leader of the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, most certainly. I am always prepared to consider my position, as I am sure many other people are prepared to; and perhaps they would like me to do so. On the serious point, I do not accept for a single moment that
690
the influence of this House or its influence in Europe will decline as a result of Britain joining the European Economic Community. I do not accept that; I believe it is up to the House to make arrangements to ensure that its influence is fully felt in a much wider community than previously, and I certainly believe that it will do so.
Mr. Jay: In view of that answer, will the Leader of the House answer the question I have asked before; whether he considers that the Government's European Economic Community Bill detracts from the principle that no British Parliament can bind its successor?
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman asked that question last week and I have asked various legal views. As far as I am informed, I understand that the principle is as it has always been in the past, that if another Parliament seeks to repeal any legislation brought before this House it is perfectly entitled to do so.
Mr. Blaker: Before the House debates the European Economic Community Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some way could be found of enabling the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement to the House as to how he would have adopted membership of the Community without accepting Community law?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to answer for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Alfred Morris: With respect, is the Leader of the House aware that the reply he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) would be fiercely contested by many right hon. and hon. Members of the House, including several eminent legal experts? I appreciate that he is trying to be helpful, as is the Chairman of the Committee. Will he make a statement next week, or arrange for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to do so, on the predicament in which we find ourselves in that Standing Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: I gave the position as I understand it to be, and I said I would look into the question put by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr.

691
Peart). As far as my experience of life goes, there are very few statements of law which are not contested by some other lawyer.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be warm appreciation of the sentiment he has expressed that this House should so conduct itself that the European Economic Community Bill will not change or in any sense diminish its authority? As the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no Standing Committees sitting at the same time to ensure that Members are not captive upstairs.
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend is a very clever man, but he has not actually followed the remark I made. I said I believed that this House could so organise itself for the future that it had considerably more influence in a wider Community in Europe. That is what I said and that is what I stand by.
Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how many Committees are meeting in the afternoon? As this is a unique Bill of such far-reaching importance, no matter when it is taken there should be the maximum participation on the Floor of the House. Does he agree that it would be quite wrong that probably half the Members of this House should be tied up in meetings of Committees during the afternoon? Will he suspend Committee meetings on Bills during discussion of this particular legislation. I do not feel that this is very amusing, even if the Prime Minister does.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman said. Of course, it has been the position with all Governments—and I certainly suffered under it in the last Parliament from the previous Government—that there have been Standing Committees sitting upstairs during discussions on the Floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends are able to conclude their discussions in the Scottish Standing Committee in reasonable time that will be perfectly all right.
Mr. Maclennan: On the last point regarding the Scottish Standing Committee,
692
has the right hon. Gentleman noted a suggestion made at Scottish Question Time yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that certain crucial matters of Scottish law reform should be considered by the Second Scottish Standing Committee, and has he noted the entirely flippant reply given to that important proposal by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he now bring this matter to the attention of his right hon. Friends and undertake that these important matters of law reform, for which we are waiting in Scotland, are considered in that Standing Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: Without accepting the point the hon. Member made about my lion. Friend's reply, I will certainly look into the question he has put to me.

BRITISH EMBASSY, DUBLIN
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will be aware from Press reports, the British Embassy in Dublin was yesterday gutted by fire. This was the culmination of 36 hours of attacks on the premises of the British Embassy and of the Embassy's Commercial Department, about 50 yards away from the main building. In the course of the night of the 1st-2nd of February, the door of the Embassy was blown in by a gelignite bomb and renewed attacks with petrol the following morning led to the fire which destroyed the building. The staff were evacuated from the buildings early yesterday morning and there were no casualties.
The Government of the Irish Republic have a duty, in international law, to protect the premises of foreign embassies within the Republic. On this occasion the authorities had ample warning of the danger, both through the build-up of the crowd's activities and through specific warnings conveyed during the early evening of the 1st of February by the British Chargé d'Affaires in Dublin and by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office yesterday morning to the Irish Chargés d'Affaires in London. Accordingly, my right hon.

693
Friend the Minister of State summoned the Irish Chargé d'Affaires yesterday evening to protest at the failure of the Irish Authorities to carry out their responsibility. He made it clear that the British Government look to the Government of the Irish Republic for the most stringent measures to ensure the protection of all the members of the Embassy and that we would expect full compensation to be paid for the damage suffered. The Chargé d'Affaires accepted full responsibility on behalf of his Government and expressed great regret for what had happened.
Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Her Majesty's Opposition deplore this act of senseless vandalism and welcome the regret expressed by the Government of the Irish Republic and its readiness to pay full compensation? But would he not agree that it is dangerous to ignore the strength of popular feeling which lies behind this incident, and will he recognise the need for a political initiative which could lead to a wide-ranging discussion of all the issues now dividing the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic? Will he request his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to invite Mr. Lynch to London to arrange for such discussion?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I believe the whole House will deplore this incident. No doubt there are strong feelings in Ireland, but they cannot possibly justify the outrage perpetrated in Dublin yesterday. I feel I must give warning to the Irish Government that if they were to maintain the attitude they have taken—as in Mr. Hillery's speech, for instance, in New York yesterday—they could do most serious and lasting damage to relationshps between our two countries. Certainly, we want a political settlement and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has met Mr. Lynch lately in Brussels and has met Mr. Faulkner. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty, but he cannot lay the blame on Her Majesty's Government for not seeking reconciliation and conversations with the leaders.
Mr. HealeyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware—and I say this to him with the deepest respect—that however much many of us may sympathise with his feelings in this matter, we on this side
694
of the House are deeply disappointed by the tone of his reply to my question. The situation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic has seriously deteriorated in recent days. Is he aware that if there is to be an improvement in the situation some initiative is required from this side of the Irish Sea no less than from the other side? Unless the Government show themselves ready to seek some political initiative in this respect they will share responsibility for any further deterioration in the situation which may arise.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can reasonably complain. We wish the best possible relations with the Irish Republic, let that be quite clear. I believe this feeling is shared by every hon. Member in this House. We will take every step we can to try to devise the necessary conversations which will lead to a political settlement in Northern Ireland. But this is not helped by mob violence. Mob violence is no answer at all to this problem.
Sir D. Renton: Was not a large part of the work of the Embassy in Dublin greatly to the advantage of the economy of the Republic of Ireland, and will my right hon. Friend say what steps the Government of the Republic are taking to enable that work to be resumed?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Certainly I think the work of the Embassy in Dublin was to the advantage of the Irish economy. I repeat, we want the best possible relations, we will try to contribute to that; and we want a political settlement of the Northern Ireland problem, but it must be contrived in an atmosphere of peace and calm.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that those who have warn and close feelings towards the Republic, quite apart from deploring this action, can only be saddened by something which will achieve nothing and will make a peaceful solution of the Irish problem even more difficult? Is not the moral that violence, from whatever quarter, achieves nothing except the begetting of further violence? Is it not appropriate in the context of these events to say to those who were the first to call for bans on marches in Northern Ireland that they

695
themselves by marching on Newry this Sunday will be producing the very violence which they have hitherto deplored?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I endorse everything the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Stratton Mills: In the light of these events, does Mr. Lynch still stand by his commitment to contain the I.R.A.?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a matter for Mr. Lynch. We hope, certainly, that he will contain the activities of the I.R.A., which is trying to disrupt a peaceful settlement of the Irish problem.
Mr. McNamara: The whole House must deplore any loss of property or life that occurs, be it Irish or English, soldiers or civilians. Is not the sacking of the Embassy another terrible milestone on the route of the complete failure of Her Majesty's Government to find a true and lasting settlement to the Irish problem? Does it not place a heavy responsibility upon Her Majesty's Government in the light of instructions they have given to Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland on their conduct towards civil rights demonstrators? Will the Foreign Secretary comment on newspaper reports this morning that the Government are considering a new aggressive initiative to try to bring peace to this unhappy island?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A political settlement of the Northern Ireland problem can be reached only by discussion. The hon. Gentleman would be doing a great service to everybody by persuading his friends to enter into discussion with Her Majesty's Government and members of the Northern Ireland Government to find a way to the peaceful solution we all want. If he could do that, he would be doing something worth while.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Reverting to the question put by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest contributions which both sides of the House can make is to give at least as good a hearing to the case put for the British Army as we give to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes.
Mr. Delargy: Is it not a pity that, whereas from the Opposition we have had words of indignation at the burning down of a building, not one word of sympathy was expressed from the Government side of the House to the relatives of the 13 men who were killed?

COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE (PICKET'S DEATH)
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, namely,
"the loss of life of a miner while picketing at a power station."
I gave you preliminary notice at 2.34 p.m. this afternoon that I should seek the opportunity to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. I say "preliminary notice" because it was my wish that one of the hon. Members representing Yorkshire mining constituencies might take this opportunity. I was a little dismayed to hear that you had said that you agreed to accept—
Mr. Speaker: Order. All I ever said was that I have had notice of an hon. Member's intention to ask leave.
Mr. Lewis: I apologise and unreservedly withdraw what I said. You have received notice, Mr. Speaker, of a Private Notice Question tomorrow.
With the greatest respect, I feel that this matter is urgent and should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, since much may happen between now and tomorrow morning. Today's business is not so urgent. There are not many people who care whether betting, gambling and gaming are discussed now or put off to a later date.
It might not have been necessary for me to make this application had either the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Employment responded to the Opposition Front Bench and said that he would come to the House tonight at seven o'clock to make a statement. It might not be necessary for me to make the application if the Government would say that this is a much more important and

697
urgent matter than the subjects set down for discussion in the Orders of the Day, so that we could have even a short debate on this important subject.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the loss of life of a miner while picketing at a power station."
I accept the seriousness of this incident and, if I may do so without being patronising, I should like to commend the hon. Member. He addressed his remarks to the urgency of the matter and the reason why it should have precedence.
If I were to decide in favour of a debate on this subject it might mean that it would be debated on Monday, and there could not be the statement tomorrow about which we have heard. I am not prepared to give this matter precedence over today's business and I must reject the hon. Member's request.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HORSERACE TOTALISATOR AND BETTING LEVY BOARDS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.29 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The need for this Measure arises from the financial problems of the totalisator, which have been growing more serious since 1968 and have now reached a very serious situation.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Lame ducks.
  Mr. Maudling: The Government have to decide whether the tote should be allowed to collapse or whether it is in the general interest that it should be maintained. In either case, legislation would be necesary either to wind it up or to maintain it.
  The Government, after considering the whole matter, came to the conclusion that in the interests of racing as a whole, and in particular in the interests of the punting public, the totalisator should be enabled to continue in operation in competition with the bookmakers. That is fundamentally what the Bill is about.
  We were fortified in this conclusion by general agreement with this principle. It is interesting to look at overseas experience. Most countries where there is any degree of horse racing have a tote monopoly, even though in many cases they are strongly private enterprise countries. Many people argue that a tote monopoly is the best system in the interests of racing, the race-going public and, incidentally, the Exchequer.
  I am not putting that case before the House today. However, it is fair to say that there are very few countries where bookmaking is allowed as it is here. I can identify only Ireland, South Africa and, to a limited extent, Australia. In all countries where bookmakers operate, they operate under competition from a totalisator. I cannot find any example of a country where the bookmakers have the freedom to operate without any

  699
  tote competition. Therefore, experience throughout the world justifies the conclusion that the totalisator should be allowed to maintain itself in a proper competitive situation with the bookmakers.
  Although I have received many representations on this matter, many of them of a similar character, I do not recall any to the effect that the tote should be allowed to collapse. Many people have said to me, "We do not like your Bill, but we accept that the totalisator is a desirable facility for the race-going public and for racing as a whole. Therefore, it would be a bad thing if it were wholly eliminated."
  I therefore conclude that there is a wide measure of support for the basic principle of the Bill: that the totalisator should be enabled to continue in being in competition with the bookmakers.
  Dame Irene Ward: On fair terms.
  Mr. Maudling: Exactly. That is what I said.
  I should like to mention the history relating to this matter. Totalisator betting on horse races first started in this country in 1928 under the Racecourse Betting Control Board, which was established not as a State enterprise but as a non-profit-making body who surpluses were to be devoted entirely to horse racing and horse breeding. Incidentally, that Act made it lawful for bookmakers to operate from pitches on the course, whereas previously they could move around only among the spectators.
  The impact of the tote on racing can be judged from the fact that in the first year of its operation course attendances went up by about 20 per cent. Between 1928 and 1960 the tote contributed a total of £10 million directly to the industry and about £5 million in other ways, at the same time returning prices to the punter which compared favourably with those offered by the bookmakers. Therefore, between 1928 and 1960 the totalisator did a good job along the lines that it was set up to do.
  In 1960 a change came when licensed betting offices were legalised for the first time. In the following year the Horse-race Betting Levy Board was established to use some of the profits of those offices
  700
  for the benefit of the racing industry in compensation for the diminishing attend-dances on courses which it was rightly thought would follow from that new Measure. The Levy Board was given the responsibility of raising contributions both from bookmakers and from the tote, and it assumed the responsibility of the Racecourse Betting Control Board for deciding how the money should be distributed.
  The Racecourse Betting Control Board, having lost this particular responsibility, was replaced by the Horserace Totalisator Board—known as the "tote board"—which remained as a commercial organisation carrying out the business of pool betting on horseracing and making over its surpluses to the Levy Board.
  In 1968 there was a further considerable change in the position of the tote. Its position in general began to deteriorate sharply. There were two reasons why that happened. First, there was a big change in the general nature of the betting markets in this country which the tote could not match because of the legal restrictions under which it operated.
  Secondly, the wholly unfair amount which the tote had been compelled to provide towards the levy in the early years had left it without any working capital to expand and modernise and make its operations more efficient.
  These are the reasons, quite clearly and objectively, for the difficulties now facing the tote. The big change in the nature of betting by the enormous increase in the amount of off-course betting and the decline of racecourse attendances clearly worked against the tote. It was unable to compete in the off-course expanding market because it can offer pool betting only on United Kingdom horse races, whereas its bookmaking competitors can offer a much wider range of attractive possibilities to the punter.
  I will give one example of the difficulties facing the tote. When racing in this country is stopped—for example, by bad weather or, at one time, by foot-and-mouth disease—the tote has no alternative, but its overheads continue and its financial losses can be very heavy. However, bookmakers have the facility of providing other business for their customers and do not face the same difficulties. With the shift in emphasis from

  701
  On-course to off-course betting, the tote was competing with the bookmakers under a severe limitation put upon it by Statute.
  There was a drawing down of the tote's resources in the first years of the levy. It is quite frequently said by people: "Look, the tote is not contributing anything to the levy now; the bookmakers are contributing all that goes." But, looking at the history of the matter, we have a very different picture. During the first eight years of the levy, the tote was called upon to make contributions at a rate never less than 1½ per cent. of turnover, and on occasion more than 3 per cent. of turnover. The total sum paid in levy in those years was over £6 million, representing more than 25 per cent. of the total yield of the levy, while the tote's share of the total betting market was only about 3 or 4 per cent. During most of that period the bookmakers were contributing at a rate equivalent to less than ¼ per cent. of turnover. Their contributions never significantly exceeded ½per cent. of turnover. On those figures it is indisputable that the tote was bearing far more than its fair share of the levy. The natural result was that it was denuded of resources and working capital and was unable to make itself more efficient with modern methods and machinery to meet the competition of the bookmakers.
  The two reasons why the totalisator, in changing circumstances, has been facing these difficulties are, first, the difficulty of competing with bookmakers because of the restrictions on its activities, and, secondly, the denuding of its capital resources.
  The object of the Bill is to put the tote in a position, which I think was always the intention of Parliament, to compete fairly with the bookmakers. I do not think that anyone would regard it as a healthy situation if the bookmakers alone were in possession of the betting market. No country in the world, to my knowledge, accepts such a situation. To be fair, the bookmakers had never asked for it, and they do not ask for it now.
  The House knows that under the starting price system, which is complicated and unusual, large amounts of off-course money can be used to manipulate odds on course, thereby prejudicing the position of the punting public. The disappearance
  702
  of the tote would mean the disappearance of a sustenance to racing and to racehorse breeding which has come from the tote and which is in the general interests of all concerned and should be allowed to continue. Therefore, we believe that the Bill is entirely justified.
  I will now deal with particular provisions in the Bill and explain how we intend to carry out the broad principle which I have so far outlined.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Perhaps I might make a brief intervention before the right hon. Gentleman gets to the details of the Bill. Would it not have saved a lot of trouble if, instead of springing the Bill on the public and the House, there had been some preliminary consultation with the bookmaking fraternity?
  Mr. Maudling: That was not possible with this Bill. It is possible to have preliminary consultations concerning many Bills; but, because of commercial and market factors, we had to produce this Bill without prior consultation. We have had a good deal of consultation since the Bill was produced which has been of value, and I will refer to that consultation later.
  Clause 1 widens the range of betting in which the tote can deal. In particular, it allows the tote to deal in fixed odds as well as pool betting and so more nearly compete on equal terms with the bookmakers. A distinction is, however, drawn between the two forms of wager. The tote will be able freely to undertake pool betting on horse racing, whether in this country or overseas, but not on any other event without the express approval of the Home Secretary. I have no intention of allowing the tote to engage in football pools, and any approval that I may give the tote to deal in dog racing will be subject to the exclusive rights in this field of the track occupiers, and so dependent on their authority given on terms acceptable to both parties.
  The tote will be permitted to take bets at fixed odds on any sporting event, but still under approval if it wishes to go further than this, for example, taking bets on elections, which are not generally regarded as sporting events. Thus, the tote will be able freely to offer starting prices on horse racing, as the bookmakers

  703
  do. Where approval is given by the Home Secretary under either limb of these provisions, it will be by Statutory Instrument subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
  Mr. Angus Maude: A number of people would be grateful for some reassurance from the Home Secretary about this particular point, and I hope that he will do something about it. It would appear that, even with the difficulties he has enumerated, it should, by definition, be virtually impossible to make a loss on pool betting. Can the Home Secretary explain how people who have succeeded in this almost impossible task will make a profit out of S.P. betting, which requires enormous skill and years of experience?
  Mr. Maudling: It is not as difficult as all that to explain, because in order to conduct pool betting one has to undertake very large overheads in premises, machinery, and so on. If the total market declines, as it has been doing, one finds oneself left with fixed overheads and a declining market, which is the classic situation for getting into financial trouble, however good one's management may be. The on-course market for which the tote primarily catered has been gradually declining compared with the off-course market catered for by bookmakers, which has been expanding.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: The television caused the decline.
  Mr. Maudling: I hear many criticisms of television, and one is safer not to accept them.
  The remaining provisions of Clause 1 are mainly consequential, but subsection (4) is important because the field of starting prices and fixed odds betting will be new to the tote. It may well wish, until it has experience, to enter into agency arrangements with a firm or firms of bookmakers for the management of its off-course cash business. This provision will enable the tote board so to operate if it thinks it wise or prudent to do so.
  Clause 2 will permit the Home Secretary to enlarge and strengthen the membership of the board, which is at present restricted by Statute to a chairman and three members. I attach great importance
  704
  to the membership of the board. I am sure it will be very valuable to take the opportunity of having more members on the board. The present members have worked very hard and conscientiously in a very difficult situation. But a wider board, bringing in different ranges of experience, will be valuable. It is, clearly, impossible for me to approach people to join the board until we know what the board will do. Therefore, it was not possible, before introducing the Bill, to go ahead with the adding to the board of new people with different experience. That is the purpose of Clause 2, which is an important Clause.
  Clause 3 is the one on which most criticism has been centred, for reasons which I shall explain. Perhaps I could tell the House the reason behind the Clause. It is no good extending the powers of the tote to enable it to compete in the off-course market unless it has sufficient facilities through which to do so. The statutory test of demand for the opening of new offices has by now created a fairly tightly-held situation for the established bookmakers. The tote would find it exceedingly difficult, particularly without the capital, which it does not possess, and exceedingly expensive to buy its way at artificial prices into this very tightly-held market. Some way must be found of enabling the tote to compete with the bookmakers. If the purpose of the Bill is that the tote should offer alternative offices, it must be in a financial position to do so.
  The method adopted in the Clause as it stands is to exempt the total from the need to satisfy the demand requirements but to require it to obtain certificates of consent from the independent members of the Levy Board, to be issued in accordance with provisions approved by the Home Secretary. This was designed to give the tote an entry but on a scale which could be carefully controlled.
  My intention was to permit the tote eventually to open, say, a few hundred offices over a period of years on a scale equivalent to a present-day single large bookmaking chain. This would put it in a proper competitive position without causing any basically undesirable increase in the number of offices as a whole. That is a view shared by many people interested in this matter, particularly by the

  705
  Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation. I can well understand the objections that have been raised to the Clause in its present form. It is true that displacing a part of the jurisdiction of the justices in respect of the tote alone will make it difficult for the justices to administer the demand provisions in a consistent and sensible way while dealing with bookmakers' applications. On the face of it, the Clause may appear to deprive the public of legitimate rights of objection where the tote is concerned. The public would still be able to object to the sites of the offices, which is the issue which normally concerns them.
  I see the force in the objections made to me, and I therefore propose in Committee to make Amendments to the Clause to restore the jurisdiction of the justices, at the same time asking them to exercise this in such a way as to ensure that a proper choice is given to the public in their areas to deal either with the tote office or offices of private bookmakers. I think that this is in keeping with the spirit of the objections made to me. I do not want to give the tote freedom to establish itself in areas where there is at present no betting, but I want to give it the freedom to compete with the bookmakers in areas where there is betting. Other considerations apart, I believe that this should be very much in the interests of the consumer, because it will provide him with a wider choice, which he ought to receive, and the tote will remain, after the Amendments which I have in mind, under the control of the justices.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: I have listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's point about justices, but surely local authorities must be brought into this matter. There is continuous criticism by local authorities of their diminishing power on this issue. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, of the continual complaints from local authorities and residents about the ever-increasing growth of betting shops over which they have no control whatever.
  Mr. Maudling: There has been misunderstanding about this. Even as originally drafted, the Bill would not affect in any way the power of local authorities. There is no departure from
  706
  planning provisions, which are not affected. It was the justices' decision on the matter of demand that was affected.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are at some disadvantage here in that the Clause worries many hon. Members and normally we should have a period of time to look at it. How will the licensing magistrates be able to work in areas where already there are a large number of betting shops when they have to take into account the place of the Totalisator Board?
  Mr. Maudling: They will have to weigh up this difficulty. If the tote is to be kept in being—as generally people say it should be—it must be able to offer facilities. Those are the two conflicting considerations. It is right, as has been represented to me, that it must be for the justices to decide what is right for a particular local situation. In other words, they must consider not only local demand but also, and rightly, the desirability of more choice for the betting public.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the tote board is short of capital and therefore cannot go into the market and buy up the most lucrative shops. But did it not come to an arrangement to take over City Tote? No one knows how much it paid or where it got the money from. Sixty shops were concerned, some of them in the most lucrative areas. Why was not this sale thrown open to tender?
  Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his recollection of the details of that particular transaction. As I was explaining, because the tote has paid far more than its fair share in the past to the Levy Board, it has not at present got the working capital which it would need to expand in the open market. That is the simple fact of life. It is right to change the Bill on those lines to meet a reasonable objection, trying to reconcile the need for local control over the totality of facilities and the desire for some competition.
  Since the Bill was introduced the bookmakers have offered to discuss with the tote arrangements by which the jackpot and perhaps some others of the tote's pools will be promoted in the bookmakers' offices generally under terms to be agreed. I shall watch the progress

  707
  of those discussions with great interest. Provisions on the lines of the Clause as I propose to amend it will still be needed to underpin any arrangements between the bookmakers and the tote. The tote must be in a position to make a deal that will give an effective choice to the punter and will with confidence endure into the future. I do not think that without the provisions of the Bill the tote would be in a position to make a deal which would be properly worked out and of general benefit all round. I want commercial freedom to the tote to provide on fair, competitive terms an alternative for the punter. I do not think that it can do that until it has the powers given it under the Bill, without which it is in a totally impossible negotiating position.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend talks of competition; but the tote engages in pool betting. This will be first time in world history that a tote in this or any other country will have become a bookmaker. Why cannot it compete in the business of pool betting by being given the outlets it requires for pool betting to compete against the bookmakers as bookmakers? Has that possibility received any consideration in the Home Office?
  Mr. Maudling: Yes, certainly. That is one of the things that may develop under the Bill. Once the tote has the powers under the Bill it will be able to come to commercial arrangements of that kind.
  I hope to see the new and extended Totalisator Board develop its operations in such a way as to do what suits it best while the bookmakers do what suits them best and the public have a genuine choice. I do not believe that can be done other than by proper commercial arrangements reached under the powers accorded to the tote by the Bill.
  Clause 4 deals with a rather different matter. It transfers from the Totalisator Board to the Levy Board the duty of issuing certificates of approval to horse racecourses. This duty was originally imposed on the Betting Control Board in 1928. It was designed to ensure that racing was properly conducted at courses where the tote was to operate and at which bookmakers were to be exempt from the restrictions of the Betting Act, 1853. The approval and the certificate
  708
  are for the control of betting only. Transfer of the power to the Levy Board does not extend its scope in any way. It seems more appropriate that the Levy Board, not directly involved in betting, with a broad base, including three members of the Jockey Club, should undertake this task rather than the Totalisator Board, which is an interested party. Both boards have for some time asked for this change, and the Bill provides a suitable opportunity to make it.
  I come to Clause 5, the other Clause that has been the subject of a good deal of attack. It empowers the Levy Board to assist the tote by grants, loans, guarantees or otherwise. The object is simply to enable the tote to equip itself with some of the working capital it does not possess, taken away from it by reason of the subventions to the Levy Board, working capital which it must have if it is to be properly competitive in the future. It is not intended in any sense to make the tote a perpetual pensioner of the levy. We want to see it back in a position where it is making big contributions to the levy.
  One of the great purposes of maintaining a tote is to see in this country as in others an organisation putting up a lot of money for the benefit of racing and the race-going public. Considering the disproportionate financial burdens the tote had to carry in the past and the uneconomic services it still provides for the benefit of racecourses, which can be a proper charge on the levy, I do not see anything extraordinary or inequitable in the provision of the Clause. It would be entirely for the Levy Board to decide how much assistance should be given, consistent with its wider responsibilities.
  At the same time, I appreciate the arguments that the Clause goes too far, especially in the matter of grants. I am prepared to consider this point, which should be thrashed out, because there are arguments on both sides. I am willing to consider in Committee whether the drafting could be improved, so long as we in no way undermine my basic purpose of ensuring to the tote the opportunity to maintain itself in a competitive position with the bookmakers.
  Clause 6 enables any functions of the three Government-appointed members of the Levy Board to be performed by any

  709
  two, obviously to help with possible administrative problems.
  I should like to recapitulate briefly the principles of the Bill. It is not a matter of State enterprise versus private enterprise. The tote is a mutual organisation established in 1928. No Government money goes into it, and no Government money comes out of it. It is sustained by its operations in the betting industry. The money it makes has been available, and I hope will continue to be, for the benefit of racing and the racing public as a whole.
  Secondly, the tote has suffered from statutory inhibitions on its ability to compete. There was a heavy drain on its resources in the early years of the levy. It must be enabled to complete on more equitable terms. There is universal agreement, so far as I know, that it is desirable to keep the totalisator in being and give it a chance to maintain itself in a competitive position. Therefore, it is right for Parliament so to amend the law as to Rive the tote board more facilities and opportunities and allow it to maintain itself in a competitive position, offering a choice to the betting public as a whole and also offering assistance to British horse racing and horserace betting, which the whole House will regard as desirable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Perhaps it would be convenient at this moment to say that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)
  That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
  has not been selected, but, of course, he can achieve his object by voting against the Second Reading.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is nothing like office to concentrate the mind of political parties. Today we see the Government, which said at the General Election that they would cut back on public ownership, which the electorate took to mean everything, and which were also going to hive off many things, giving extended powers to part of what the Treasury defines as the public sector, even though I should like to put those words in inverted commas. Without
  710
  looking at the accounts, one would have known straight away that it was losing money.
  Before we consider the Clauses of the Bill, it is important to examine the curious animal to which we are being asked to give extended powers. The national accounts as set out by the Statistical Office, which is part of the Treasury, show that it is not a public corporation. It is not in that wide range of about 30 organisations stretching from B.E.A. through to the Covent Garden Market Authority. It is certainly not a nationalised industry. For reasons the Home Secretary has explained, I cannot find it among grant-aided bodies, and I cannot find it in the private or company sector.
  I then looked at the Special Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on its order of reference in 1968, when it tried to discover what sort of body the Horserace Totalisator Board is. From paragraph 115 we see that it is not a nationalised industry. After its discussions with the Home Office and so on, the Select Committee recommended that an inquiry into this body
  "… could most appropriately be carried out by the Nationalised Industries Committee".
  Yet the Home Secretary says that it is nothing to do with the public sector.
  Public accountability is vital here. May we be told how we can make the board accountable to the House, bearing in mind that the Select Committee three years ago recommended that it should be so accountable through that Committee?
  What is certain is that it is not public ownership in the sense in which we use the expression in this House, even if at the time of a General Election it becomes rather broader in meaning. But it is part of a huge State bureaucracy, and although we on this side of the House agree with the Home Secretary that there is a place for a totalisator board along the lines of the organisation set up originally by a Private Member's Bill in 1928 and, for that reason, we shall not oppose the Bill's Second Reading, that does not mean that we do not have grave doubts about important parts. of the Bill. We shall try to improve' the Bill in Committee. That will be the tone of our discussion.

  711
  Before considering the Clauses, it is important to look again at the nature of this organisation. On page 49 of the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries one reads under the heading, "Horse Race Totalisator Board":
  "The Board has the power to approve places as horse racecourses and operates totalisators."
  Under the heading, "Appointments to Governing Board", one reads
  "The Home Secretary appoints the Chairman and the three other members of the Board."
  Under the heading, "Finance", one reads:
  "The Board's activities are financed from the proceeds of the totalisator."
  Finally, under the heading, "Nature of Policy Control", on reads:
  "The Home Secretary has no control (other than the appointment of the Chairman and members) over the Board's policies and activities."
  In spite of that, we are asked to give the board extended powers.
  We on this side of the House are in favour of public ownership of a variety of different kinds. But we are very wary of State bureaucracy and of giving organisations powers for which there is no responsibility to the Minister or to this House. Surely there ought to be some responsibility. I hope that we shall be told how this works. The Select Committee's Report says that the Home Secretary has no control over the board's policies and activities. If that is so, what does the Home Office do in this sense inside the Department?
  As for parliamentary accountability, paragraph 113 of the Select Committee's Report says:
  "The Treasury indicated in evidence that Ministers had no strong views on whether or not the Board should be included in their Order of reference, and the Home Office confirmed in a letter that there was no objection to the Board's inclusion."
  What has happened since then? If the Home Secretary has no control over the activities of the Totalisator Board, what can the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries investigate?
  Paragraph 114 of the Select Committee's Report says:
  "Your Committee welcome the co-operative attitude of the Home Office. The Board's Accounts are in fact published and laid before
  712
  the House, but as they are not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, they may be regarded as outside the traditional field of the Committee of Public Accounts. Nevertheless the Board appears to have a statutory monopoly and a substantial income arising from it, as well as a large number of customers among the general public who are entitled to be satisfied—so far as a Parliamentary Committee can satisfy them—that the Board's affairs are managed in accordance with the general interest."
  Where does accountability to this House lie in an organisation for which the Home Secretary has no control, bearing mind that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended that the body, which is not a nationalised industry, nevertheless should be included in its order of reference? Has that been done? Before we give these extended powers, it is very important that we know.
  Here is a monopolistic type of organisation set up by a Private Member's Bill. The Home Secretary has explained the nature of its revenue. Nevertheless, the Select Committee on Nationalised Indusstries in 1968 wanted it included in its order of reference. The situation becomes more confusing as one goes on. Irrespective of the Select Committee's approach and the fact that the board's accounts are not looked at by the Comptroller and Auditor General, how can we comes more confusing as one goes on. Do we have the right to debate its annual report in the House?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend will recall that I asked the Home Secretary about City Tote being taken over. The Home Secretary could give me no information about it. Indeed, when I wrote to the chairman of the board about it, he refused me any information. No one knows that is happening and, even when one goes to the board, one is declined any information.
  Mr. Maudling: The unique character of this organisation, of course, is that no taxpayers' money goes into it.
  Mr. Rees: I accept that. However, what confuses the position even more is that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries wanted it included in its order of reference.
  The board is not the only organisation of this kind. Outside the nationalized

  713
  industries, large numbers of State organisations have proliferated over the years. I sometimes wonder whether Government Departments even know that they have them. What is more, it happens under all Administrations. So we are not too clear about their functions and their responsibility to this House.
  I notice in the Ninth Report of the Horserace Betting Levy Board a reference to subsidiary companies. This monopolistic type organisation, which is not a nationalised industry, which is not a public corporation and which does not give money to the State or get money from it, also has subsidiary companies in Scotland, Wales, London and other parts of the country. It has Tote Investors Limited, and one called Tote Offices (Holdings) Ltd. They are owned by the Totalisator Board. Again in terms of accountablity to the Home Office or to this House, here are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1948, which are privately owned, but all the shares of which come under the board. What control do we have over these private companies? Are we allowed to ask questions about them in the House? When we hear about other methods of associating with private companies, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he was discussing Clause 3, it is most important that we know.
  I tried to discover from this report what licensed offices had been disposed of—I think to Mr. Maxwell Joseph. A number of licensed offices were disposed of by the board to a private body. We are being asked to give the board extended powers. At the same time, because of the Totalisator Board's activities, we shall give these powers to a private body with which the board has an agreement about the disposal of licensed offices. I do not know whether that means disposed of completely, but is it not a little odd that under this Bill the board should be asking for the power to have more shops in different parts of the country having recently disposed of a number?
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the tote coming to some arrangement with private enterprise. This has not been spelt out. I have been looking at this as it applies to the nationalised industries. When in 1966 or thereabouts
  714
  the National Coal Board wanted to diversify its activities there had to be an Act of Parliament. This restricted the rights of that nationalised industry. With this organisation to which we are giving monopolistic powers and over which the Home Secretary has no control there is no such limiting control while the nationalised industries are responsible to this House and to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. There are a number of organisations which have cropped up over the years classified in some loose way as "in the public sector".
  It is important to be clear what we are doing here. If it is to be thought good enough to limit the activities of the nationalised industries, that group of 17 bodies within a wider group of 30 public corporations, then we ought to be sure that there is control in the Home Office here.
  I will deal later with the rôle of the appointed members of the board because it may be that this is the means by which there will be control.
  Mr. Antony Buck: Has the hon. Gentleman thought about the provisions of Section 31 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, which provides for the board to prepare proper accounts and present them to the Secretary of State, who has to lay them before Parliament? There is some degree of control afforded in that way.
  Mr. Rees: I cannot say that I have read that. To some degree my question has been answered but not completely. It is important that we should know where in the course of the next year ought we to look to find the report.
  I turn now to Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman has explained points which interested a number of us about greyhound racing, football and the General Election. He talked about a Statutory Instrument in connection with this form of betting. Would it not be more appropriate to have it in the original Bill? If it is thought appropriate to mention these in the Bill, why put the limiting factors in a Statutory Instrument? There are more technical aspects of horse racing and gambling arising from Clause 1, and this is not something about which I know very much. My hon. Friend the Member for

  715
  Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), making his first appearance at the Front Bench, will deal with these and other matters.
  I come now to Clauses 2 and 6 dealing with members. The Select Committee pointed out that there was no control by the Home Secretary other than through the appointment of chairman and members. When the State decided, to some degree before 1945, to set up a public co-operative form of organisation it looked very carefully at the question of the appointment of members. The State said that in carrying out the duties laid upon him a Minister was required to appoint persons embracing a wide range of experience and expertise. The usual type of provision requires that the persons appointed by the Minister shall have qualifications or experience in commercial and industrial matters, in finance, labour relations, applied science and administration, and in a few cases there are requirements about legal knowledge or knowledge of the affairs of particular industries.
  I have admitted my lack of knowledge on betting and gambling generally, not I hope in any way pompously, but there are many things about which we know little. If the House has thought it right to lay down certain criteria dealing with the qualifications of persons appointed to nationalised industries, should we not be even more explicit in appointing persons to this board dealing with something so esoteric and requiring certain specialised knowledge, which in my case at least, one cannot pick up from reading books?
  When the International Monetary Fund was set up in 1944 Lord Keynes said he hoped that it would be run by a gang of adventurers. That did not come off.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend sure?
  Mr. Rees: I doubt whether that could have been nut in international language. We need on this sort of board the type of person who knows a good deal about horse racing and gambling generally. When members of the gambling industry have talked with me I must admit that I did not know a great deal about pools and yankees and that sort of thing. Members
  716
  of such a board must know about these things before they come to the job.
  The Home Secretary has said that he proposes to make changes in Committee to Clause 3. Recently, quite unconnected with this Bill, a friend of mind, commenting on the fact that a licensing authority had given permission for another two betting shops in a part of my constituency, asked "Haven't we got enough betting shops in the street already?"
  The wording of paragraph 19(b)(ii) of Schedule 1 in the 1963 Act is referred to in Clause 3 and I understood the Home Secretary to say that there is no intention of amending this part of the Act. It says that the application may be refused on the ground
  "that the grant or renewal would be inexpedient having regard to the demand for the time being in the locality for the facilities afforded by licensed betting offices and to the number of such offices for the time being available to meet that demand".
  How will that work in this part of my constituency? How will the licensing authorities decide this? When I asked the Treasury to set up a Stationery Office in Leeds it talked about the demand in that area, and I notice from the OFFICIAL REPORT that it has made the same comment about Newcastle. One assumes that this assessment has been made in Leeds; but how will the tote get in if this provision is still the criterion?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether Leeds has yet said that it is full up—that is to say, that the demand is completely satisfied? In most of the country the local justices have said where demand is now satisfied. Where this has happened, often with the support of the local authority, there can be nothing further. The hon. Gentleman can take it, subject to any correction by the Home Secretary, that in these areas the only opportunity that the tote would have at fixed odds would be to buy in.
  Mr. Rees: This is the point which is causing concern, and I should be grateful if it could be explained.
  It is sensible to remove grant and leave only loan and guarantee, but this does not remove the basic problem for the tote. It cannot get grants from the Levy Board, but it can get money in other ways. This problem faced the previous

  717
  Government as well. It is not so much a question of getting money from the Levy Board—that will have to be tightened up—as of whether the basis of the tote's finances will be settled simply by loan guarantee. We shall want to consider this in Committee.
  The Government have, obviously, and correctly, bent to pressure. Will this change mean the liability of the tote?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The hon. Gentleman will surely appreciate that whatever one does under Clause 5 in no way affects the power of the Totalisator Board to go to the ordinary market to obtain money.
  Mr. Rees: I am grateful. That was my point. I do not think that it will do very well going to the money market, given its present situation, but I wish it luck.
  I counsel care here. Our debates going back to 1963 show that, although this House can often be wrong, it is more often than not wrong in changes to the gambling laws. No party is more wrong than another. We all do pretty badly at it. The tote has been in trouble for some time, and I am not convinced that this will not happen again. Can the tote deal with off-course betting?
  We shall co-operate, but we shall be extremely critical of having a State bureaucratic organisation to do this. It is not on to say, "Public ownership," to us and expect automatic obeseisance. We want public ownership to be efficient, but we want it to be socially responsible and responsible to Parliament. We want to be sure that under this set-up these boards will have clear lines of communication to the Home Office. We think that there should be a tote, but we are not convinced that we are getting it in the right way. This will be our approach in Committee.
  5.26 p.m.
  Sir Stephen McAdden: I am sure that it is the wish of most hon. Members that the Totalisator Board should continue, but it might be as well to remind ourselves that its purpose in life is to conduct pool betting on horse racing. So long as it does that, I wish it the very best of luck. The operation of pool betting should be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratfordon-Avon
  718
  (Mr. Maude) shrewdly pointed out, a fairly rewarding business. It should be almost impossible not to have financial success. Yet the board has succeeded in doing just that and we have had to come to its aid; this Bill is one way of doing so.
  The board was set up to organise a different form of betting on horse racing to the bookmakers' odds. Because of the mystic aura around horse racing, these operations were exempted from the pool betting duty of 33⅓ per cent. Clause I says that the board, which has had these powers and rights for so long, shall now be able to carry on pool betting business in any form on any horse race and
  "on any other event approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph".
  The Secretary of State said that he would not allow it to go into football pool betting. I understand why—because the State is the biggest gainer, since it has a 33⅓ per cent. stake in every pound bet. But, although the present Secretary of State would not approve it, we do not know what some other Secretary of State might do. I have questioned the members of the Tote Board, who assure me that they would be quite happy with subparagraph (i), which would confine their activities to their original purpose, and that they do not need subparagraph (ii). I ask my right hon. Friend to look into this again. If the tote board does not want it and he wants to restrain its activities, I suggest that subparagraph (ii) should be omitted.
  I was rather worried when I heard the Home Secretary say that, in addition to organising pool betting on horse racing, the Totalisator Board might be able to do something about greyhound racing. If so, where will the profits go—back into horse racing or greyhound racing? If the board is to collar the profits from bets on greyhound racing, it will be robbing Lazarus to pay Dives, and such an extension should be looked at extremely carefully.
  I am anxious that the tote should succeed in the sphere in which it is supposed to operate. With the assistance of its competitors, the bookmakers, it can succeed, but only as long as it does not compete in their spheres. With their assistance it might be possible for it to operate various forms of betting—jackpot

  719
  betting and so on—through the existing betting shops, of which we are told we have too many. In any event, they are established. With the co-operation of the bookmakers, pool betting could be expanded, but only if proper arrangements are made.
  Co-operation to secure an expansion of pool betting will not occur if those to whom one looks for assistance are the very people against whom one intends to act. Why should they co-operate if they are likely to be knocked out of business in fixed-odds betting? I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this part of the Bill again. I know that he has taken several looks at the Measure, but it seems that he will have to take several more before it has completed its progress through Parliament because as drafted it is designed to secure the greatest amount of opposition.
  I am glad that the Minister has given way on some points of importance. I trust that he will go further. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to say that this board, which was set up to organise pool betting on horse racing, should be given unlimited powers, including power to enter a sphere of betting to which it was originally designed to provide an alternative.
  It is obvious that the Committee stage of this Measure will be interesting. I regret that for the first time in 22 years I shall not be able to serve in Committee on a Bill of this kind. I also apologise for having to leave the Chamber without waiting to hear the speeches of other hon. Members. I am required to take the Chair in Committee upstairs.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: Although I do not rise to support the bookmaking element, I agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and particularly with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
  Trends change and people want to spend their money in different ways. For example, in 1948, there were 25 million attendances at greyhound meetings. By 1970–71 the figure had dropped to 7 million.
  720
  What particularly amazes me about the Bill is the fact that it seems to have been built totally around the horse-racing industry. This is a mistake. I have no pecuniary interest in either horse racing or greyhound racing—or, for that matter, any other sport—but it is clear that more consideration should have been given to the drafting of the Bill to ensure that it had a more general application.
  The Measure does not give enough protection to the other sports on which the Totalisator Board is to be able to bet. Clause 1 states that the board will be able to bet at starting prices, and it must be recognised that greyhound racing will be used by the board as a betting medium.
  Greyhound racing is, after all, one of the largest spectator sports in the country. From time to time it has received some vicious treatment from the State. One recalls the vicious 10 per cent. tax which was imposed on the industry. Greyhound racing today represents one of the best and cleanest sporting attractions, and in London and provincial towns it is very well conducted. However, we constantly seem to have a cushioning of the horse-racing industry.
  The Home Secretary said that the board would give consideration to greyhound racing. It should be borne in mind that, whereas last year about £220 million of horse-racing money went to the tote, about £250 million from greyhound racing went to that source, and that is quite a total.
  No provision has been made in the Bill for the Totalisator Board to make proper commercial arrangements with greyhound racing or any sport on which it will bet, and I consider this to be inequitable. We should adopt a sense of fairness in this as in all other matters.
  It will be said that the Totalisator Board will be placed in the same position as bookmakers; but this is a weak argument because the Totalisator Board is a State body, and it is for the State—for us in Parliament—to ensure that other sports are not discriminated against. It is our job to do that. We are here not to favour horse racing or any one sport but to treat each sport fairly.
  If the board is to be allowed to bet on greyhound racing without any compensating payment, the profit so made

  721
  could be used exclusively for horse racing. It may not be widely known that greyhound racing does not receive any benefit from the Levy Board or, indeed, any payment from off-course bookmakers.
  Over the years some of us have had to fight for Parliament to recognise these facts. I recall one previous Home Secretary saying that if his family were in mortal danger, he would save his wife first and his horse next. I recall replying that, in that position, I would save my dog. It seems that sympathy always goes to the horse-racing industry.
  Greyhound racing has suffered from the effects of betting shops and since 1961 attendances have fallen by over 40 per cent. I appreciate that trends and pursuits change, but if this form of sport and entertainment is being provided—in my view it is a sporting attraction which is reasonably wholesome—it should not be discriminated against but helped; that is, provided it gives the pleasure people wish to have.
  Greyhound racing has suffered from special taxation by the Treasury in that it has been taxed continuously since 1948, whereas horse racing has been subject to the betting duty only since 1966. I mention these facts simply to illustrate that the Government must be fair to all forms of sport and not just to horse racing. The Bill could have done much to encourage other sporting events, to some of which the Home Secretary referred.
  I hope that the Totalisator Board succeeds, but not at the expense of any one sport, including bowls, athletics and greyhound racing. I therefore appeal to the Home Secretary to examine before the Committee stage the likely effects of these proposals on other sporting attractions on which there is likely to be some betting. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear this in mind because we are anxious that something should be done on these lines. If this arrangement could be made, it would be of great assistance to greyhound racing and it would ensure that the monopoly which has been granted by Parliament to off-course bookmakers would be at least eased to a limited extent while not increasing the overall amount that is spent on betting.
  5.40 p.m.
  Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Gold-smid: I support this Bill, as amended by the Home Secretary, but I confess to certain vested interests. I own very few, not very fast racehorses, and I act as an official, a steward, at certain meetings.
  The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said earlier this afternoon that racing is not of great interest to a large number of hon. Members. This is understood and appreciated, but racing is of interest to a large percentage of the British public. They are interested perhaps not so much in the racing element as in the betting which goes with it. I also realise that in many parts of the country betting is not regarded as very desirable. Nevertheless, it has been accepted since the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. I want to fill in some gaps and to say why I think that for the good of racing a viable tote which can compete on level terms with bookmakers is essential.
  As the Home Secretary said, the tote was formed in 1928 with two aims: to provide alternative betting for the public and money for racing. This it has continued to do and, although it has been in slight financial difficulties and has not paid the levy for the last few years, the tote is in operation today and carries on its work. The Home Secretary gave clear reasons why financial difficulties have been experienced. These were chiefly due to not being able to compete with bookmakers in the profitable form of betting which is off-course cash betting at starting-price odds, but in addition there are about five other reasons. The totalisator has personnel problems. It has a regular staff of 560, and a total staff of about 3,600 who are not permanently employed. As will be appreciated, the number of meetings varies from time to time. There are more at weekends and in holiday periods, than mid week. The totalisator supplies betting facilities in all the enclosures of the 63 racecourses.
  As the Home Secretary pointed out, the tote is very much dependent on weather conditions. Fog, frost, excessive wet or snow may make it necessary to cancel a meeting. Also, as the Home Secretary said, an epidemic of foot-and-mouth

  723
  disease can put it out of business for a time. It is subjected to heavy costs of buildings. Incidentally, the personnel have to pay admission charges and, at present, S.E.T. Over all that there are expenses concerned with communications which are necessary from the course to the office used in connection with calculating pool dividends.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I accept everything that the hon. and gallant Member said about horse racing and the difficulties of the tote, but is not the position exactly the same over greyhound racing, except that instead of foot-and-mouth disease there are canine diseases? Yet with all the difficulties which the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned, horse-racing is a flourishing concern, yet the Government do not come forward to help in that respect.
  Major-General d'Avigdor Goldsmid: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will try to explain the reasons. In comparison with the bookmakers, the tote is under a great handicap. Bookmakers' on-course expenses are minimal compared with those of the totalisator, and off-course they have the facility of betting on meetings abroad when there is no racing in this country. In addition, there is betting on almost everything from a Miss World competition to a General Election and bookmakers can operate profitable ante-post markets on all the principal races in the calendar which are denied to the tote.
  One may ask, why under these conditions is a totalisator required? The reason is that the totalisator was set up to provide an alternative means of betting. People who go racing do not always want to face the hustle and bustle in the ring and prefer to make wagers more peacefully. Some want to make only small bets which certain bookmakers would not accept. The tote also offers doubles, trebles, jackpot and forecast betting which are attractive because for a relatively small stake one may win a lot of money. The tote has provided £15 million for racing since its inception and in the latter years it has provided £6 million for the Betting Levy Board.
  Mr. S. Clinton Davis: I am not nearly so knowledgable as the hon. and gallant Member
  724
  about these things, but I wonder whether the enhanced prospects of the Totalisator Board would bring any direct or indirect rewards to horse race owners.
  Major-General d'Avigdor Goldsmid: Yes, they would. I am coming to that point. The tote pays the 5 per cent. betting tax which is paid by bookmakers and which, I wish to make quite clear, does not go to racing but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In answer to the question what advantage there is here, the amount of money collected since the Board's inception has been …15 million, which has gone to improvements in race courses. We can think of Ascot, Newmarket, Doncaster and present large operations being undertaken at Sandown. The money has also gone to increase prize money, which in this country is well below prize money paid in France and America. It has also helped to pay for race-course technical services which are essential for the smooth conduct of racing—the camera patrol, photo-finish and race-timing apparatus, the commentary, and starting stalls and handlers. In addition, they have contributed to thoroughbred breeding and in the advancement of veterinary science.
  In 1967 the Benson Committee was set up to study the whole racing industry. It produced a Report in 1968 which was very far-reaching and covered all facets of the industry. It said this about the tote:
  "The totalisator should pursue a vigorous policy of expansion and development in order to secure a greater proportion of the betting turnover."
  As will be realised, the volume of on-course betting is minimal in comparison with off-course betting. Competition between the totalisator and bookmakers is healthy. The reverse is true—it would be unhealthy for all betting to be in the hands of bookmakers. Therefore, in my humble view the totalisator should be allowed to expand and to compete on level terms with bookmakers. For the good of racing, I support this Bill.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: This is a miserable Bill. This debate is not only a miserable but a disgraceful occasion. Have we nothing better to do than this? Have we nothing more important to talk about than this? Who wants this thing? What is it supposed to do?

  725
  Above all, why should it be introduced at this moment'? Has the Home Secretary nothing better to do than this? These are the only points to which I want to draw the attention of the House. [Interruption.] What does the Under-Secretary of State say? Let him stand up if he wants to interrupt. He should not natter from a sedentary position. I will not have it. But we are accustomed to bad manners from the Government Front Bench.
  I have never been to a race meeting in my life. I have never even visited a race course. I have never been inside a betting shop. I have nothing against these activities and I am not setting any high, ethical and moral tone about them. I understand that they give a lot of innocent pleasure to many people, including the bookmakers. I mention this inexperience and ignorance of mine in order to emphasise that about this Bill I can take a quite impersonal and dispassionate view. But I can say this: no matter what the experts may say for or against the Bill—and I understand that there is expert opinion on both sides—I cannot understand why it has been introduced at this moment.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I think it fair to say to the hon. Gentleman that none of us would ever regard him as a spoilsport. I merely make two points to him. The Bill is being introduced now because the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary could and should have introduced the Bill when he was given the answers to the situation in 1968. He did nothing about it for nearly two years. That is why it should be introduced now. Secondly, although the hon. Gentleman has never been to a race course, I point out to him that over £1,000 million of the people's money is spent on horse-racing throughout the country. Almost a majority of our people place daily bets. We are dealing, therefore, with a pleasure which is as great to them as football is to others.
  Mr. Delargy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. But I am no more responsible for the actions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) as Home Secretary than I am for the actions of the present Home Secretary. I am not,
  726
  as the hon. Gentleman says, a spoilsport, but I hope to point out why the House might be concerned at the moment with other matters more urgent than this Bill.
  No doubt the Bill will be sent upstairs to a Standing Committee. Next Wednesday afternoon in Room 13, the Committee of Selection will assemble to name those hon. Members who are to serve on that Standing Committee—still another Standing Committee. The Committee of Selection now meets every week to appoint Standing Committees. At the moment, about a dozen Standing Committees are sitting, occupying the time of more than 200 back bench Members. We are running out of manpower and it is high time the Leader of the House addressed himself to this problem.
  How are we to find hon. Members to sit on all these Committees? Some of the Committees sit twice a week and others three times. At least one is now sitting all through the night. We have the spectacle of hon. Members sitting on a Committee in Westminster Hall and rushing over here to vote in another Committee of whose proceedings they have heard nothing. Now we are to set up yet another Committee.
  One could understand it if there were some urgency for the Bill. One could understand it if it had been mentioned in the Conservative Election Manifesto or in the Queen's Speech. The Bill was published only a few days after the Queen's Speech but no mention of it had been made in the Queen's Speech. That is one reason why the Bill should not have been presented. The working of the House, its apparatus, is grinding to a standstill because there are far too many Committees. Yet the Home Secretary asks us to set up another Committee.
  My second criticism concerns the Home Secretary himself. Has he nothing better to do? I was surprised that he himself came here to speak for about 35 minutes on horse racing. Two night ago, he spoke for eight minutes about the massacre in Derry, most of that time trying to score points off my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Thirty-odd minutes on—what is this thing called?—the Horse Race Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill, and eight minutes on the agony and the sorrow and the pity of Ulster. These are the priorities of this lot.

  727
  This is why I said in my quiet way that this is a rather disgraceful occasion. The moment I have finished, for the first time in my life after speaking, I am going to leave the Chamber. But I will come back to listen to the winding-up speeches—I will keep my eye on them.
  Another strange thing came out in the Home Secretary's speech. He spoke about Amendments to Clauses 3 and 5. Clause 3 is one of the most extraordinary things that I have ever read. Listen to it. The explanatory memorandum says:
  "Clause 3 provides that an application by the Totalisator Board for a betting office licence may not be refused by the licensing authority …"
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why have the licensing authority, then?
  Mr. Delargy: This is the world of George Orwell the great" double-think". This is 1984.
  "… an application … may not be refused by the licensing authority … "
  Now the Home Secretary says that he is going to amend Clause 3.
  The right hon. Gentleman also says that he is going to amend Clause 5, which is also strangely worded. The explanatory memorandum says:
  "Clause 5 enables the Levy Board to give financial support to the Totalisator Beard."
  It damned well obliges the Levy Board to do so. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have ever been asked to vote for a Bill having been warned in advance that you are going to support something which is to be changed. I do not think that this has ever happened before. So I am to vote for something for what the Home Secretary does not want me to vote.
  I have said that this is a crazy Bill, that this is a bad occasion. This is a kind of "Alice in Wonderland" Bill. I hope that when we get it upstairs in Committee—and I intend to go on the Committee because I am a member of the Committee of Selection—we shall knock sense into it so that by the time it comes back to the House on Report stage the Home Secretary will not even recognise it.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Antony Buck: I hope the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) will forgive me if I do not
  728
  follow him in what he said—and perhaps that would be a little difficult—save to say that I am sorry that he said what he did about the Home Secretary and about his reference to the fact that we are not debating other matters. Both he and I agree that there are matters burdening us now which occupy a very great part of our thoughts and attention; but whether we should be doing any good by debating them in this House now is another matter. Perhaps it is no bad thing to turn quietly and soberly for a few hours to consider a matter which is not of transcendental importance.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) will be leaving the Chamber, I wonder whether I might answer a point he raised'? This is a matter of great urgency because if it is not dealt with within the next two months there will be no tote board at all.
  Mr. Buck: No doubt in due course my hon. Friend, with his great interest in and knowledge of racing can deploy, as I know he will, those matters further. He is right. This is an important Bill, important for those who enjoy racing and enjoy having a bet on a horse race and other forms of betting. To that extent it is important, though nothing like as important as the matter of which the hon. Member for Thurrock was speaking. I accept that completely.
  I will not weary the House with a long speech on the Bill, because of the speech made by my right hon. Friend from the Front Bench in moving its Second Reading this afternoon. When I first read it I was somewhat alarmed by it. I am bound to say that I could not have supported its Second Reading had it not been for the words we have had from the Home Secretary relating to Clauses 3 and 5.
  I have come to accept completely that it is right that the tote should be saved. I accept that it is right for racing, for the health of the racing industry as a whole and for the good and honest organisation of betting that the tote should continue in existence. Like the hon. Member for Thurrock, I have no deep knowledge of racing or betting, but I accept that it is right that there should be an element of competition here and therefore I believe that the tote should

  729
  be saved. But I should not have been prepared to vote for this Bill had I not received the assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will be proposing in due course to make appropriate amendments to Clause 3 of the Bill.
  Mr. Tom McMillan: The competition to which the hon. Member is referring should come from members competing against the tote board setting up these shops.
  Mr. Buck: I do not follow the hon. Member's point. Competition is to come from the tote board. I cannot see how competition could otherwise have been devised. With the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who opened for the Opposition, I worked hard on the Bill dealing with gaming, which set up the Gaming Board, as did my hon. Friend who will wind up the debate. At one stage, I turned my mind to the question whether there could be an appropriate degree of control of betting on race courses and other forms of betting, by the creation of something similar to that which was created to control and supervise casino gaming, and so on. But I came to the reluctant conclusion that it would be virtually impossible to do so. One can lay down rules according to which roulette, chemin-de-fer or other games of chance should be played, or machines operated; but one cannot lay down rules regulating the odds which are to be quoted by bookmakers. That would be totally impossible. Therefore, if there is to be competition, the only possible way to have it is through the tote. I cannot see any other possible system of competition.
  My friends who are versed in racing matters tell me that the fact that the bookmaking industry is now in fewer hands is in their opinion—and they may or may not be right—causing odds to be not what they ought to be. That has been said by those with much greater knowledge of the racing world than I, and if it be so, then the only way of dealing with it is by having something in the nature of the tote. I therefore accept the basic principle of the Bill.
  I was not entirely sure about that when the Bill first came out, because of more general considerations about propping up an industry which is not paying, and so on. But in going into the subject more deeply, one realises why
  730
  the tote is in difficulty. Aspersions have been cast on the management. I am glad to see that under Clause 2 of the Bill there is to be scope for additional members on the board; but it is obvious why the tote is in a parlous condition. Statutory obligations have prevented the Totalisator Board from being able to build up reserves for modernisation or to tide it over bad times; and this is a major factor.
  Limitation on the type of trade it can cover in the betting world has had the effect of making the tote suffer losses, apart from the fixed overheads to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and these are very cosiderable. It has now got into a parlous state, and I am sorry that the previous Government did not deal with this as soon as the Totalisator Board called attention to the fact that it was running into difficulties. It was clear from the reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, South that he was not seeking to make party political points and that he thought that the tote should be saved.
  But the way in which my right hon. Friend seeks to do this, through the Bill as at present framed, is not acceptable and I am glad that he has said that he will amend Clause 3. Briefly, my objection to the Clause is that it goes against the fundamental principle of equality before the law. That is my objection to it as a lawyer, and that is why, without the assurance that it is to be amended, I could not have supported the Bill. It says there shall be one set of criteria—a strange thing to find in a Tory Bill—for private enterprise, for the bookmaker, and another set of criteria for the quasi-nationalised or semi-nationalised Totalisator Board. That is why Clause 3 as at present framed is unacceptable to me; and if it were vice versa, it would still be unacceptable.
  We should find it objectionable to say to a court, "You shall apply certain criteria to one set of people and a different set of criteria to another set of people". Many of my hon. Friends, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, feel strongly about this. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for having said that he will be amending this Clause in Committee to provide that there is equality before the law on this matter, and that a magistrate in granting a licence, or an authority in

  731
  considering whether a licence shall be granted, shall be able to consider competition. That is fair and perfectly appropriate and we shall not then be going against the fundamental principle to which I have referred. I am grateful to the Home Secretary, for without his assurance the Bill would have been repugnant to me and to many of my hon. Friends.
  Similarly, I was not happy about Clause 5, and I am glad that the Home Secretary has said that he will consider amending it. All that is needed here is for the Levy Board to have power to provide a guarantee and the money could be raised on the market elsewhere. That would be sufficient, and I expect that that will be the Amendment which will be introduced in Committee. With those two Amendments, I welcome the Bill and am able, though not with any joy in my heart, to support it.
  I hope that the Bill will be successful, but we must not underestimate the difficulties of the newly constituted tote board which will be in hot competition with bookmakers in a sphere of betting where large sums of money can easily be lost as well as made. There will undoubtedly be need for a substantial strengthening of the board to bring in people with ordinary bookmaking experience and possibly experience of betting abroad.
  As to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South, I agree that we should look into the control of the board, but the fears that have been expressed have been somewhat exaggerated. The Government have an admirable degree of control because it appoints people to the board, and those who have the power to hire and fire have a substantial element of control. Secondly, the accounts have to be laid before Parliament, and it will be open to any hon. Member to raise points on them on the Floor of the House at an appropriate parliamentary opportunity.
  I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying a few words on the Bill, and that the speech of my right hon. Friend has enabled me not to be in conflict with him or with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is one of my oldest friends in the House of Commons. I welcome the Bill, based on the assurances
  732
  which have been given by the Home Secretary.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise to the House for having an annual engagement which necessitates my leaving the Chamber shortly. I see that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) also has to go, so I will deal first with the points which he made.
  Towards the end of his remarks he referred to a quasi-nationalised concern. This is not a nationalised or quasi-nationalised concern; it is a private monopoly with State aid and support, to which the Minister appoints members with no knowledge of the subject—although they may be good ex-brigadier generals—and over whom the House has no control. Even the Minister in day-to-day administration is not answerable to the House. The accounts may be published, but we are not allowed to debate them unless the Leader of the House gives us time to do so. It is not a quasi-nationalised concern; it is a private enterprise concern with State protection.
  Ordinary working-class people often say that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. This certainly applies to horseracing. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) could not understand why all this assistance should be given to horse racing. Assistance is never given to greyhound racing or to football. The reason why assistance is given to horse racing is that it is the sport of kings. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of punters and in addition to the bookmakers, it is patronised by wealthy racehorse owners. They have been clamouring for more prize money. They have had more prize money and no doubt they will have even more. I have not heard of many race-horse owners who have died in poverty. I have never seen any drawing the dole. They are wealthy men. Even if they were not I should say to them. "If you want to become an owner and lose money, that is your business".
  The argument is that the industry must be kept going otherwise it will go under. Several reasons have been given for the Horserace Totalisator Board failing. The Greyhound Totalisator Board has all the same difficulties and cannot run at a

  733
  profit, but that is not to be given assistance. I do not care whether it does not run at a profit. There is a greyhound track in my constituency, and that is my only interest in the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) made an excellent speech. Like him, I have been only once to a horse race and that was with an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation with colleagues from the Irish Parliament. All the Irish won and I lost—perhaps because I had no knowledge of horse racing. Although I lost, I did not expect to come to Parliament to ask the Home Secretary to introduce a Bill to assist—
  Mr. Ashton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, but I have to leave the Chamber shortly.
  Mr. Ashton: If my hon. Friend is leaving the Chamber shortly he will not be able to hear the replies to the points he is making. Greyhound racing does not have the benefit of television. Horse racing is televised, but dog racing is not.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend can make his own speech. I am dealing with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock who did not mention television competition. I understand that greyhound racing is shown on television on a Saturday afternoon, but I could not care less. If anyone cannot make a profit let him get out, it is as simple as that.
  The Government has invented an internationally famous saying about not helping lame-cluck industries. They will not help U.C.S., the ship workers, the dockers, the engineering industry—no. But they will introduce legislation to help the horse-race owners, the horse-race business and the betting industry.
  It is said that bookmakers do very well; of course they do. They make fortunes. I was one of the first to say that the industry should be taxed. I originally led the campaign against a tax on greyhound racing, which was discriminatory, because no one else was paying it at that time. If Bill Smith, the bookmaker down the road, cannot make a do of it, he must pack up and get out. If he came to me and asked me to introduce a Bill to give him help. I would refuse to do so.
  734
  What we are discussing is the Bill, not what the Home Secretary has said. As the Bill stands, it discriminates in favour of a near-monopoly to allow it to set up betting shops with no right of appeal by local people who do not want a betting shops. I declare an interest here, in that there are more betting shops in my constituency than in any other constituency. There are more betting shops in West Ham than there are pubs and churches. and that is saying something.
  At the moment we can object. If Bill Smith wants to put a betting shop near the homes of some of my constituents, they can object. But, as the Bill stands, the tote can get its betting shops, although there may be an over-abundance in the area.
  Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Gentleman said that he will have to leave, will he accept my assurance that that is not so? The Bill, even as drafted now, in no way interferes with the powers of local justices to decide whether the location and the premises are unsuitable.
  Mr. Lewis: I was coming to the need in an area where there is a proliferation of betting shops. As the Bill is drafted, there could be one next door to the other. There could he Bill Smith with his betting shop and the Horserace Totalisator Board could open next door and no one could say a word about it. That is a shocking situation.
  Many bookmakers have established lucrative betting shops—I think too many—but it would be a "bit off" to give the right to some other organisation to come along and say, "We have now the right to come in. You have made it lucrative. We have failed to make a success of our tote, where we have a monopoly on the tracks"—except for the on-course bookmakers—" and therefore we are opening up where you have ploughed the way and made a success of it."
  I should like fewer betting shops. Personally, I should like to see the whole thing done away with, but I appreciate that that cannot be done. I would do away with all forms of betting and gaming. I know that that would not be good from a moral point of view, so it cannot happen. Therefore, it has to be controlled, and it should be controlled by limiting it. not extending it.

  735
  We are told that the tote must have betting shops to compete. I interjected to the Home Secretary that it already had betting shops. It had the City Tote. That was sold out or given away. I do not know what happened. I do not know what was paid for it. No one knows. There were rumours that a racket was being worked. We could not ask Questions in the House. No one was responsible. I was told that some of the people on the board did very well by having an arrangement with those who took over. I do not know, because we could not ask Questions about it.
  The City Tote offices were in a very good lucrative position. I am sure that William Hill, Ladbrokes, or one of the big bookmakers would have given a fortune to get the City Tote. I suppose that whoever got it did give a fortune. I do not know. I suppose the Government got money for it. Or did they just give it away?
  We see a marvellous example of the Government coming forward always to help this industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock rightly said that we have 101 things of far more importance to discuss. if this were a Measure designed to increase old-age pensions, I should be the first to say, "Let us get on and do it quickly".
  The Home Secretary said that he did not discuss the Bill before slipping it in. My hon. Friend, the Member for Thurrock, is quite right that it was slipped in. It was not in the election addresses of any party and it was not in the Queen's Speech. It was slipped in just after the Queen's Speech.
  The Home Secretary told us that he did not discuss the Bill with anyone. Can he put his hand on his heart and say that he has never discussed it with Lord Wigg, the Horserace Totalisator Board or the bookmakers? I do not know. If he did not, it is rather strange. I think that he should have discussed it with such people. Had he done so, he would probably not have created the unique situation on Second Reading, of agreeing to alter drastically the two major Clauses in the Bill. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that there would be this outcry by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  736
  My original intention was to vote against the Bill. Unfortunately, I do not think that I would get much support. Nevertheless, I hope that I might serve on the Standing Committee. With my 27 years experience of knowing how various things happen, it is doubtful whether I shall be allowed to serve on the Committee. I should like to be on the Committee because I am against preferential treatment being meted out, whether to the bookmakers, to the Levy Board, or to anyone else.
  George Wigg—I beg his pardon, Lord Wigg— will be able, through his Betting Levy Board, to give money allegedly to improve horse racing and to make the stands at Ascot and the amenities generally better. Some of this money will come from bookmakers. Some of my constituents will no doubt be paying money, as they do now, to the bookmakers and they will no doubt go into the tote's betting shops when they are set up. Some of that money will go to improve horse racing which they very rarely attend. They do not get time to go to Ascot. Perhaps they will go to the Derby.
  Many of my constituents regularly go to the greyhound tracks. Not a halfpenny of the money about which we are talking will go to develop the amenities at greyhound tracks. They do not need it. Licensed greyhound tracks have wonderful amenities. The dogs are very well looked after and the customers are well catered for. Everything that seems to be lacking in horse racing is present at greyhound tracks. I return to my original point. If greyhound racing tracks can be successful, why cannot horse racing? I do not see why we should underpin and help this lame-horse industry.
  I cannot subscribe to the feeling that hon. Members should be asked to spend their time, with all the various Committees which are sitting, going through this Bill at this time. It could have been put off and debated on some future occasion.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has expressed the view that he knows nothing about this subject and that we ought not to be debating it. I hope, therefore, that he will consider that it would be unwise of him to waste his time on the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Lewis: No. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, as he often is. Who knows, I might be able to improve the Bill even more than the Home Secretary who has agreed to amend two of its major Clauses.
  If this is to be the principle, I hope that the Home Department and the Government will consider the possibility of helping other sports. If it is accepted that the Horserace Betting Totalisator Board is floundering and that the horse racing industry will go under unless there is the tote, and that the Bill is necessary to plough in money, then let us plough money into football, cricket, squash, tennis, and all the other sports. I am against singling out one particular sport, which happens to be horse racing. I think that we should treat all sports alike, or do nothing for this industry.
  6.29 p.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Not for the first time the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) finds himself in a minority of one. All previous speakers have shown the same desire to see the Bill on the Statute Book, albeit in an amended form, but the hon. Gentleman is opposed to it. I honour him for his opposition, although I find it difficult to go along with the grounds for his objection.
  The hon. Gentleman explained how extraordinarily well greyhound racing courses are kept and all the amenities which are provided. However, he does not take account of the fact that they are provided because the greyhound racecourses own their own totes and get the proceeds.
  The Horserace Totalisator Board has to cope with 63 different courses, at which there is an average number of days' racing of under eight, whereas at greyhound tracks racing takes place for many more days. In any case, the debate is about the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards, and I shall endeavour to return to it.
  One question which has not been asked, and which must be asked, is whether there is a national interest in keeping horse racing alive in this country. I quote the figures for bloodstock exports from yesterday's edition of The Financial Times:
  738
  "British bloodstock sales abroad last year earned a conservative £3.27 million."
  I assume that that is probably an underestimate. But whether or not it is an underestimate, the £.3¼ million is earned out of the produce of this country without any cost in imported components or things like that. So there is, first, a national interest in maintaining the export market.
  How does the tote contribute to that national interest? Some of my friends say, "If the tote cannot earn a living, what would be the tragedy if it disappeared?" That point needs an answer, and I do not think that any previous speaker in the debate has tried to answer it. At present the bookmakers' contribution to the Levy Board is the most important element in racing today. They contributed 32 per cent. of the prize money in 1971. The tote made no contribution. This money is distributed among varying race courses and varying events, at the discretion of the Levy Board.
  It would not be out of place to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, under whose very effective chairmanship the Levy Board obtained the co-operation of the bookmakers. The bookmakers have co-operated because they appreciate that the integrity of the turf is of major importance to them.
  The betting shops are now a high street industry, attracting many consumers who have no special knowledge of racing. Those consumers must have a general confidence that they are not being swindled, in other words, that races are fairly run and that the conditions under which horses race are open and above-board. This is one of the factors to which the Levy Board has helped to contribute, by its contribution to veterinary science and other matters.
  I hesitate to add anything to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'AvigdorGoldsmid), but he failed to mention that the Levy Board had made an important contribution to the welfare of the less glamorous members of the racing community, the stable lads. A substantial proportion of the sums collected by the Levy Board has gone for the welfare of the people working in the industry and not getting highly glamorous salaries for doing so. So we can agree that the

  739
  Levy Board, as supported by the bookmakers, has done a great service to British racing, in that it has helped to maintain the proper standard of integrity.
  I want to deal with this matter in some detail. If the bookmakers are to be important contributors to racing, they are bound to want to have a say about how their contribution is spent. This year there were two outstanding race horses, three-year-olds, called respectively Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef. Brigadier Gerard won about £80,000 in stakes. Mill Reef won in England £121,000, apart from that which he won in France. My particular point is that in Brigadier Gerard's races, £60,000 was added money from the Levy Board. The winner did not receive all of it, but a very substantial proportion—about three-quarters. But there was only one race which Brigadier Gerard won in which he did not start an odds-on favourite.
  As those who go racing know, races which are won by odds-on favourites do not contribute in any way to the earnings of bookmakers because betting dries up and there is virtually no return. It will be very annoying for bookmakers if they continue to pay very large sums to the Levy Board on which they see no return through increased business at their offices, so we ought to think very hard about the situation that would arise if the tote board went out of existence.
  As to the tote board's history, we all know fairly well that its eyes were not open to the possibility of increasing business provided by the legalisation of betting shops. It simply did not take advantage of the scope given under the legislation. It opened some betting shops, but it was quick to sell them. One could draw a parallel with commercial television. The tote was first in but, like some of those first into commercial television, it pulled out long before the business became profitable. Now the business is clearly profitable. It is clearly a high street industry. That is why someone like Sir Charles Clore has taken a big interest in it. He deals in retail stores and he regards a betting shop as a form of retail store. It caters for the same sort of public in the same conditions as any retail store.
  In these conditions, how can the tote keep alive? Clearly the bulk of the
  740
  betting business comes from the high street. I do not see how it can keep alive unless it can get on to the high street. Although many of my hon. Friends feel deeply and sensibly—I agree with them—that Clause 3 unamended would be taking powers from magistrates which properly belong to them, I am confident that a satisfactory Amendment will appear.
  The contribution from the betting industry to the Levy Board should come from the tote as well as from bookmakers. The tote cannot get a living in present conditions without shops. From the last report I see that between 1969–70 and 1970–71 the total turnover fell by 4 per cent. Of this, the on-course turnover fell by 8 per cent., and the off-course turnover remained absolutely static. In other words, there is an off-course business to be done. On-course business is bound to be smaller. Whether that is because of television or the provision of betting facilities in the high streets is open for discussion. We need not consider it now.
  It was once said of T. E. Lawrence that he backed into the limelight. That might be a suitable description of the Bill. It has sidled rather mysteriously into the limelight and has attracted a great deal more attention that it would have attracted if it had been produced in a more normal way. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had second thoughts about it.
  The prosperity of English racing has a meaning, and not the class meaning that the hon. Member for West Ham, North sought to give it. It has a meaning as a form of agricultural activity as well as a tourist attraction. It has a reality that can be achieved only by the bookmakers and the totalisator accepting each other's presence. We can be completely confident that the totalisator will not put the bookmakers out of business. People talked about a tote monopoly about 10 years ago, but the British public were not interested. They wanted to bet with the bookmakers. The bookmakers have prospered and in many ways the Turf has improved as a result. There was a time when we used to hear about dark doings, about Derby favourites being nobbled and things like that. We have greater security now and the fact that

  741
  betting has got on to the high street has prevented the distortions that crooked betting can bring.
  The Bill should go on to the Statute Book, but it will succeed only if the bookmakers recognise that the continuation of the tote does not pose any threat to them. In fact, the combination of the tote and the bookmakers should give racing in England the place it deserves, the place it has had traditionally, the position on the breeding side that the British climate has helped to give it. Over the years, people have come here to replenish their blood lines, because the English climate is particularly favourable for the rearing of young stock. If the prizes in English racing are not comparable with those offered elsewhere, horses will not race here, the best blood lines will leave this country and our industry, which is important, will decline. It could decline quite quickly.
  This is not a class matter, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North suggested. He told us that he had not seen any race horse owner begging his bread. But there was a famous owner, Robert Standish Sievier, who won four classic races one year and was a bankrupt not long afterwards. There are race-horse owners who get into trouble. The Bill will not save them from it, but it will give a useful basis for co-operation between the totalisator and the bookmakers on which English racing can look forward to a reasonably secure future. I therefore support it.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Walden: The Americans say that it is differences of opinion that make horse races. They also make politicians, so it is appropriate that we should be debating this Bill.
  Although I do not like the Bill, I do not make use of the doctrine of unripe time; namely, that it is not a good idea that we should be discussing it today. It is never a good idea that we should be discussing anything on any day. I have heard that criticism made about all legislation. Every hon. Member accepts that the Bill does not concern a major matter of national policy, but it is important in a way.
  The Bill is illogical, and in introducing it the Home Secretary had to make an illogical and contradictory speech. The
  742
  amiability of his character and the plausibility of his manner distribute around him a rosy, enervating glow which sometimes masks the contradictions of what he says. A good deal of what he said, which to my surprise appeared to reassure some of his hon. Friends, does not reassure me very much, at least in one particular. Admittedly, his rather vague verbal proposed changes make the Bill better, but I am not very much in love with it even with those guarantees. I wish that I could be on the Committee that will consider the Bill, but I am not allowed to be by my Whips. I hope that those hon. Members who do serve on the Committee will examine the Amendments to Clause 3 and Clause 5 very carefully. The formula the Home Secretary suggests for amending Clause 3 is completely unsatisfactory.
  But before I say more about that let us consider Clause 1. HANSARD stands as the record, and tomorrow morning it may contradict me. But I think the Home Secretary said three times that what we needed was an alternative form of betting. He implied that that meant that the tote should be allowed to compete directly by quoting starting price odds with bookmakers. That is misleading. It is true that in 1928 the House agreed to an alternative form of betting—pool-betting. It did not agree that we should establish a State or quasi-State board, a private monopoly suported by State funds or any other body of that kind to usurp the normal function of bookmakers in all countries, which is to quote starting price odds. The alternative form of betting was meant to be pool betting. The very word "totalisator" implies that.
  To allow the tote to quote starting price odds is a complete reversal of all the assurances given when it was established, admittedly a long time ago I know contemporary morality well enough to be aware that any pledge made more than five years ago is no longer to be regarded as valid, so I do not place too much weight on those assurances. But the change also makes nonsense of the whole concept of a tote as an alternative kind of betting. Far from taking pride in it, and juggling the words as if there were no difference between "alternative" and "competitive", the Home Secretary should frankly admit that he is

  743
  introducing a Bill that establishes the right of the tote to operate in all respects as a bookmaker—but on more favourable terms than any private bookmaker can expect to obtain. I am not at all happy about that as a principle. It astonishes me that Conservative Members are.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), for whom I have the greatest respect in other regards—when I was our spokesman on Army matters I found his comments and advice very valuable—said something very interesting. He said that all the money was now in off-course cash betting at starting price odds. I would not say that all the money lies there, but I admit that that is where the bulk of the market is. That is bad luck for the tote. I am a great sympathiser with the tote, and I shall suggest an alternative way of financing it.
  But if the National Coal Board decided to set up petrol stations on the ground that it was much easier to make money selling petrol than mining coal, I can imagine what Conservative Members would say: "It is very bad luck on the National Coal Board. It has had to deal with very difficult circumstances, with a decline in its labour force and very difficult seams, and on the whole is it not a very profitable business." Although they might express sympathy with the Coal Board, certainly they would not allow it to drift off into another activity which it could claim to be allied. Even though the Coal Board might say that, after all, it is all fuel, just as, presumably, the Home Secretary says that it is all betting, I think that hon. Members would object to that. We know that they object to British Railways running railway hotels on the ground that the job of British
  There is some illogicality in the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. They wish to delineate strictly in normal circumstances, but apparently they are prepared to close their eyes to the fact that, far from passing a Bill which will suport an alternative system of betting, we are setting up a body which is to be directly competitive with the bookmakers and, ironically enough, on the capital supply
  744
  of their own money. Of course, the Levy Board will proffer the tote loans. Udder the logic of this Bill, it is difficult to see what else the Levy Board could do. It will be the bookmakers' money that the Levy Board will give to the Totalisator Board so that the tote can operate as a competing bookmaker at starting price odds. It is not exaggerating to say that there is at least food for thought Were. I leave the point simply by saying that many hon. Members opposite who are likely to serve on the Standing Committee which considers the Bill ought to look closely not only at Clauses 3 and 5 but at the principles involved in Clause 1. In my view, Clause 1 lies at the heart of the Bill. We are taking off the totalisator a restriction which in my opinion should remain on it. I believe that the tote should remain a form of pool betting and should not be allowed to engage in starting price betting.
  I do not sneer at the tote losses. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will catch Mr. Speaker's eye later. I heard my hon. Friend elsewhere making a brilliant defence of the present situation of the tote, and I agree with him. The tote suffers partly because of contemporary circumstances. When the tote engages in pool betting, its losses, if any, are at least calculable. The tote has a pool. It retains a certain amount from the pool and distributes the rest. Its administrative costs can be computed and its losses, if any, can be calculated. But if the tote engages in starting price betting, it will no longer be possible to compute what it will lose.
  I do not share the asinine belief that if only the tote is operating on a big enough scale at starting price odds it is bound to make money. I am not sure about that. Nor do I like the idea that it should bring in private bookmakers and run an agency with them. I do not like the sound of that at all. It could be argued that no great sum is involved, that the Budget will soon be with us, and it will be an enormous sum and surely we can afford to get the tote out of its difficulties. I have doubts about that. If the tote is allowed to operate starting price betting, not only will it be unfair to bookmakers but there will be no guarantee of the upper level of the losses that it will make.

  745
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) told us what good work the tote board did, and I agree with him. The hon. Gentleman named a number of winning horses last season and the Derby winner of the previous season. One reason why they operate in this country is the contributions of the tote board to certain "starred" races. But what happens if the tote board operates as a starting price bookmaker and makes a great loss? I suspect that we shall have to get round to another set of dodges. That is what this Bill is; it is a series of dodges and expedients to try to bail the tote board out of a deficit.
  Much as I respect the Home Office, I do not have the slightest confidence in the Home Office when it deals with matters concerned with betting and gaming. The only body worse than the Home Office is the Treasury, which is totally incompetent when it deals with matters concerned with betting and gaming. That is demonstrable from the figures. Always it kills the goose which lays the golden egg. The rates go up and up and the base on which it claims them comes down, which is why the rates have to keep going up. If the Home Office gets at it again, I do not think it will come up with anything better than this Bill.
  From the general, I turn to Clause 3. It is iniquitous. It astonishes me that it ever got into the Bill in this form in the first place. I am not surprised that the Home Secretary, with the best grace that he could muster, announced to his hon. Friends hurriedly that they need not read it too closely because they would not be asked to pass it in its present form.
  Looking at the Explanatory Memorandum, the provision that a betting office licence may not be refused by the licensing authority commits in one sentence about as many errors as it is possible to make. First, it makes nonsense of the licensing system. What is the use of asking people to apply for licences if it is known beforehand that they cannot be refused? Then it takes away local control, about which we should all care. Thirdly, it will enormously annoy the licensing justices. Fourthly, it is grossly inequitable. Why should a private bookmaker have to demonstrate
  746
  to the justices that a demand exists when the tote is not required to do so?
  Mr. Ashton: Because they have 10 years' start.
  Mr. Walden: That makes nonsense of the system of licensing by reference to local demand. The job of the justices is to decide whether there are enough betting shops in a given area. It is irrelevant who owns them. For the tote to say that it cannot be judged by that criterion, that it may be thought that there are enough in Stepney, Bermondsey, West Bromwich or Birmingham, but, "Back luck, we are the tote and can have one anywhere", regardless of whether the private bookmakers have a 10-year start, makes nonsense of the licensing system, and the Home Secretary knows it. Apparently that is why the sentence will go.
  I hope that the House does not take comfort from that fact if the formula that the right hon. Gentleman offered today is any guide. I do not know what it means. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that, though the magistrates would retain their right to determine this issue, he would make it incumbent upon them to bear in mind the tote board's need to compete. I strongly suspect that to be twaddle, and I hope that lion. Members who are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee will not allow the Home Secretary to write drivel into the legislation which makes it fairly clear that the right hon. Gentleman wishes licensing justices to review tote applications for betting shops in a different way from the way they review private applications.
  I do not think that any mention of that need be there at all. We can stand by the present system. If the tote is to be allowed to open betting shops, it should make application like everyone else. The Bill does not require guidance to the magistrates on that score at all, and I hope that hon. Members who serve on the Standing Committee will be diligent in questioning the Home Secretary about what this extraordinary formula means; namely, that the justices can do as they like and make their normal choice, but must hear in mind the need of the tote to compete.
  Even that formula is unsatisfactory. I hope that in its final form the Bill makes

  747
  no reference to any restraint on the licensing justices. If it does, I hope that the Opposition will choose to divide against it, in which event they might get support from the benches opposite.
  Mr. Ashton: Will my hon. Friend mention the number of shops involved? There are 14,000 private betting shops, and the tote wishes to establish 200. That is 2 per cent. competition. Surely my hon. Friend is enormously exaggerating the amount of competition.
  Mr. Walden: No. Although my hon. Friend is right in his numbers, let me make two points to modify what he says. First, the tote will want the best sites. The fact that it will establish only 200 tells its own story. I have no financial interest, direct or indirect, in the bookmaking industry or in any allied industry; I am neither for or against bookmaking in any financial sense; but I do care about justice for individuals. I suspect that certain private bookmakers will he unjustly treated as a result of the legislation. It is not the number involved but the fact that we can pass legislation which will allow this to happen at all which worries me. It will be found that some bookmaking businesses will be adversely affected, or would be, if Clause 3 remains in its present form. It will be bound to diminish takings or to remove a site that might have been available for extension or for other companies.
  Clause 5 suggests that the Levy Board should be able to give financial assistance to the tote. Despite the fact that attendances on the course have declined and that there are difficulties about the tote operating in the way it used to and making the kind of contribution it used to, I am not convinced that the present administration of the tote is satisfactory or that all of its losses can be accounted for by current social phenomena. If we accept that the tote is of value and that it should be kept in existence, then rather than this mumbo-jumbo I would sooner vote for a straight subsidy and clear its debts in that way.
  The Home Secretary said that there was no public money of any kind involved; but that depends on what we mean. I said that some of the right hon. Gentleman's statements were somewhat contradictory and misleading, and
  748
  it is misleading to say that no public money is involved. To begin with, all contributions made by anyone to the Levy Board can be claimed against tax. It is done by bookmakers and is done by the tote. There is public money involved. I would much have preferred that we had a Bill which in no way extended the right of the tote to move beyond pool betting but allowed it to operate on things other than horse racing, although I am not overwhelmingly happy about that. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) pointed out, the present Home Secretary is not immortal—we must assume that for want of evidence to the contrary—and someone else may get his job. The fact that he will not allow people to do certain things does not mean that people will not want to do them.
  No party can bind another. If my party replaces the present Government, then knowing its love of public boards or quasi-public boards or anything to which the adjective "public" can be attached, I would not be surprised if there was an extension of the right of the tote board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] Exactly. I hope that all hon. Members opposite take note of those cheers and give some thought to this in Committee.
  I accept the extension of pool betting to other things with the restrictions set out. If the tote has not got the capital, I would much prefer the House voted that capital to get it out of its present dilemma. I am not against the tote having betting shops. I would be prepared to see more than 200. But what I am not prepared to see is a discriminatory System whereby its applications have to be accepted and other people's applications have to be judged on the normal criteria of demand, or any system which pretends not to impose this but does so. I do not like the Bill or the principles behind it. I mean it not in a personal sense but in an intellectual sense when I say that some of the principles are shifty. They are expedients to bail us out of the present crisis. I hope that the Committee makes sure that the Bill does not precipitate us into a worse one.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden)

  749
  has made an excellent speech and I found myself in agreement with practically every sentence. I am filled with alarm and despondency to discover that he is not to be on the Committee whereas the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who did not make one constructive remark, is to be a member, apparently due to some machinations with the Selection Committee. This augurs ill for the progress of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints will share my view that whatever else this Bill is, it is not a Conservative Bill.
  When I first read it I had the uneasy suspicion that it had somehow been left in a pigeon-hole in the Home Office when the Labour Party was invited by the electorate to leave office. It seemed that the spring cleaning of June, 1970, overlooked the Bill, but by November of last year some zealous Mrs. Mopp noticed that the pigeon-hole was bunged up and yanked out the Bill, putting it on top of the pile in the Home Secretary's in-tray. The mighty wheels of Government turned and about ten days later—lo and behold—the Bill got a First Reading. I am glad that she did not nut down a bus ticket or a laundry list or we might have given that a First Reading, too.
  Since then it is clear that the Home Secretary has had a few doubts. The Hon. Member for Thurrock said that this was an "Alice in Wonderland" situation, and I can agree with him on that. As I have listened to this debate, I have thought that it was "curiouser and curiouser". There has been a muted condemnation of the Bill from the Opposition but from this side of the House there has been a fairly wide measure of support. I am absolutely amazed. The Home Secretary has not been awfully clear about this and I am not sure what will be happening in Committee. We are Conservatives and have no business passing Labour legislation.
  This is a Bill to nationalise the tote. Clause 1 allows it to bet on anything. The Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which reported in 1951 and upon which the 1960 Act was based, recommended that totalisator betting should not be extended to any other form of sport. Therefore, in the 1960 Act, when Parliament gave the Totalisator Board the copyright of tote odds, the main
  750
  reason given by the Government spokesman was that the board could not in law operate as a bookmaker—
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. I understand that sitting in the Box at the end of the Chamber are several representatives of the bookmaking fraternity and that hon. Members keep going across there to get advice. Is this in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): There is no point of order in that.
  Mrs. Knight: I believe that I am right in saying that we have friends from the Totalisator Board as well as from the bookmaking industry—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should go further perhaps and say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—I am sure that he will not take this in any personal way: it is just for the benefit of the record and the House—that it is out of order to refer from the Floor of the House to anyone in the Gallery.
  Mrs. Knight: It is a comfort when we have accurate information.
  I looked this matter up and found that the Royal Commission on which the 1960 Act was founded recommended that tote betting should not be extended to other sports. This is what the Bill will apparently do. I am not sure from what my right hon. Friend said how far or how fast this will be done.
  The Bill will also allow the tote to act as a bookmaker as well as to run pools. I believe that the tote was invested by the Chinese. It is certainly full of Eastern promise. It has been going for about 40 years. All this time, it has been operating pool betting, which yields an automatic gross profit on each race, with the tote deducting its fixed percentage from the pool of money staked before distributing what remains to winning betters.
  I am not a better. I share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham. All Saints in that I have no vested interest of any kind. I hope merely to be fair and to state what the position has been and may now be if the Bill is not greatly amended. With an automatic gross profit on every race, a monopoly of pool betting on horse racing, and a parliamentary-acquired copyright of tote odds, the tote

  751
  has achieved the seemingly impossible task of making a loss.
  The Bill intends to take the tote into bookmaking, where there is no automatic gross profit on every race, and where, under a fierce system of competition, the number of bookmakers has been declining in recent years. The tote will draw money from the Levy Board instead of paying to it.
  When the Bill was published, I read the newspapers the following day with great interest. The Observer had a point when it said:
  "This lame duck is going to demand an excessive amount of subsidies even to keep it in business."
  The Telegraph said—this is why I feel strongly about the Bill—
  "It comes to a sorry pass when the Home Secretary, doubling up on a rôle hitherto reserved for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, rushes to the rescue of 'another lame duck. The Tote exists to provide the public with pool betting on horse-racing as an alternative service to the bookmakers' and at the same time to make a surplus for the benefit of the sport. It has not succeeded in doing either. Having run into the red, the Totalisator Board has already had to be excused payment of the betting levy for the past financial year, and looks like being unable to meet its obligation for the current year. …It is one thing for the Government to subsidise the building of ships or aero-engines. There can be no justification whatever for propping up this particular sort of lame duck."
  That sums up my feelings. We all know what happens to lame ducks and what happens to lame horses—they shoot them. I am sad about that, but I am glad that this lame horse has been shot at by the Home Secretary. He has shot Clause3—
  Dame Irene Ward: I do not think he has.
  Mrs. Knight: Well, he has made an effort. He has raised his sights on Clause 3 and he has winged Clause 1. How successful his markmanship has been, we do not yet know.
  The tote has never shown any great ability to make money, although it has had no competition. It will not start making money when it starts going into competition with what the Observer called "some of the hardest nuts" in the country on really belligerent territory.
  I am glad that the Home Secretary mentioned that the bookmakers themselves
  752
  have no objection to competition from the tote. They think that the tote was a good thing and they do not wish to stop it. They have even advanced a method of keeping it in business. Why do people keep saying that there must be competition for the bookmakers? Do they not compete amongst themselves? I should have thought they did.
  Mr. John Page: I know very little about it, but what even the punter who is an ingénue must realise is that there is a larger and larger grouping of bookmaking firms. There are one or two monolithic bookmaking consortia and a few tiny local shops. At that stage, it becomes rather dangerous.
  Mrs. Knight: This is a case of the blind leading the blind. If that is a genuine reason for setting up some form of nationalised competition, we should presumably set up nationalised supermarkets or anything else. I cannot accept that there is no competition between bookmakers. I do not wish to see an end of the tote but I want to see an end of the Bill in its present form.
  Some of my hon. Friends have said that it is not nationalisation because no Government money is involved. Could I underline the point of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints about levy payments? After all, if a Bill deals with levy yields, it means that a proportion of levy which should have gone to the Exchequer is not going there. So Government money is involved.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: This is not the case. The levy which is drawn by the Levy Board is based on the bookmakers' turnover and has nothing whatever to do with his profit.
  Mrs. Knight: But it is allowable for tax purposes against profit. So it seems that Government money is involved. The criticisms of the Telegraph leader writer and of hon. Members today that this is a bad Bill for a Conservative Government to bring in fill me with alarm and despondency. I hope that, whatever happens in Committee, the Bill will become much less of a nationalisation Bill than it is at present.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: I thought that I would be able to start by congratulating the Home Secretary on

  753
  his statesmanship in bringing forward a Bill of this kind in the teeth of strong opposition from the major part of the industry, not to mention many hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, I must hedge my congratulations with reservations about Clause 3, to Amendments to which I look forward with interest.
  The Bill is certainly not trivial, and on that score I disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) and West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). When we are speaking of an industry with an annual turnover of over £900 million, how can this he a trivial or irrelevant Measure? Why are the bookmakers putting up such a hell of a fight against it?
  Why is the Bill needed? Up to 1961 the bookies paid not a penny to keep horse racing going. They made big profits but paid nothing towards the upkeep of the tracks or towards the prize money that was necessary if people were to train racing horses, without which there would be no races and nothing on which to bet.
  From 1961 we had the establishment of the Levy Board, to which the tote and bookies paid a share. The tote paid 3½ per cent. of its turnover while the bookies paid only one-quarter of 1 per cent, of theirs. During that time the tote handed over £6 million for the benefit of racing. On the same criterion, the bookies' payment was £1 million. In other words, the tote paid six times more than the bookies to keep the industry going.
  In 1968 the takings of the tote fell because far more horse racing was televised and fewer people went to the tracks. They stayed at home to watch racing on television and nipped down to the corner betting shop to put on their bets. Thus, on a smaller market the tote had to keep up its payments. A few people went to Wincanton and elsewhere, but its takings went down and down. In later years the tote paid out 1½ per cent. against the bookies ½ per cent. It is clear that throughout the period the tote paid vastly more to keep racing going.
  Today the tote is in difficulty because of television and various other factors. In the last year it lost £100,000, perhaps more. What can we do about it? We can either close it down—call it a "lame duck", wind it up and write it off—or give it the freedom that any industry
  754
  needs to survive; and if the customers will not come to the tote on the track, then the tote must go to the customers in the High Street.
  To compare the tote with the bookies is like comparing two shoe shops, one of which can sell only brown shoes while the other can sell shoes of any colour plus carpet slippers, running shoes and every other form of footwear.
  We then hear hon. Members say that the tote is inefficient or that, being a public enterprise, it does not have sufficient initiative. The trouble is that it is handicapped in the way that a race horse would be handicapped carrying a jockey weighing 20 stone. I congratulate the Home Secretary on allowing the tote to compete on equal terms with the bookies.
  When the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) wondered whether there was competition among bookmakers she received some advice from her hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and her hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball); but what are the real facts? An indpendent inquiry was conducted by Sporting Life and was published in its edition of 13th January. Hon. Members have been sent copies of that journal explaining what, in its view, a dreadful Bill this is. A writer to that newspaper pointed out in a letter that the bookies were averaging odds of 4·8 to one while the tote was averaging odds of 6·4 to one. In other words, one got 50 per cent. better odds on the tote.
  Why do we need public enterprise in betting? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston asked this question and wondered why any "lame ducks" should be allowed to survive. The betting industry has a turnover of over £900 million a year, the tote's share of which is £27 million. So what are the bookies worried about? There are 14,000 private betting shops. The tote wants to set up between 200 and 250, or 2 per cent. of the total. This is the so-called proliferation of betting shops about which we hear so much.
  I will tell hon. Members why the bookies are afraid. There are three big bookies dominating the industry today. One is William Hill. Its profits jumped in four years from £203,000 to £1,420,000, an increase of 700 per cent. Another is

  755
  Ladbrokes, whose profits went up in four years from £425,000 to £2,508,000, an increase of 600 per cent.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would my hon. Friend agree that the major part of that profit came from cash betting in betting shops?
  Mr. Ashton: Certainly. That is where the lucrative market is, and that is what the bookies want to protect.
  The third big bookie is Mark Lane and Joe Coral. Its profits jumped tremendously in four years, though not as much as the other two. Its profits are extremely high compared with profit rises in any other industry.
  Consider the public relations set-up to fight this Bill. Hon. Members have had invitations to attend lunches costing £7 a head at the Mirabelle. Those invitations have come from the bookmaking fraternity. There was a nice do at the Hyde Park Hotel which was designed to brainwash us into throwing out this Measure.
  One hon. Member who is not at present in his place and who said that he had no interest in the betting industry—that he was neither for or against it—sponsored a big booze-up in this House yesterday and obviously wanted hon. Members to attend so that they could be brainwashed by the bookmaking fraternity into opposing the Bill while in an alcoholic haze.
  Everybody has been saying that it is only a little Measure and that we have far more important things to do. Ulster looms large before us, we are told, and all the persuasion of big business has been brought to bear in an effort to get the Bill thrown out.
  The tote cannot counteract this public relations exercise because it is a public body. It cannot spend money on posh lunches at West End restaurants—
  Mrs. Knight: I should hope not.
  Mr. Ashton: —and that is why the tote cannot put its case for itself. I have no real interest in racing, and I probably do not have more than one or two bets a year. But I will not be bought. I went to the bookies' lunch. I gave them the biggest pasting imaginable, and they
  756
  did not like it. I shot every one of their arguments down in flames. The tote cannot advertise or conduct a public relations campaign. Nor can it spend money on alcohol or posh lunches because it is a Government department. However, I am ready to speak up for it.
  The Home Secretary was absolutely correct when he said that any Government must retain an interest in betting. I do not say that we have the Mafia in this country. We have nothing like it. Nevertheless, we must take precautions to ensure that nothing even remotely like it is allowed to be suspected of having a possibility of being set up.
  We saw what happened under the 1961 Act. George Raft left Britain and we would not allow him to come back in. We had a proliferation of night clubs and shady roulette wheels. Roulette casinos sprang up in every sizeable town and almost in every village.
  This is a peculiar industry, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the Home Secretary because it is clear that he and his colleagues have a great deal of information which they cannot tell the public. That is natural, because Ministers have to respect confidences and so on. I have confidence, even in the Conservative Home Secretary, that he will not let the industry develop as it has developed in some other countries. New York has a very strong tote. So have California, Australia, New Zealand, France and Canada. In any country where racing is developed to any extent there is a strong tote to keep out what the Home Secretary called "esoteric elements" which are directed to the gaming industry.
  This is why Clause 3 is absolutely essential. I hope that the Amendments which the Home Secretary may introduce into Clause 3 will not be too strong. The Clause says that the tote can apply to establish a betting shop in a High Street. That would be an expansion of its operations of only 2 per cent. It would not go into little mining villages where miners put on five bob and the bookie finds it hard to make ends meet. If in the opinion of the local magistrates it cannot satisfy demand, that would not be a reason for refusal of an application with a view to establishing a betting shop. If it had to satisfy demand we might as well throw in the towel because one can never prove demand.

  757
  There are safeguards over applications by the tote, safeguards with reference to planning, nuisance or noise, and a very important safeguard is the Betting Levy Board. The tote cannot apply to establish a shop anywhere in competition with a private bookie unless that board agrees. On the board there are at present three members appointed by the Home Secretary, three from the Jockey Club, one from the bookies and one from the tote So the bookies have representation and a voice in saying whether the tote may expand or not. There is a strong restraint on the tote to conform in its applications.
  It has been said that the management of the tote is inefficient. There is nothing wrong with the tote management; it is the tote market which has gone down and almost vanished over the last two or three years. It would be interesting to know how many applications have been received by the tote from employees of bookmakers who want to work for it because they are "fed up to the teeth" with working for their present employers, because by no stretch of the imagination could they be said to be good employers.
  If the bookies spent more on their staffs than on lunches at the Mirabelle, it would be much better. From Church House, Dean's Yard, there came a very severe criticism of the way in which bookies treat their employees, the 50,000 in the industry who have no statutory hours, and no lunch break on a Saturday. When any of them have tried to form a trade union they have been victimised. I do not say that the whole industry is like this, but it is a highly disorganised industry which needs the competition and discipline of another employer. Often when a large bookmaker firm has caught one of its staff "on the fiddle", it has sacked the whole staff and there is no appeal. It is not a pleasant industry but a smelly industry. That is why there is a great need for public participation, control by the Home Secretary and an alternative form of betting.
  I do not like the tactics employed by bookmakers who try to manipulate this House. I hope that they will not be able to manipulate the Committee, because we as democrats are here to do the best we can for the public. I congratulate the Home Secretary and his staff on having the courage to bring this Bill forward. I hope that they will not capitulate,
  758
  run down and ruin the tote during Committee stage of the Bill.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It has been a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I think he rather spoiled his speech at the end by going a little too far in his attack on bookmakers, but he has saved me a great deal of argument in defence of the Totalisator Board. It is quite wrong for any newspaper to suggest that the board is a lame duck.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) expressed a most important point of view which has been completely overlooked. That is that we are dealing with two entirely different occupations, the occupation of a bookmaker and the occupation of a pool betting operator. This was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden). This has been totally overlooked by the Press. To be a bookmaker requires great art and a great deal of training. To be successful he must be a good operator. One cannot easily pick up the threads and immediately become an operator. Many bookmakers who fail are rapidly taken over and gobbled up by the big operators. Equally, if one is to run pool betting operations it is a good thing to have someone on the board who knows about pool betting, and at the moment this board has not that advantage.
  I say this by way of prologue because I see a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench. We need not have had this Bill if the Treasury had undertaken this task. It is a truism that Customs and Excise knows very much more about betting and gaming than does the Home Office for it is not the forté of the Home Office. This was explained quite plainly to the Treasury some time ago and I think the Treasury recognised the argument that if it had decided to introduce a differential tax for off-course and on-course betting, we should not have needed this Bill. The tote could have taken money in its offices off the course and would have had to pay only the on-course tax. Then everyone interested in racing would have every incentive to go to a meeting. It is vital that we should bring people on to the course. It is essential, not only for the horseracing industry, but for greyhound racing as

  759
  well, that the Treasury should undertake to restore a reasonable and proper differential of not more than 2 per cent. for on-course and 6 per cent. for off-course betting.
  Off-course betting is very largely in doubles, trebles, accumulators, yankees and things of that kind in which small punters are betting with mixed bets. The punter is charge right down the line on the course where the matter progresses normally, and one does not have doubles and trebles, and the percentage of the tax is relatively less than that for off-course betting. Therefore, there is a case for a differential to be applied.
  The only financial figures we need to know are that the off-course sum is over £900 million while the on-course sum is only £58 million. The tote turnover is about £25 million. This is a situation in which the tote plays an almost minimal part in the over-all betting picture. The on-course money taken by betting is only £58 million. This Bill will therefore do no harm and could be of the greatest benefit to both horse-racing and greyhound racing, both of which are in extreme difficulties.
  Hon. Members opposite must recognise that they are seriously at fault. In 1966, the board asked the Labour Government to act. It pointed out that it was steadily going bankrupt. It was not given the necessary assistance. In 1967, the then Home Secretary set up an inquiry, which reported in 1968. He still did nothing, although he knew that the tote was going into the red at the rate of £250,000 a year. It is now going into the red at double that amount. Last year, a number of us on this side of the House, seeing the picture, pressed first the Treasury and then the Home Office, urging that action should be taken, and quickly.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) claimed to know nothing about the Bill, which was evident; he told us that he was going to leave the Chamber, which he did; he said that he would ask to serve on the Standing Committee, which he did, although he knows nothing about the subject, which he does not. Unless action is taken, the Totalisator Board will go bust by next spring, perhaps sooner.
  760
  We have faced up to this situation. I remind hon. Members opposite that it would even cost £1 million to wind up the board in redundancy payments, pension payments and so on to the permanent staff of 600, who are entitled to consideration. The decision had to be made. The small punters, who are also entitled to be considered, are entirely in favour, on the whole, of trying to retain the tote if possible, and retaining it on a fair basis.
  It is wrong to suggest that the present members of the board or their staff art in any way responsible for the lack of action. It was the Labour Government who failed to take the action necessary which the present Government are taking. Furthermore, it is true to say that the board members have never been given the opportunity to have other colleagues on the board able to give them advice about how the board might reasonably expand its activities, particularly through the introduction of new schemes of pool betting into its operations. The board has had no borrowing powers. It has had no opportunity to have its own resources. It has paid out £33 million since its inception—£6 million more recently. It has had little opportunity to operate in the way it would like.
  I have six proposals to put, each of them explicit and brief, about what I would like to see done in order to put the whole of racing back on the map. All save one of these proposals are the responsibility of the Home Office. The other is the Treasury's.
  I want to see the board strengthened. It is unnecessary to set this out on the Bill but I would like an assurance that the board will be joined by certain people with considerable experience of pool betting. This is a very different activity from that of a bookmaker, and persons with the necessary experience could show the board how to utilise its outlets and to go in for new methods of pari-mutual betting, tierce, and so on, which could be made effective in this country. I want to see on the board someone with knowledge of greyhound racing because horse racing and greyhound racing could give each other mutual assistance. I do not think that we need to recruit Mr. Morley in order to represent the other sporting event, the Miss World competition, but I think the Bill should be amended to include the word "sporting". This

  761
  would, of course, cover boxing and Miss World, apart from greyhound racing. But I agree that political betting is undesirable.
  I propose also that the board should have power freely to create such outlets as it requires for pool betting. This has scarcely been alluded to so far. If the board had only collecting points in various parts of the country, this would enable it to operate not merely its own jackpot but tierce with the greatest of ease. I do not think that this would be bad from a religious point of view or that it would increase that kind of betting.
  We should make provision in the Bill whereby the board would be able to collect the money as is done in France, for example, for the tierce. In France, one can collect it in sub-post offices but in the main it is handled through tobacconists. All one does is hand in one's slip and someone makes out a football coupon. It is collected from the tobacconist by the tote representative and then fed into the machine so that one can operate the tierce. But a lot of outlets are needed. It is not a question of having offices. These are not required. The board could also reach agency agreements with bookmakers.
  I believe also, although with great reluctance, that the board should be given the right to carry out fixed-odds betting—that is to say, to become a bookmaker. But it must be subject to the same tests as we applied to the bookmakers. The amendment of Clause 3 must be rigorous. To do this, the board must obtain the consent of the Betting Levy Board. For the extent to which it does bookmaking, and this will be crucial.
  I believe that the way to deal with the loan question is for the Levy Board to give a guarantee. This will enable the tote to raise its requirement on the money market. Without such a guarantee, it would not be able to do so. That is not my suggestion but that of the Racecourse Association, speaking from its experience, so it is probably right. There must be loan, of course, and not grant.
  The tote itself must cut down unecomic services in the country. It will he assisted in this if we amend Section 14
  762
  (4) of the 1963 Act. This is the provision whereby, if the tote allows the management of a course to operate the tote itself, all the profit must go to the board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) has a great knowledge of point-to-point races and small steeplechase courses and he may be able to elaborate on this aspect. I want to see the board out of point-to-point racing and small steeplechase courses and also to allow those at hunts who want to do so to run this business themselves. Perhaps the board can supply hired plant and equipment on proper terms, possibly at a profit. This might enable ordinary race couses to obtain local licences and to make the business pay to their own advantage. At the moment, the tote is often obliged to try to supply facilities at small courses which are totally uneconomic.
  I turn to the question of greyhound racing. This is still covered by the 1934 Act. It is probably not realised that, under this Bill, the Totalisator Board will have the absolute right to engage in any such sporting event. This means that it could enter shops and bet at starting post odds without paying a penny to its colleagues who operate the totalisators on the greyhound courses. This is, of course, quite inequitable. Greyhound racing is the second largest spectator sport. It has a £58 million turnover in betting, which could be substantially increased. Incidentally, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was quite wrong earlier in saying nothing was done. In 1971 there was an Act which assisted greyhound racing by providing for quite a large number of days of betting. In 1969 there was another Act which allowed a grant of 12½ per cent. in respect of the turnover on the tote. Here is where there can be really valuable co-operation between these two totalisators, the Horseracing Totalisator Board and the National Greyhound Racing Society, which will soon become a new club, where they can get together to their mutual benefit and to the benefit of the public. That is how it can be done.
  There should be an Amendment to this Bill providing that an arrangement can be made—it can be done either in one Amendment or under arrangements—whereby the Horseracing Totalisator

  763
  Board will carry on its betting off-course. It will place the bets, the bets will be conveyed on-course to the Greyhound Tote and 6¼ per cent. will be paid to the Horseracing Tote Board and 6¼ per cent. to the on-course totalisator. This will mean tapping, to the advantage of both and to the benefit of racing and with increased turnover in betting tax to the Government, money which at present is going off course merely into the bookmakers' hands.
  It seems to me, therefore, that if one wants to assist—and one does, because there is at the present time a steady downturn in the greyhound-racing industry; it is going down quite steadily, and if it goes on even the biggest of them will fail—the money which is bet upon the dogs off-course should find its way on to the course. To do that the Horseracing Tote Board, in the interests of all, should enter into an arrangement whereby it takes the benefit of part of the 12½ per cent., with the other half on-course. This is one way in which these other powers can operate, and there are many other ways.
  One thing which one has to bear in mind as being absolutely right is that the Bill enables the Horseracing Tote Board to engage in betting overseas if the snow comes. This is vital. It would not apply only to Ireland. We could have Australian and French meetings coming in, those in the South of France, and Cognes-sur-mer, which carries on in February. This is important, and it is important that the Tote should be able to undertake this. It is important because, apart from football, which is completely out, the tote should be able to utilise these facilities throughout the year, and it is important that it should be able to bet on Sunday racing, which may be possible when we change the Sunday observance laws.
  It seems to me, therefore, that although with reluctance the tote enters the field of bookmaking, I greatly hope it will be severely limited. I believe in the main that it will involve its buying into a chain of bookmakers. If it does so, I beg it to bear in mind that it will need to buy management and expertise, for to enter into the task of being a bookmaker is something I would not like to do. Whatever experience I may have
  764
  had of gaming—I have a fairly wide grasp of it—I believe that to become a bookmaker is something totally different from being a pool betting operator. Let us give the tote powers which I hope will be severely limited; and let us make sure that it gets the best possible management at the earliest possible moment, drawing in those who are already expert on their present form.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Taylor: I have no special reason to love bookmakers because on almost every occasion when I have been foolish enough to plunge on a "dead cert" I have had cause to regret the investment. I am very concerned over the question of fair play and open and fair competition between tote and bookmakers.
  I am especially concerned at the wording of the Bill and the thinking which lies behind the drafting, because it is obvious from the way it is drafted that there is going to be strong preference for the tote over bookmakers. That, obviously, was the thinking behind the sponsors of the Bill. Despite the partial withdrawal by the Home Secretary, I wonder whether that thinking is still there and will remain. Even if the Bill has fairer wording as between the tote and bookmakers, I am afraid that the thinking on preference will still be there and the interpretation of the Bill will operate against the bookmakers.
  Two objectionable Clauses have been mentioned by many hon. Gentlemen—Clauses 3 and 5. The Home Secretary, in his partial withdrawal, said that he will probably take out the reference to the need for the tote to apply for proper authority to open a shop. But what is to happen in an area which is at present fully saturated with bookmakers' shops in view of the Home Secretary's intention to have a fair spread of totalisator shops as against the bookmakers? There will be no room for tote shops unless some influence is brought to bear to obtain licences and permits for them when an area is already saturated, unless the tote is to go out and buy on the open market, which will be very expensive.
  The question of subsidising losses by the Levy Board, referred to in Clause 5, has been mentioned. It seems that the word "grant" will disappear, but that

  765
  in no way puts the matter right. It is possible to have loans at low interest rates and all kinds of other benefits which the bookmakers, as the alternative, will not get. The normal way of getting money in the market is to produce past trading results; and if the tote is able to get loans with a Government guarantee, that is not very different from the Levy Board giving the tote money, because if the tote shows losses the guarantees will have to be honoured. That needs to be tightened up considerably.
  I am very concerned at the prospect of a loss by the tote in its new form. I understand—and I stand to be corrected if my information is wrong—that the tote appears to have run a number of betting shops in the past. I am not sure whether it did so directly or through a subsidiary, but it seems that the tote has disposed of those. I wish to know, first of all, did it own shops directly or through a subsidiary, and, secondly, what were the trading results which those shops showed? Did they show reduced or increased profits? Were they satisfactory or not? Next, why were they disposed of, and on what terms were they sold, transferred, or presented to someone?
  I feel this is most important because if the tote, havin had experience of running betting shops in the past, showed unsatisfactory results, what reason is there to suppose that in future it will show better results? We must remember that this has nothing to do with giving extra rights to the tote as such. It is purely a matter of running betting shops, which are, and in future will be, no different in regard to the rules under which they run from the past. If the tote was not able to run betting shops satisfactorily in the past, what reason is there to suppose that if it now opens shops it will do better in the future?
  If the tote had permission to reopen betting shops, very substantial capital investment, running into millions of pounds, would be necessary. I have heard that the tote idea was to start with about 500, not 200, but that will mean running into millions of pounds with a completely uncertain financial result. There is no certainty at all that it will make profits, as several hon. Members have emphasised. I am asking the Home Secretary to think seriously before plunging into competition
  766
  with experts. They are up against hard pressures and know their business. I want to be sure that the tote will be in fair competition with the bookmakers and also, if the tote runs shops, that those shops will show satisfactory trading results.
  There is no reason why the tote should not achieve those objectives in other ways. One, perhaps unacceptable, way would be to let the tote be taken over and run under strict guide lines by a consortium of bookmakers or bookmakers' associations. It would bring in a certain income and there would be no risk of loss. Another way would be to allow bookmakers to run tote business on a commission basis in their own shops. In both those ways there would be no necessity to find capital investment and there would be certain profit which could be geared to what the Levy Board requires.
  Nothing I have said should be taken to indicate that I am against the maintenance and expansion of the tote. I believe it is necessary. I am all for its being made into a viable organisation, and I understand that the bookmaking fraternity is of like mind. We want it to continue, we want it to be healthy and to make profits. We do not want the risks, and we do not want the Home Secretary to say that there is fair competition between the tote and the bookmakers if the tote is receiving favoured treatment. We want this to be clear not only in the wording of the Bill but in the minds of the sponsors.
  I am not happy about the Bill until it is made clear that competition will be completely fair. If it is, my objections will disappear. I am sure the bookmaking fraternity has no objection to free competition, but it does not want competition slanted against it.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: After the excellent speeches of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General James d'Avigdor Goldsmid) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), there is little more to say Hon. Members who argue against the Bill forget that the tote is a lame duck because Parliament has clipped its wings so that it is not able to fly in modern

  767
  conditions. In retrospect, it is amazing that the tote has managed to continue for as long as it has, and has succeeded in making such a valuable contribution to racing.
  I share the apprehension of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about embarking on further betting legislation, particularly now that the House has been deprived of the experience and knowledge of Mr. Richard Stanley who sat as the hon. Member for North Fylde. I hate to think of debates on betting and gaming without his skill, knowledge and guidance. I also shudder to think of the errors made in the 1961 and 1963 Acts which resulted in such disaster. Those Acts had side-effects which were never intended by Parliament. I hope the Home Office knows what it is doing.
  I sincerely trust, if the activities of the totalisator are to be extended, that we shall have assurances that there will be capable staff and direction. I share with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw the gravest worry about the danger of a bookmaking monopoly, with the three big bookmaking firms getting hold of all the betting.
  Since 1963 the bookmaking profession has become respectable. The Treasury claim to be surprised by the amount which it collects in betting taxes. The Levy Board has gradually succeeded in raising the contribution. The ninth levy, up to 31st March, 1971, was more than £3 million. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, this is not a large contribution to racing when taken as a percentage of the betting turnover. In France and the United States, where there are tote monopolies, the amount of money going back into racing is between 6 per cent. and 12 per cent. compared with the half of 1 per cent. of the betting turnover that comes to racing from the bookmaking fraternity in this country.
  I have only one small practical experience of the amount of money bookmakers used to be prepared to give to racing until there was a stick with which to beat them and a yardstick with which to judge them. When I was an undergraduate involved in the university point-to-point, the tote used to give us £400 if we had five races. If we succeeded in getting enough entries to make a better
  768
  day's sport for the punters, and if we were able to bring more people to the meeting by getting more horses and splitting the open race, we used to get £600 from the tote. What does one get from the bookies? One is lucky to get £25 or £30 for six races. That shows the contribution which the bookmaking fraternity used voluntarily to make towards the welfare of racing.
  I do not believe that punters as a whole are getting such a good deal from the bookmakers as people think. Bookmakers are not as popular amongst the discerning as it is sometimes thought. Even without a bookmaking monopoly, the bookmakers are beginning to squeeze the odds. Taking a 10-horse race with three favoured horses, it is probably fair for the favourite to start at evens. The second favourite is now put at two-to-one and the third at three-to-one, whereas they should be put at three-to-one and five-to-one.
  The hon. Member for Bassetlaw quoted from a letter published in Sporting Life on 18th January. The letter went on to prove that during the 1971 flat racing season the tote had beaten the bookmakers in the odds it was giving to the racing public. In 451 races the tote paid out more on winners than did the bookmakers.
  It might be advantageous for the Totalisator Board to look at the way in which the tote works in other countries. I am told that one of the most successful totes from the punters' point of view is in Hong Kong. There are two pools, not just one pool for three horses. All the money for a win goes into the winning pool and all the place money goes into the place pool We should consider this idea for our tote, as it would enable better odds to be given.
  The tote provides for the small man going on the race course the only way of being certain that he will be fairly treated. It is important, therefore, that we should keep the totalisator in being. The House would be wrong to be persuaded that the way to expand the tote's activities is by the jackpot and other devices. When the jackpot first came out it was the biggest talking point on every race course. But now, according to the expert betters—and I am not one—the jackpot is not nearly as popular as it used to be, or as attractive to the betting public.

  769
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet spoke of allowing small race courses and, in particular, small point-to-point meetings, to run their own tote. The Amendment which he seeks to put down to the Bill in Committee is exactly what is needed. It is far too expensive for the tote to run at a whole series of point-to-point meetings in the West country or in Scotland, even with voluntary labour at those meetings.
  I do not think that the House realises that the Betting Levy Board, through the tote, gives to the small point-to-point races over £31,000 in any one year varying from a grant of £120 to the Ayrshire Yeomanry point-to-point in Scotland to the Western Hunt point-to-point in the West of Cornwall. These are substantial amounts to these small concerns for a day's racing. They are racing days at which the attendance of the tote must mean a loss to it as it is so organised. I entirely endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet about the organisation of the tote in more rural areas.
  We must keep the tote in order to avoid a bookmakers' monopoly in this country and to give the Government a stake in the betting industry so that they know what is going on. so that they have a thermometer with which to judge the temperature of the industry and to be absolutely certain that the Betting Levy Board has sufficient information about betting to ensure that it is able to fix the levy at the proper level.
  I sincerely hope that we shall expedite the passage of the Bill to the Statute Book.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: It is usual at the outset to declare one's interest. On this occasion my personal interest is very small. Unfortunately, I do not own any race horses, but I have noted that hon. Members who do have been here in quite good numbers today to make their points.
  I am not a betting man. I go in for a big race flutter the same as millions of other people in this country. I consider that 50p on that occasion is an extremely large amount to bet. Therefore, I am one of the small punters who look more to a low stake and a high return, which
  770
  only jackpot or football pool betting is able to provide.
  I consider the Bill the most anti-Conservative, anti-small business-measure which any Government could bring in. It was not the William Hills, the Ladbrokes or the Corals who were contacting us in their numbers in our constituencies; it was the small bookmakers who were representing to us their views and fears about the tote entering the High Street in competition against their businesses.
  It is absolutely shameful that it has been the Opposition who, in the main, have been speaking in support of the small businessman and against the Bill, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and two others of my hon. Friends. It was and is almost a Birmingham contingent line-up from both sides of the House against the Bill.
  There is a past criterion on this matter which the House ought to recognise.
  Mr. Ernie Money: I hope that the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend and his hon. Friends will not lead them into putting all their money on Birmingham City against Ipswich Town on Saturday, because we all know that that is a foregone conclusion.
  Mr. Kinsey: It would be through the football pools that I would place my money, not on the Floor of the House. I have confidence in Birmingham. I do not think that that intervention was worth while in view of what the result will be.
  I never thought that I should find myself nodding agreement with the Opposition Front Bench and shaking my head at my own Front Bench. It was a most unusual position in which to find myself.
  I am not satisfied with the Amendment promised by my right hon. Friend. Let us look at it. Clause 1, agency basis. What is meant by "agency basis"? Who will have the agencies? Which preferential bookmakers will get the agency basis? Not all of them. It will be just a few. My right hon. Friend must give us more explanation on this matter.
  Turning to Clause 3—I read from the Explanatory Memorandum—we are taking out,
  "a betting office licence may not be refused".

  771
  and replacing it possibly with building in a preference for the local magistrates to operate. What is the difference? I cannot see any difference. It will be given in any case. Why do we not tell all the other people who want betting shops that we will give them preference?
  Turning to Clause 5, we are apparently to consider that in Committee. That simply is not good enough. If my right hon. Friend could see a satisfactory answer, he should give it to us today.
  In the short time that I have been a Members of this House, the past 18 months, I have served on many Committees. I have been worked very hard as a backbencher.
  The first Committee was on the Coal Industry Bill, to hive off the non-related industries to the coal industry. The miners' representatives on the other side of the House turned. We had all the Lefties of the day shouting out against the Government. I served on that Committee to carry out the Government's work, and most approvingly I did it.
  The second Committee was on the Transport Holdings Bill, to denationalise Thomas Cook. The transport workers' representatives and the Lefties again were up in arms against that Bill, but I was pleased to support the Government.
  The third Committee was concerned with the denationalisation of the State breweries in Carlisle. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) was up in arms about that. Again I suported the Government in denationalising that undertaking. My right hon. Friend knows that I was pleased to support him, and I believe that he was pleased to have my support on that occasion. We went through the long weary hours of the night. Why? Because the Opposition had decided, line by line, Clause by Clause, comma by comma, to fight the Bill—and indeed they did.
  But in today's move in this House there has been half-hearted opposition. There has been support for the Government's action; no vote. This is a public shame. Secretly, and wholeheartedly, the Opposition support this Measure. There is danger in that, because the Bill plays into their hands. Future Home Secretaries will have it all on a plate, because the "nationalised bookies" definitely comes
  772
  in under the Clause 1 procedure, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) pointed out. He made no secret of that.
  The Government should be alerted to this open show of feeling by at least one member of the Opposition in that direction. I am not entirely blaming the Home Secretary, who has had his hands pretty full in this Parliament. To be kind to him, this Bill has been slipped in, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston. It has been left to others to devise the Bill on the tote working in their own interests. Civil servants are always inclined to Government control. Lord Wigg is not exactly a Tory philosopher. All these people must have shared at some time and been concerned in devising the Bill. They must have been consulted. They have presented a Bill of very doubtful parentage. They have not created a Conservative Bill by any means, otherwise my hon. Friends would not have been so concerned about it. But my hon. Friends have shown their dislike of the Bill. That is the reason why we have had a promise to amend it. As I said, it is not enough.
  It is amazing that there was no consultation with the other people concerned who have expertise on this matter, the bookmakers, until after publication of the Bill. They were hanged before they could appeal. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would never have allowed that on any other occasion. It was wrong for him to have dealt with them so.
  We have not considered the Bill enough. I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). He had many good things to say. But even at the end his rather involved interpretation of greyhound racing and how we could get over the problems has nothing to do with the Bill, although if he wants to introduce it as an Amendment he will take the opportunity. The other things he was saying had a good basis for tote betting.
  In our interpretation of what bookmakers wanted we should have listened to them, because they want to keep the tote system. The key is an alternative betting system. We want an alternative system to bookmaking. We do not venture out to an alternative system

  773
  when we advocate an ordinary betting system for the tote. This is not an alternative system to that available at present. Pool betting, well conducted, is an alternative. That is where we should be looking.
  The tote has been losing for the last two years. It has been no great shakes for the past two or three years. It has been overtaken in the contributions from the bookmakers. The tote has made no contribution to the Levy Board in the past two years. The tote blames television. I was amazed to read that show jumping had risen to an eminent place in sport simply through television. How can television operate in favour of one sport so much but in the disfavour of another? This needs to be examined.
  The Bill is not an answer. It is obvious that the tote has been very badly managed. I think that all hon. Members will agree about that. It has done nothing in the face of all these things.
  Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the bald fact is that attendances at racecourses have dropped by about 20 per cent. over the last four or five years.
  Mr. Kinsey: But what has the tote done to attract custom in the face of all this? Television has worked in favour of other things. Why has it worked against the tote? It is no good hon. Gentlemen shaking their heads. If the money was not going into the totalisator, what has it done? It has increased the betting stake. People now have to pay 30p, or six shillings, to bet on the tote. That is far too much for most people. The tote has done nothing about multiples or jackpot betting, or about taking in money. It still has a large staff, but has not got down to settling how to take the money in. If it could do so now and look forward to a further extension by the possibility of borrowing money, raising it on the market, why has it not done so in the past to streamline itself, as others have done. It would have been in a monopoly position to do so. I would venture that many a bookmaker would willingly swap businesses with the tote to gain that monopoly position. We should then be saying how well he was doing.
  The tote has failed to make itself pay. It is the same in other nationalized
  774
  undertakings. It should not be said that the tote is not nationalised, because it could not operate unless the Government had given it permission. The Bill proves that. It is not advocating less activity but more activity. The tote wants more activity. Where it wants this activity is in amongst the betting shops, amongst the competition. But the tote has been there before. I quote from a pamphlet issued by the bookmakers:
  "Once before the Tote invested a considerable amount of money in buying betting shops from bookmakers and opening others of their own. They failed to appreciate the dangers of the cash betting offices, lost money and subsequently chose to transfer the control of these shops to a public company bookmaker."
  My right hon. Friend is living in a peculiar world if he considers that we shall solve the problems by putting the tote back in that position. We shall worsen them. If the tote has a monopoly and cannot pay, with no bright ideas to help it, no quick movements to solve problems—I emphasise the quick movement, because this is a field of operation in which quick action is imperative; one's stock in trade is money, and one is at risk as soon as one's door is open—we have to ask where the operators are coming from.
  The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) quoted from a directive that the bookmakers were bad employers. He criticised long hours and the amount of time the staff had for meals; but this is what has made the bookmakers' profit. Office hours are wanted for the tote. It will not do. It will not pay. This policy is a criterion for failure. The Home Secretary must not allow us to throw the baby to the lions. I do not want that. The bookmakers agree that there is a need for the tote as an alternative system. When at last the bookmakers were consulted they put forward a plan to the tote board that would give it a guaranteed £825,000 net profit each year, before corporation tax. This plan was put forward oh the basis of opening up the bookmakers' offices to take jackpot bets, something that has not happened before. This could then have taken place, providing enough money to make the tote viable. That would seem to solve the problem.
  The tote would welcome the scheme, and my right hon. Friend the Home

  775
  Secretary seemed to like it. But he still thinks he needs the Bill to underpin it. He cannot have his bun and his ha'penny. He cannot allow it to happen by moving people in and giving the Board powers to enter the high street. It could be a dangerous power in the future. That explains the mild opposition we have seen from some Labour hon. Members.
  The Tories are giving a Heaven-sent opportunity to the Socialists. While the Socialists want to see a monopoly bookmaker for the State, the bookmakers are prepared to meet competition, as long as it is fair. But they are being asked to finance it out of their own pockets, as Clause 5 clearly shows. Whatever the cost, it will have to be financed through the Levy Board, through which the money comes not only from the tote but from the bookmakers and the betting public. If there are losses they will again be met in that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet indicated that we shall build a guarantee into the Levy Board's proposal to support the tote in raising money on the open market. That will not do, because the guarantee is one of the worst forms of financing anything. Again, it will be the bookmaker and the betting public that will have to support it. To use a good old Americanism, we are making the bookmakers and the betting public real patsies.
  Mr. John Page: What are they?
  Mr. Kinsey: They are people we set up to knock down, and we are setting up the bookmakers and the betting public.
  This will be the first time any Government have carried out nationalisation without compensation. The Socialists have said they will do it, but here are the Conservative Government doing it. Not only are we failing to compensate, but we are to make the bookmakers provide the money to bring about their own demise. It is amazing. We are patting them on the back, calling them our friends and leading them to the chopping block.
  The bookmakers have much to offer, and we should listen to them. We should now redress our failure to consult them in the first place. They have created a successful business. A Tory Measure changed the pattern of betting and led
  776
  to its becoming respectable in this country. It no longer generates the feelings that gambling always used to generate. Let us not spoil that situation with the Bill. I urge my right hon. Friend not to drive betting underground, which he might well do. Let us talk, listen and produce something better than the Bill. I wish there were an opportunity to vote against it, because I would do so.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I cannot resist the temptation to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who is a very ardent advocate of private enterprise and a successful exponent of it.
  The Bill was only recently brought to my notice by a public relations exercise. Like many other hon. Members, I had an invitation to a blow-out in the bowels of the House, and this morning I had a copy of Sporting Life in my post. I do not normally have that literature. It reminded me of when I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill, when I used regularly to receive copies of the Morning Advertiser, as did the hon. Gentleman. The stage was set for substantial pressure groups.
  I ask myself why the present P.R. exercise had been mounted and what effect it was supposed to have on hon. Members. I am very glad that this time the Under-Secretary is on the side of the angels. He had the very unpleasant job of piloting the Bill for the abolition of state management through Committee. He was then doing a demolition job on a successful State enterprise, but today he is standing up for the tote. I welcome this. I urge him to resist the presures to which he and other hon. Members are being subjected and to stand firm on the Bill, which I believe is a good Measure.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Ernie Money: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), I do not have to declare an interest in this matter—save in the most tenuous way. I found myself, on a basis of somewhat involuntary odds, coming into the House at the last election as an outsider. I understood from some of my

  777
  constituents that I was at 300 to 1. That led to one or two of them making a fairly nice deal on the result. I suspect that that is a kind of result which cannot be got on the tote, but to that extent, and to that extent only, I declare an interest in the Bill.
  I came to listen this afternoon most carefully to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in some doubt as to whether I could support the Bill or not, because the two matters on which I felt great anxiety, both as far as the industry is concerned and as far as my constituents are concerned, were Clauses 3 and 5. Having spent a good deal of my professional life involved in licensing in one way or another, I must say that I was totally taken aback by the introduction of the new principle of a compulsory licence, which seemed to me to fly completely in the face of a carefully built up and very sophisticated system by which it has been possible for licensing justices and licensing committees to work in the knowledge of the feelings and attitudes in their own areas, wholly on the basis of knowledge of an area, which has been a criterion which has always seemed to me right, whether applied to liquor or gaming or betting.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to give an assurance over that, particularly because I think there has been a good deal of misunderstanding in the public mind about it. A lot of people thought that all that was to be introduced here was a tote shop, as such, in the High Street, rather than a full-scale betting office licence. and this is something which has been obscured in a good deal of the discussion which has taken place about the Bill. I am particularly glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to give an assurance that the basic principles of licensing will still be maintained in this matter when the Bill is in Committee, and upon recommendations put forward by the Government.
  I am particularly glad because the suggestion of compulsory licensing was not only inequitable but, I think, dangerous, in that the whole appeal system is now to the Crown Court rather than to quarter sessions, that involves far larger areas. That seemed to me to militate against the old system of the
  778
  licensing committee in the first instance, and also through quarter sessions, having close knowledge of the area involved. This is one of the matters about which I came here to listen most carefully to my right hon. Friend, and certainly, on the basis that I am quite sure that he means what he says, that this matter will be changed in Committee, I fully accept the undertakings and safeguards which he has put forward in that regard.
  The second matter which caused me a good deal of concern was the element of unfair competition involved in Clause 5, and I hope very much that the words which my right hon. Friend used this afternoon mean that the bookmaking industry will be protected from unfair competition by changing the scheme of grants into a scheme of loans, and a scheme of loans which means just that, and not a hidden grant which will be written off in due course.
  There are the strongest grounds for feeling that both sides of the betting amenities available to the public serve the public very adequately at present. Over recent years in fact we have had a good deal more service from the bookmakers than from the tote. Bookmakers have provided a good deal more to support the industry in the shape of their contributions to the levy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr suggested, there has also been a total change in the attitude of the ordinary individual to the licensed betting office and the bookmaking fraternity as such. One of the "Georgian" poets wrote about the prospect of a departing bookmaker,
  "Alas, what boots it that my noble steed, Chosen so carefully, the field outran.
  I had not reckoned, bookie, on thy speed. The proper study of mankind is man."
  Those days are well past, and allegations about welshing bookmakers are generally very much a thing of the past.
  This is a maligned industry. It has been misunderstood and criticised unfairly by those who have approached it with a fixed moral prejudice rather than with an understanding of the service that bookmakers give to the public and the contributions that they make to the industry. To that extent, I am sure that there is room for both the bookmakers and the tote.

  779
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) put forward the argument that it was necessary to go on maintaining the tote as such because of the amount of money which came from it to support small racecourses. I quarrel with my hon. Friend in that respect. My belief is that probably we are nearing the situation in this country where we have too many racecourses. With greater ease of communications, I believe that it is more necessary to have money put into the bigger courses, where it is needed, than to put it into supporting large numbers of small meetings which do not appeal to the public and do not provide to the public the facilities and amenities which justify their being kept alive.
  When this Bill goes into Committee, the House will be watching the extent to which Home Office Ministers intend to justify the doubts which were felt about whether this was a Measure which interfered with the system of licensing, with the rights of the individual to have a choice and with the basically equable working of both sides of the profession.
  I accept that what was said by my right hon. Friend today was meant. To that extent, I withdraw the original opposition that I felt to the Bill, though not entirely my doubts. I am sure that what is done in Committee will justify my withdrawing both.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: When the Home Secretary was introducing the Bill, I intervened to ask him why it was felt necessary to spring it upon the House without any previous warning or discussion. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was that that would have given rise to all sorts of financial difficulties. He painted a picture of the horrific possibilities which might have ensued if there had been any discussions with the interests concerned. However, I still believe that much of this debate and argy-bargy and some of the pressure which has been applied in the last week or two could have been avoided if someone in the Home Office had taken the trouble to have friendly discussions with representatives of the bookmakers. I cannot see what harm would have been done if such discussions had taken place. They are normal before a Finance Bill and many other projected pieces of legislation. A
  780
  lot of trouble could have been avoided had a similar course been followed here.
  It is true that the Home Secretary, sensing the danger of revolt in the Government ranks and possibly in the Labour ranks, has announced some concessions. They were not officially announced until today. By a remarkable degree of prescience on the part of the political correspondent of the Guardian, as long ago as 28th January he announced exactly what the line of the concessions would be. He said:
  "Mr. Maudling is now expected to tell the Commons that the Government is ready to table amendments to Clauses 3 and 5. The first would strike out the proposal to allow the tote to establish betting shops without first obtaining a magistrate's licence in the same way as private bookmakers. The second amendment, it is understood, would delete the Bill's original proposal to permit the Horse Race Betting Levy Board to subsidise tote betting shops."
  It will be interesting to see in what way these pledges and undertakings, which were known to The Guardian long before they were known to any hon. Member, are carried out. Before the Bill reaches the Statute Book it will have to be amended in more ways than one to secure the unanimous support of the House. I look forward with interest to seeing the results of the forecasts of Mr. Ian Aitken of The Guardian. If he has backed two winners in one article that is not bad going for any political correspondent.
  I must reserve my judgment until I know what the Government do in Committee. If the Government are sensible and the Bill comes back to the House suitably amended, I shall have no hesitation in supporting it.
  Dame Irene Ward: Would the hon. Member allow me to say "Hear, hear?" That is exactly my view.
  Mr. Ashton: The hon. Lady has only just come in.
  Dame Irene Ward: I know, but I was asked if I would come in and speak.
  Mr. Lipton: The hon. Lady could not have come into the Chamber at a more fortuitous moment because she has heard some words of wisdom with which, for some reason, she finds herself in agreement. This is the first time that she has ever agreed with anything that I have ever said on any subject.
  Dame Irene Ward: Thank you.
  Mr. Marten Maddan: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a degree of agreement. Does he consider that there is a reasonable degree of agreement between himself and the hon. Lady, or is there unanimous agreement?
  Mr. Lipton: I would hesitate to pronounce on anything that the hon. Lady says. She is well capable of looking after herself without any assistance from outside, particularly from this side of the House. The Bill will be changed considerably in Committee, I believe, and then we shall be in a better position to judge. If the Government behave and listen to the numerous representations and adopt a reasonable and sensible approach, they should have no difficulty in getting the Bill through.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) was rather late coming under starters' orders, and he bagged the beginning of my speech. I wanted to draw attention to three very successful consultative documents which the Secretary of State for Employment has put out with huge success. There are also consultative documents on V.A.T. which have changed the Government's attitude and that of other people. This is an occasion on which there could have been more consultation. It would have taken a lot of sting and argument out of the proceedings but it would also have made the Committee stage much duller.
  This has been almost a Friday morning seminar, with cross-party debate. It is wonderful to find myself agreeing so much with the hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Ashton). The Under-Secretary will have a frisky ride in Committee. I hope that he will not be thrown and will get his Bill in the end—although it will be very much amended.
  I endorse completely the amazement of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) at the Conservative Party propping up a lame race horse. I liked his view of the unlikely prospect of success of an institutional bookmaker.
  The hon. Member for Bassetlaw was absolutely certain that the tote was needed. I believe that we need it, but I like to think of it as a pool tote. I do
  782
  not agree with those, like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who seem to think that it does not matter whether we have a tote or not—
  Mr. Kinsey: No.
  Mr. Page: My hon. Friend was prepared to let it die.
  Mr. Kinsey: My hon. Friend must not misrepresent me. I made it clear that an alternative system had been put forward to save it, which would give us a tote which I would like to see if I were to have any bets—a jackpot pool system.
  Mr. Page: I will read my hon. Friend's speech tomorrow. It was a little too esoteric for me. He has become unnecessarily complicated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) made a most interesting speech. If he had left out one sentence, I could have gone with him all the way. The tote can and should exist and I think that it will thrive. We need a strengthened board. Although some more members are to be added to it, it would be fair for the Jockey Club to lose one or two of its present nominees.
  If we have a more sympathetic approach from the Treasury and if the tote takes advantage of the opportunities for pool betting, it could turn into a profitable venture. We need more comfortable race courses and larger gates. We must try to keep the best horse racing in the world in this country instead of seeing so many of our best horses going abroad. We should also back up a flourishing breeding industry. The new board should immediately be strengthened by people with knowledge and success in the pools industry.
  The Tenth Report of the Horserace Betting Levy Board pointed out on page 40 that of the total prize money—and it is prize money that keeps the horses racing—the owners contributed 30 per cent. and the racecourses 30 per cent. I would therefore like to see representatives both of the Racehorse Owner's Association and the Racecourse Association on the Board as well. Their knowledge and information would be extremely valuable.
  I cannot go along with my right hon. Friend happily in the idea of the board

  783
  going in for starting price betting. I suggest, therefore, that that part of Clause 1 which allows S.P. betting be put in cold storage for a few years and activated, perhaps by order, if the new ideas of the reformed board prove not to be successful. I believe that in the coming two or three years the tote could find that it has an important part to play, and of course the greatest ally for a successful tote is a sympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  It is the most absurd idea in the world to think that one can have a successful nationalised bookmaker. This organisation does not have the right kind of expertise and people to run a gambling organisation. A nationalised bookmaker is likely to be as successful as a milk-drinking crocodile. I hope that my right hon. Friend will put on one side this part of the Bill but will go ahead with the rest.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Maddari: The apearance of this Bill, whether or not after consultation, drew my attention once again to the subject of betting, a subjcet in which, frankly, I do not have any great interest.
  In so far as I have any interest, I start with a rather puritanical prejudice I may think that there is too much betting, particularly off-course betting, for the social health of the nation.
  I apologise for not having been in my place to hear my right hon. Friend's speech. I was engaged upstairs in a Standing Committee.
  I have been glad to hear that my right hon. Friend intends to move some Amendments and I am sure that they will help to make the Bill more acceptable to me, particularly from the point of view of the tote having to go through the usual hoops when it wishes to open a betting shop otherwise we might be providing an in-increase in the volume of betting facilities whether or not they are required.
  I understand that my right lion. Friend is not prepared to remove the provision which allow the tote to operate S.P. bets. This is unfortunate because this provision appears to extend the tote's operations into a sphere where it is neither necessary nor desirable.
  784
  I understand that an Amendment is to be moved to Clause 5 to ensure that money lifted out of the bookmakers hands shall be only loaned to the tote rather than given to the tote. I suppose that is a certain concession, but this brings me to a fundamental point which one cannot help mentioning in discussion on this Bill. It is the difficulty which the Government have got themselves involved in over horse racing and betting. I find it rather mysterious and difficult to understand why the clever and ingenious hardworking people in the horse-racing and betting industry cannot regulate their own affairs without the Government regulating them for them in this way and intervening to arrange the finances of these various interests. I therefore think that this Bill may be regarded only as an interim Measure while we consider further what the rôle of government and Government institutions should be in this matter.
  The only people who have come to see me about this Bill are on-course bookies. They, of course, are an essential attraction in the racing scene and just as essential as the tote. They are labouring under conditions just as difficult as, if not more difficult than, those under which the tote labours. I shall be told that what can be done to help them would be to increase the differential of tax in their favour and that this cannot be done in this Bill but we shall have to wait for the Finance Bill. When that comes we shall be told that while dealing with V.A.T., corporation tax and many other things, there is no time to consider the differential. I hope that in reply to the debate the Under-Secretary will be quite precise in indicating the Government's intention about this.
  It has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that the root of this question is attendances at races and so forth. I think it cannot be denied that whereas in a new sport, such as go-carting, television may excite more interest, racecourse owners find it difficult to negotiate with television interests suitable fees for the televising of races. That is because there are only a few television interests but a whole multiplicity of racecourse owners. It would be very difficult for them to go on strike. One can hardly imagine Royal Ascot or

  785
  Brighton Corporation, which owns a race course, taking part in a strike. Owners should band together and not allow themselves to be picked off one by one, so that collectively they could secure adequate television fees in the same way as betting interests have a kick back which helps to finance the industry.
  In discussing this Bill one cannot help considering matters surrounding it, but I shall go no further on that in view of the time. I exhort my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, to pick up some of the points which I have tried to make.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Reluctant as I am to say so, the person I feel most sorry for today is the Home Secretary. It is not a state of mind I am particularly used to but I must admit it because whatever he had done today he would not, I am convinced, have won the support of his back benchers. If he had, on taking office, found that the tote was a thriving concern, that it had made a vast profit, we would have been having a very different sort of debate. I am sure that we would have been discussing how best the Government could sell it off to private enterprise, to the bookmakers, because that is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from some of the speeches by hon. Members opposite.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Gentleman may or may not know that bookmaking interests have made an offer for the tote, so he is not using a very strong argument.
  Mr. Davidson: It might not be very strong, but some of the arguments used by hon. Members opposite have not exactly been strong either, although I exclude the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). Member after Member opposite has said, "We must keep the tote going because it is very important". They have told us that the bookmakers also want a tote. Indeed, the bookmakers I have spoken to have told me that they want a tote. But not one hon. Member has come up with any practical suggestion as to how the tote can be kept in being except by this Bill. That should be the whole point of the debate.
  786
  To some extent, the right hon. Gentleman has himself to blame for the trouble he is in. He introduced the Bill on a quiet Friday rather stealthily, for all the world as though he were ashamed of himself for doing so. Perhaps he thought that no one would notice it, but he should have known that if no one else did my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would—and, of course, within a few hours my hon Friend had put down a Motion drawing attention to the inequities, bad timing and irrelevance of the Bill.
  Of course my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) is quite right. It does have a certain quaintness, to say the least, that we should be discussing this Bill when so many much more important and far-reaching events are happening elsewhere. Nevertheless, we are discussing it, and the fact is that whoever had been in Government would have had to introduce a Measure along these lines if the tote was to be saved. That should be stated fairly and squarely.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said in his interesting and forthright speech. We are discussing not an irrelevant industry but one which has the biggest turnover of any in the country. He gave the figures. The total turnover on horse racing in the last year was nearly £1,000 million—and that is only the legal betting. Most of us know that a great deal of illegal betting goes on as well, and probably one could add 25 per cent. to the £1,000 million to cover that. The turnover on dog racing was about £305 million. So, whatever else can be said about the state of the industry, there is no shortage of punters. Enough people want to bet on horse racing.
  One of the surprising things about the debate has been that we have had great arguments in favour of bookmakers, and criticism of them, and speeches putting forward the splendours of the tote, and speeches condemning it. But we have heard very little about the people who make the racing industry prosper, who make these enormous profits possible; that is, the punter, the ordinary man in the street. What we should be concerned about is how we, as a House, can bring in legislation that will as its main concern benefit the punter and make sure that

  787
  if he wishes to bet he gets the best possible odds in the best possible conditions.
  Why do we all say we need a tote? We need a tote because we need competition—and I would have thought that that is a word which would strike at the hearts of all hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a good Tory philosophy. I find it extraordinary that some bookmakers who really have had a completely free hand since 1960 when the new Gaming legislation was brought in, in facilities to open betting shops, should somehow cavil at the prospect of a little competition from a statutory board, the tote.
  Why do we need the tote at all? If I was a small bookmaker, I would be a lot more perturbed at competition from the big public companies that run the three biggest bookmaking concerns in this country than I would be over competition from the tote. If we did not have a tote and did not have an alternative form of bookmaking, then have no doubt at all that the betting industry would be dominated ultimately perhaps by one large concern. That would not be good for the public and, I would have thought, in the long run would be bound to be the death of the small bookmaker.
  After all, Ladbroke has said that by 1973, I believe, it hopes to open something like 800 betting shops. William Hill has increased the number of its betting shops from one to about 500 in the space of three or four years. This has all been done because they have had access to the most profitable part of the betting market, which as everybody knows is cash betting. It is the small punter from whom bookmakers make the biggest profit. The small punter invariably bets in cash. He has not a credit account. For hon. Members to "kid" themselves that somehow the tote can compete with bookmakers without having access to cash bookmaking at S.P. prices is really delusion. If they want to keep the tote in being, they have to say just how they will do it.
  A lot has been said about the fact that the bookmakers have offered to bail the tote out of its difficulties by operating, or helping the tote to operate, a jackpot system. I will deal with the deficiencies in tote management a little later. Severe criticism can be levelled at the management of the tote.
  788
  If the bookmakers are serious about helping the tote to operate the jackpot, will they do it as principal or agent? In other words, will they have to put a limit on the amount of money to be staked on the jackpot? I have heard reports, true or not, that the bookmakers offered a top limit of 5p on every bet on the jackpot. That would not go anywhere near getting the tote through its difficulties.
  The Home Secretary should not present the Bill as the sole remedy for getting the tote out of its difficulties. He should also do something about reorganising the management of the tote. Why has the tote been so unimaginative in the betting schemes offered to the public? Why have not forecasts on any race been offered? The tote is eminently able to do this. Why have not doubles been offered on the second and third races, the third and fourth races, which would be attractive to punters? Why has the tote run a jackpot on all the races on the card when a large number of people do not turn up until after the first race? It would be common sense to run the jackpot on the second to the seventh races. Many more people would join in. There are many criticisms to be made of the day-to-day administration and lack of imagination of the management of the tote.
  We are told that the tote is necessary because it will ultimately pay money to the Levy Board and racing will benefit. That is true. It has made substantial contributions to racing. One of the greatest contributions it could make to racing would be to get rid of the stuffy, upper-class image of the Jockey Club It is incredible that in 1971 it should be an event of fantastic revolutionary importance that women trainers are allowed to operate under Jockey Club rules. Why are there not more fresh faces in the Jockey Club? Lord Wigg has done a tremendous amount for racing because he is different from the stuffy, antiquated person who has for far too long dominated the councils of the Jockey Club. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will bear those observations in mind. It may be that he has plans for revolutionising the Jockey Club.
  One reason for the difficulties of the tote is that it has had to make payments

  789
  to the Levy Board between 1962 and 1969. They were a heavy burden, as the Home Secretary was right to point out. The tote paid about £5¾ million in those years. It contributed about 25 per cent. of the total income of the Levy Board, although it was responsible only for about 4 per cent. of the total turnover. No concern could be financially prosperous in those circumstances.
  Many criticisms have been made about the management of the tote, and some are no doubt justified. I do not know. I have never met the gentlemen who form the management of the tote. But I think that the tote has had to operate under extraordinarily difficult circumstances under which no firm of bookmakers would contemplate operating.
  The Home Secretary said that, because of the appalling financial position of the tote, he was unable to find any person to serve on the board, which is why a vacancy has existed for about two years. I should like to know what plans the right hon. Gentleman has for filling that vacancy and what sort of criteria he will use for appointing people to the hoard; indeed, from what group or groups of people he will draw, what experience they will have, and what overall plans there are for reorganising the tote.
  A lot of criticism has quite rightly and understandably been levelled at the now notorious Clause 3. It is an offensive Clause in many ways. Hon. Members on both sides who criticised it were right to do so. The House ought to bear in mind the resentment among a large section of the population about the proliferation of betting shops up and down the country. We would he foolish to ignore that resentment. Many of my constituents, as indeed many constituents of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, object to betting shops, to Bingo halls and, indeed, to amusement arcades opening up all over the place. We shall have to give very careful consideration to the exact wording of Clause 3 and how it is to operate.
  However, I must say—one has to be utterly honest—that it is difficult to see how the main purpose of the Bill will be achieved without something like Clause 3. It is no good saying that the tote should have the right to operate as bookmakers
  790
  to take starting price bets and to deny it the outlet for doing so. It must have an outlet, and Clause 3 is perhaps the only way of providing it, offensive as it is in many ways.
  How many betting shops does the Under-Secretary envisage the tote opening in the next few years? My inquiries indicate that it will be very lucky if it has the equipment and the staff to open about 25 in the next 12 months. My inquiries also indicate that if it is to be financially viable as a concern it will need about 100 betting shops. Indeed, it is doubtful whether, with or without a watered down Clause 3, it will have the facilities to get anything like 25. So is the Bill worth while? Are we to see a position in 12 months or two years when the Home Secretary will have to come to the House again and say that the Bill is not effective, that the tote cannot operate under it, and that more money is needed to bail it out?
  I give warning that in Committee we shall go into this Clause, the viability of the tote and the tote's prospects very carefully. I hope that it will be a most constructive Committee stage. The Clause, which empowers the tote to borrow from the Betting Levy Board, has been severely criticised. People have said, "Why can it not borrow money from the City or somewhere else?" Contrary to what has been said, the tote does have the power to borrow. It is in the Act. But, in view of the appalling financial state of the tote, no one would remotely consider lending it money. I would not lend money to the tote, neither at present would any respectable financial institution. What the whole House wants to see is a position whereby the tote is reorganised on a firm businesslike footing so that it can, with the facilities provided by the Bill, go to the City and borrow money if necessary. Without the Bill its prospects of doing so are next to zero.
  Finally, much criticism has been levelled at the bookmakers for the way they have conducted a sort of lobby campaign. If I were a bookmaker I should feel apprehensive in some way about the Bill. Bookmakers have every right to express their fears and objections. I consider that they have done this in a perfectly open and above board

  791
  manner. I have no criticism of the bookmakers in that respect. But I feel that they have rather overstated the apprehensions that they need have about the tote being in competition with them.
  I hope that the Bill reaches the Statute Book. I hope that it will be considerably amended, if we can find a sensible way of amending it; that as a result it will act in providing a genuine competitor to the bookmakers; that the racehorse industry will benefit, and that those benefits will ultimately be passed on to the people who ought to receive them—the punters, the British public.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I apologise to the House in advance, for I shall speak fairly quietly and hope that my voice will last until ten o'clock. I am afraid that my anti-influenza injection did not succeed.
  We have had so me fairly rumbustious speeches during the debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about some of the Bill's provisions. The prize for hyperbole must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who described the Bill as nationalisation without compensation. I can understand people objecting to and expressing their views on certain provisions; but to describe a Bill the purpose of which is to remove the statutory fetters that have existed on the Totalisator Board, so as to allow it to compete on the open market with the private bookmakers as being nationalisation without compensation is slightly exaggerating the situation.
  I am sure that I shall carry with me all hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) on his first winding-up speech from the Front Bench. It is a great pleasure to me to be the person to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as we started at the Bar together and entered the House together. We look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman in Committee and on many other Home Office matters in the near future.
  Mr. Davidson: May I just say that the hon. and learned Gentleman lost his £7 apprentice allowance far more quickly than I did.
  Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of the Bill is not to attack the private bookmaker but to provide a viable future for the tote, which, for all the reasons my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave, we believe to be in the interest of racing, the punter and society generally.
  I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) who reminded the House—and it is no criticism of the bookmakers to say this—that in considering the history of gaming legislation any Government must appreciate the potential danger if the whole of commercial gambling gets into a very few hands, without any form of adequate control. That is why the last Government felt it necessary to set up the Gaming Board. For gambling on horse racing we have never had, and have never been tempted to have, such control as exists in gaming. We have always relied on the competition provided by the tote with those in the private market. The purpose of the Bill is merely to restore the financial position of the tote, which has been losing money over the years, to enable it to compete with the bookmaker on fair terms and to provide the public with an alternative method of betting.
  In an extremely powerful and well-argued speech, the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) suggested that my right hon. Friend was being contradictory when he used the terms "compete" and "an alternative service" with regard to the totalisator, and that we looked upon them as meaning the same thing. The Bill envisages the possibility for the tote to compete in starting prices, should it choose to do so, but also to provide an alternative method of betting to the public by means of totalisator betting. We must ask whether it would be able to provide an adequate alternative system of pool betting without being given the opportunity to earn some of its revenue in competition in starting-price odds with the bookmaker.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the proposal was a breach of faith in that in 1928, when the tote was set up, it had been made clear that the tote facilities would be limited to pool betting. He drew various analogies and said that cries of dissent would be coming from these benches on this side of the House if we

  793
  had allowed statutory bodies to expand in other ways.
  I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that he ignored one fact, which is, that Parliament itself specifically changed the whole competitive set-up by itself legislating in 1960 to permit, for the first time ever, the betting shop for the private bookmaker. At the time when the tote was set up, all off-course betting was illegal, and one had the tote with its pool betting providing an alternative service to that of the private bookmaker with his starting price betting on the race course.
  What we did in 1960 was to change the whole balance by legislating specifically to allow the bookmaker to have the off-course betting shop. With respect, I do not think that, powerful as the argument appeared, the hon. Gentleman's analogy was accurate, as I think it avoided this one vital fact of the statutory difference we have made in regard to this matter since the time the tote was formed.
  Mr. Brian Walden: All that the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, as he will see if he thinks about it afterwards, is that, whether the change was done statutorily by this House or not, circumstances have changed, and have changed in favour of the private bookmaker—as circumstances have changed adversely against the coal mining industry. What would hon. Members opposite say if the N.C.B. decided to sell petrol on the basis that, after all, it is a fuel anyway, just as the Home Secretary is saying, "After all, this is betting anyway"? That is the analogy I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is simply that circumstances have varied. Whether the House was statutorily responsible for it or not, in fact has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Carlisle: With respect, it has. I appreciate the analogy, but the point I was trying to make was that the cause of the change of circumstances in this case was a deliberate decision of this House to allow the private bookmaker to go into an area into which, up to 1960. he had not been allowed to enter—
  Mr. Walden: Legally.
  Mr. Carlisle: Legally. I accept that. Of course, there was illegal betting, but
  794
  I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that illegal betting, although substantial, was of the same degree of turnover as exists in the betting shops today.
  On the whole, as the hon. Member for Accrington said, most of the speeches we have heard on both sides of the House have, with certain honourable exceptions, given support to the principle of the Bill, of putting the tote in a position to survive and to provide competition, to provide an alternative; and the real issue, and the questions which have been asked, and the dispute which has arisen, are about the method by which it is intended to achieve the end. It is clear, after what has been said from the Front Bench opposite, that the Bill will get an unopposed Second Reading tonight but that we are in for an interesting and heavily argued Committee as to what is the right way in which to put the tote in the position which the Home Secretary has decided it is necessary for it to occupy if we are to see the continuance of a viable tote.
  Before I turn to that, let me take up one or two points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about what the Totalisator Board is. The board is a statutory corporation and, therefore, can do only what its specific statutory powers, given by this House, enable it to do. At present those powers are limited to conducting pool betting on approved horse races, to negotiating bets at tote prices, and, for the purpose of its main functions, to holding land, to borrowing, to making loans. It can do it through subsidiary companies as long as they are acting within the statutory powers given to it, and it is right that originally it set up the company which has been referred to in order to deal with its credit betting side.
  As for parliamentary control, the annual accounts are laid before Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appoints the chairman and the board. But we have to remember that basically it is a commercial organisation which has been created as a statutory non-profit-making corporation really for social reasons, and I doubt whether there would be any advantage in having day-to-day responsibility for its actions to this House by a Minister.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in that last statement, but what is the line of communication when, every so often, things go wrong and it has to go to the Home Office? Who is monitoring on the way through, bearing in mind that eventually it is to the Government that the organisation comes? I accept that the day-to-day administration should not be in the hands of the Home Office, that it is not a nationalised industry, and so forth, but what is the line of communication which enables the Government to keep an eye on what is going on?
  Mr. Carlisle: All that I can say is that obviously a close relationship exists at personal level between the members of the board and officials of the Department concerned.
  The other general point that was raised concerned the appointment of members of the board and the qualifications that are appropriate. Obviously I cannot comment on the criteria which have been applied in the past. At the moment, there are three members and one vacancy on a board of four. Two were appointed during the lifetime of the previous Government. One was appointed then but may well have been recommended for appointment just before the 1964 General Election.
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that one of his desires under Clause 2 is to create an opportunity for the provision, if necessary, of a strengthened board in numbers. He intends to bring on to the board people with an interest in racing, a knowledge of finance, and a knowledge of betting. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) made about the need to remember that one wants people with a knowledge of pool betting rather than merely a knowledge of starting price betting.
  The hon. Member for Accrington asked why there had been a vacancy for so long. The hon. Gentleman misquoted my right hon. Friend slightly. My right hon. Friend did not say that we had been unable to fill the vacancy as such. His point was that it was impossible to approach people of the sort we wanted to serve on the board before we were in a position to say what the powers of the board would be and what job they would
  796
  be required to do. My right hon. Friend said that, for that reason, he felt that it was right for the Bill to be read a Second tune before attempting to fill the vacancy which exists on the board at the moment.
  I return to the point about how one achieves the end of providing a viable tote. If it is to be given the opportunity to do business in the highly successful off-course market and to achieve the objects that the Government have in mind, three factors have to be taken into account. It must be given the power to operate with much more commercial freedom than it has at present. It must be given access to the off-course market. It must have access to capital to enable it to implement its plans. Of those three matters, greater commercial freedom is covered by Clause 1, access to the off-course market is dealt with in Clause 3, and access to capital is covered in part by Clause 5.
  If one wants to dwell on the reason for the decline of the tote, it is that in the past the tote has had to rely, and has always relied, on on-course betting and credit betting for its turnover. What has hit the tote, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) so accurately said—at least this is my impression—is a combination of the existence of betting shops and televising of racing. This has led to a drastic reduction in the number of people attending racecourses which is where the tote used to get its turnover. Since 1966 racecourse attendances have dropped by about 20 per cent., or over a million in overall numbers. In the early 1960s a day out at the races for the average member of the betting public meant joining the crowd at the race course, standing alongside the rails or in the stands, despite the weather, and going either to the bookmaker or the tote to lay a bet between races.
  A day at the races for the average member of the public in 1972 means calling into the betting shop and then sitting, feet up, in front of the television with possibly an occasional trip to the betting shop between races. It is this reduction in the number of people attending which has meant a drop in the on-course betting while off-course betting shops have flourished. In 1966–67 the tote turnover was £40·4 million. In 1970–71 it was £28·9 million. It ma be asked, "How can the tote lose

  797
  money?" It is because if turnover gets so low that overheads cannot be met, money is lost, although in theory it can be argued that it is impossible to do so on any individual race. It is my right hon. Friend's view that if the tote is to be kept viable it must be permitted to penetrate into the off-course market.
  Mr. Walden: How does that conclusion follow from the analysis? If it is television which is having this damaging effect on attendances, why did not the racing authorities—like the football authorities—allow only so much live coverage? Surely the most sensible thing to do would have been for the racing authorities to place some restriction on television.
  Mr. Carlisle: That may be. It may be that the racecourse authorities decided that it was in their interests to enter into various agreements with the television companies. Since 1966 racecourse attendances have dropped 20 per cent. and the turnover has dropped from £40·4 million to £28·9 million.
  Mr. Davidson: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if it were not for tote facilities at some of the smaller tracks, attendances would be even smaller, because it is the opportunity of betting in small sums which attracts the punters, particularly the women punters? Bookmakers who, understandably, complain about the difficulties of on-course betting would have far more to complain about but for the tote facilities.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The tote, through its presence on the smaller courses, has probably reduced the fall in attendances and in that way enabled some courses to remain open. Although a great deal could be done by extending some of the tote's existing forms of betting, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it must penetrate the off-course market to be successful.
  Hon. Members must face some practical facts in regard to Clause 3. It is very difficult for anyone to open a new betting office today. The existing bookmakers have established a closed shop, in effect, in any particular area.
  798
  That is not a criticism but simply a fact to be recognised. Any hon. Member who has appeared in betting applications in the courts must accept that any new application is regularly opposed by the bookmakers in the area on the grounds that the demand is already adequately met.
  In the two fields in which we apply control of the retail outlet—liquor and betting—the purpose of the control has never been to prevent competition, any more than we would prevent competition among grocers' shops. The purpose is a social purpose. In betting, this means preventing the proliferation of betting, shops and the over-encouragement of gambling generally.
  Mrs. Knight: Does that mean that there is any possibility of setting up State-owned liquor shops as a form of competition?
  Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that the Government have any such intention. My right hon. Friend has said that he is reviewing whether there are any longer social needs for controlling off-licensing of liquor. These would not be State-controlled betting shops and this is not State money. Accepting that it is a social purpose which justifies the control, in Committee we must balance the weight to be attached to the need to prevent an extension of gambling against the social need of keeping the tote viable and preventing gaming interests from falling eventually into very few hands.
  Mr. Money: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if Clause 3 were unamended and the tote were to go into this business as bookmakers as a commercial undertaking and any of these entries—which, as Clause 3 stands, it would be allowed to have almost as of right—proved to be non-viable, it would be able to go to the market and achieve a transfer, probably to the big bookmakers of whom my hon. and learned Friend has been speaking?
  Mr. Carlisle: I wish to make it absolutely clear that I was making a general point about the difficulty, to which the hon. Member for Accrington referred, of abandoning Clause 3 entirely.
  My right hon. Friend said earlier that we proposed to amend Clause 3 which, as

  799
  drafted, would remove any form of control on demand from licensing justices. We accept that this was the wrong approach. The approach we proposed to recommend to the Committee—and I accept that it must be argued out in detail—is to restore to the licensing justices the power to grant licences, but to require them, in deciding whether the demand provision is met, or whether there are adequate facilities in the area to meet the demand, to take into account the need to provide facilities through the totalisator as well as through private bookmakers.
  I repeat, in connection with Clause 3, that whereas I fully appreciate the strength of feeling that various people have expressed against the Clause in its present form, and while I have made it absolutely clear that the Government are prepared to amend it in line with what my right hon. Friend stated in his opening remarks, it is necessary, nevertheless, to realise the practical fact, the difficulty that faces a new body such as the totalisator in going successfully into the off-course market.
  What my right hon. Friend said earlier probably answered, even before they were made, the criticisms that were made of Clause 5. As he said, it is clearly the intention of the Government to listen to what is said about this Clause, to look at its provisions and to consider Amendments limiting the width of the Clause.
  If the tote is to succeed, it must have access to capital. I do not take the view of the hon. Member for Leeds, South that it cannot get it through the market. I agree that many people might not at this moment wish to lend money to the tote. But if, as we believe, the Bill will provide a more viable tote, then it will be able to obtain its capital through the market.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I appreciate that many points have been raised which will need to be argued in Committee. We shall listen with great care to what is said. We want the support and co-operation of the bookmakers with the tote to continue, but we believe that the framework of the Bill is necessary to provide a viable future for the tote.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Local Employment Bill [Lords] and the Summer Time Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Speed.]

  COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE (PICKET'S DEATH)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]
  10 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
  I have received a preliminary police report on the incident at Keadby power station which was referred to in the House this afternoon and I think it right, with the leave of the House, to give the information which is so far available to me.
  I regret to have to confirm Press reports that a miner has died as the result of an incident today whilst he was taking part in picketing at Keadby, which is near Scunthorpe in Lincolnshire. I understand that Mr. Frederick Mathews, whose home is near Doncaster, was one of a substantial number of pickets who were present when the rear part of an articulated lorry which was coming out of the power station gate mounted the pavement, knocking Mr. Mathews down.
  The police are making inquiries and in these circumstances I clearly cannot make any further comment.
  I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I express my sympathy for Mr. Mathews' relatives.
  Mr. Richard Kelley: I am sure that everyone on this side of the House will join with the right hon. Gentleman in his expression of sympathy with the relatives and friends of this unfortunate boy and in an expression of sorrow at this tragic accident. I am particularly concerned that my expression

  801
  should be made known because I worked with this boy's father at Hatfield Main Colliery. He was a friend of my boys. I knew him very well and his four brothers, all of whom worked in the pit and were good, hard-working pitmen and good trade unionists.
  This boy, in taking the action that he took, was doing what he thought he was entitled to do. I am sorry that in the statement there has not been mention of the fact that peaceful picketing is a lawful practice and that every person has a right to be on the highway whether he be a pedestrian or otherwise. I think it should be made known tonight that these people who drive lorries frantically through picket lines are endangering life and should be discouraged from doing so.
  This boy's father died of pneumoconiosis. I was almost at his death bed; I visited him two or three hours before he died. His mother will be a sorrowing person tonight, but I have no doubt that that sorrow will be a tinged with a certain feeling that this boy was fighting for what his father always fought for as a good branch official of Hatfield Main Colliery in the National Union of Mineworkers.
  There are millions of people outside who feel the same. I want no bitterness to go from this side of the House. I have been in contact with the people in charge of the whole of the picketing in the Doncaster area headquarters from which this boy went out this morning and they have expressed their desire that we should ask for understanding and a lessening of the hate which might be generated in some quarters as a result of this accident. It is unfortunate, but we wish that picketing shall continue in a peaceful way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I think it should be quite clear that the proper proceeding for hon. Members is to ask questions. If they wish, they may make speeches, but I think it is the wish of the House that only questions should be asked of the right hon. Gentleman. He could reply to each question.
  Mr. Maudling: I think the whole House will agree that this was a tragic
  802
  accident, but in the circumstances we should not discuss whether the driver of the vehicle was blameworthy or not. That would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is a very unhappy moment for everybody in North Lincolnshire? I hope that he appreciates that all our sympathy will go out to this poor man's family. At the same time, I hope that my right hon. Friend understands the very difficult and tense situation which has been very tactfully handled throughout the last four weeks at this power station by the Lincolnshire Constabulary and all others involved in trying to keep it going.
  Mr. Maudling: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: First, may I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) in an expression of sympathy with the widow and the four children of the gentleman who was killed. I also congratulate the police on their very swift action in this matter.
  I have three questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First, does he intend to institute an inquiry into what is a disturbing matter? Secondly, is it known who are the owners of the lorry and whether there were any instructions to the lorry driver to break through the picket line? As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) says, peaceful picketing is a legitimate activity in Britain and there is no indication that the man who was killed was in any way exceeding the general rules and regulations with regard to picketing. Thirdly, I ask the Government, in view of the understandable escalation of feeling on both sides in the miners' strike, whether they will not now take action before it is too late to intervene in order to get a settlement.
  Mr. Maudling: The last point raised by the hon. Lady is not for me. Her first question was about an inquiry. The police are pursuing normal inquiries in the matter. Her second question related to instructions by the owners of

  803
  the lorry. That point will clearly be examined by the police. The vehicle was leaving the power station, I understand, and not going into it.
  Mr. Joseph Harper: I, too, offer my sympathy to the widow and dependants of this unfortunate boy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my possession information which says that the lorry was driven at a very high speed, scattering the picket line, and did not stop, and that the police followed it and did not stop it until a mile away from the scene of the accident? If these events are proved true, that is murder. A man evidently has been taken to the police station. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do in the immediate future to prevent any recurrence of tragic fatalities of this nature?
  Mr. Maudling: I think the hon. Gentleman was wrong in making allegations of that kind. I cannot comment on them because I am awaiting the results of the police inquiry. I think that it is totally wrong for anyone to suggest that the driver or anyone else was doing something wrong unless there is evidence to that effect. I ask particularly that there should not be prejudice in this matter. Where there has been a very sad accident indeed, the normal and proper procedure should be followed whereby the police inquire into what happened.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: This is a most catastrophic event and my hon. Friends have sent our deepest sympathy to the widow and all the family and all their friends on this sad loss of a miner. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what action he intends to take now to try to prevent this kind of accident happening again before the results of the inquiry take place. Will he consider making a statement giving instruction to the chiefs of police in the various districts to make certain that drivers taking their vehicles in and out of these power stations pay due care and attention and drive carefully and slowly? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), will he consider raising the matter with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for
  804
  Employment and urging them to move into the dispute to try to get a settlement so that we do not need to have even picketing?
  Mr. Maudling: It is quite wrong to assume any blame on the part of anyone concerned until the facts are established. The law about peaceful picketing is fully understood; so is the law about the driving of vehicles. To assume in any question that any individual has done something wrong is unfair and should not be done.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: We endorse the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman in making a statement tonight on this tragedy. Is he aware that there are gaps in his statement and in the statement we have already received from the National Union of Mineworkers? On behalf of the Miners' Parliamentary Group, I send our heartfelt sympathy to to the widow and children of the lad who was killed. It is nothing new in the mining industry for us to weep without shame and to bury our dead. I know—I lost my father in the industry. The best tribute which the right hon. Gentleman could pay on the death of this lad is to use his influence on his Cabinet colleagues to arrive at some decision whereby a settlement could be reached in this dispute which the miners are having with the Government.
  Mr. Maudling: It would be going beyond my statement to comment on the very serious industrial dispute in the mining industry. I would just repeat what is my responsibility to the House, to say that there has been a tragic accident and that the police are properly inquiring into what has happened. Until we know what happened I think, with respect, that comment is a little unwise.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: The Home Secretary is expressing sympathy, but is he aware that some of us have foreseen something like this for at least a fortnight and have been trying to raise the question of picketing on the Floor of the House. I should like to put it to the Home Secretary that while instructions have been sent out about toughening up with pickets—and I have in mind some of the treatment which has been doled out to some of our mining fraternity, such as keeping them locked

  805
  up, in some cases in handcuffs, overnight, on what one can only call trumped-up charges—I hope that after this he will send some instruction that pickets, while they have duties, also have some rights.
  Mr. Maudling: I cannot at all accept what the hon. Member says. The enforcement of the law in this matter is in the hands of chief officers of police, who are not subject to instructions from my own or any other Ministry and who are carrying out a difficult duty extremely well.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman is Deputy Prime Minister, I should like to bring to his notice a most significant paragraph in his statement—"doing his duty at Keadby power station". This man has lost his life in pursuance of doing his duty at that power station, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to delve as deeply into this affair as he has delved into the affairs of other people in the United Kingdom after loss of life in pursuance of doing their duty, so that it will not only appear that we have justice in England but that we can absolutely project to the nation that justice has been done in the interests of the whole community.
  Mr. Maudling: I cannot see in my statement the words which the hon. Gentleman attributes to me—"doing his duty". There was a tragic accident in which a man was killed and the whole House rightly expresses sympathy with the relatives and the bereaved family.
  Mr. Swain: Sympathy does not buy bloody bacon.
  Mr. Maudling: Yes, but we must also have regard to other people involved. It would be entirely wrong to prejudice the position of anyone else involved in the accident until the facts have been impartially discovered by the police. I must insist on that. I understand people's feelings but the police are doing the right thing in finding out how the accident happened.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: While fully appreciating the position of the police in this matter, may I press the Home Secretary on one point? At present we have pickets at most power stations in the country and the miners' strike is continuing
  806
  Will he ensure that no instructions are given to lorry drivers to break into what are legitimate and peaceful picket lines in this country?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not know to which instructions the hon. Lady is referring. The Government issue no instructions at all in this matter. The Government position is that the law of peaceful picketing is well known and well established, and the enforcement of the law resides in the hands of chief officers of police, who are handling a difficult task with tact and discretion.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: On a point of order. Several times in his statement the Home Secretary referred to an accident. It may or may not have been an accident. All we know is that it was a fatality, and it may be that in future a coroner's jury or a criminal jury will have to consider whether it was or was not an accident. In such circumstances it would be proper for the Home Secretary to withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Maudling: I took great care in replying to the first supplementary to say that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) had referred to "a tragic accident" and, he having referred to it as an accident, I continued with the same phraseology.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the week before Parliament reassembled after Christmas, in the first week of the strike, I witnessed an incident not unlike that which occurred today at Keadby power station. I forecast then that it would not be long before we saw a series of similar incidents, as a result of the police encouraging lorry drivers to step on it and to come out of the picket gates at high speed. Will the Home Secretary tell us what instructions have emanated from the many emergency Cabinet meetings at which the miners' strike has been discussed about the strengthening of pressure against the pickets? Is it not high time that he told the Prime Minister to go along to Hobart House, taking some money with him, to settle the strike and so make sure that there are no more tragic accidents of this kind?
  Mr. Maudling: Ministers do not give instructions to chief officers of police about how they carry out the law. It is the responsibility of the police. We must be concerned, in this incident, not only with the tragedy and the loss to the family but also with the position of the driver of the vehicle. It is totally wrong to say anything in this House which assumes in advance of proper inquiry either guilt or absence of guilt, negligence or anything else. I appeal to the House. While we recognise the tragedy that has happened, it would be totally wrong to express any views upon it until the facts are known.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: I, too, extend sympathy on behalf of myself and my constituents to Mrs. Mathews and the family. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the police officers are carrying out their duties in a tolerant and patient manner? Only yesterday I went to Battersea power station with some colleagues, where we heard several small complaints about police officers. The men had built coke fires to keep warm in this bitter weather, but the police took those coke fires away. The men had also made a makeshift wind-break to shelter them from the cold, but the police took it away. These are petty things which should not happen. Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the police in London not to do this?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not think that point arises out of this question. One hears complaints that the police are too restrictive and complaints that they are not restrictive enough. I have great confidence in the discretion of the police, who are responsible for carrying out very difficult duties. I think they carry them out extremely well.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Does the Home Secretary agree that picketing in this dispute has been conducted in a typically British fashion, peacefully and with the minimum of tension? Has he received any information in the last few hours that this tragic incident is ending that state of affairs and has created a new dimension to the dispute?
  Mr. Maudling: No, Sir, I have not had any such information. I would deeply deplore it, and I can see no conceivable
  808
  reason why that should happen. There have been incidents where charges have been made on which I cannot comment because the charges are before the courts. Broadly speaking, the picketing which has been carried out has been in accordance with the law of peaceful picketing. It would be deplorable if this incident, the facts of which as I have said are not yet known, should lead to the exacerbation of what is already a difficult situation.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that his statement is not entirely satisfactory and merely confirms the Press reports which we have all read? Has the Home Secretary seen the report of the National Union of Minworkers which claims that the lorry forced its way to the power station and was immediately blacked by the power station workers, and will he investigate this matter and not merely accept the Press reports?
  Mr. Maudling: I am sorry, but I must restrict myself to the facts reported to me. When a tragic incident like this has occurred, it is right for the police to investigate fully, as they are doing. It is totally wrong for anyone to comment until the facts are known.
  Mr. Michael English: Irrespective of these circumstances, and without asking the Home Secretary to comment upon them, will he remind the House of the duty of the driver faced with a person peacefully standing in the way of his vehicle?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not think that it would be right to assume that that has any relevance to the circumstances of this incident.
  Mr. Oscar Murton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a pure consolidation Bill containing some amendments to improve and to bring it into line with the existing law.

  809
  It was approved by the Joint Select Committee on 1st December last year. The Chairman of the Committee said that it set out the existing law in much clearer language and in a form which is much easier to read.
  On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Murton.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  SUMMER TIME BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This, too, is a Bill of pure consolidation approved by the Joint Select Committee on the same day as the Bill just dealt with—1st December, 1971.
  When the three-year experiment on British Standard Time lapsed at the end of October, 1971, it plainly became sensible to consolidate the three Acts of 1922, 1925 and 1947 in this Bill. That is what the Bill now does.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Murton.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved,
  That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the county borough of Tynemouth, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

  ROAD TRAFFIC (FOREIGN VEHICLES) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.
  810
  66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

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

  ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The Ulster Defence Regiment, which is the subject of my debate this evening, commenced operation in April, 1970. This is the first occasion on which it has been debated in this House. I envisage this as a stocktaking debate so that we may get more information from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Defence for the Army about the progress of the Regiment and point to areas where further advances might be made.
  I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities for this Regiment, which are much appreciated, and the interest which he has taken in its development and recruitment. I know how busy he is when he comes on a visit to Northern Ireland, but some of the part-time men in the Regiment have indicated that they would greatly welcome an opportunity to meet him when he next comes over. I am sure that he will respond accordingly.
  The Regiment was part of the reforms of 1969. It is absolutely important to make clear at the beginning of the debate that, in my view, the Regiment is an effective Force, doing a very good job of vital importance to the security of Northern Ireland.
  Comparisons were made at the beginning between this Regiment and the "B" Specials, but it is important to emphasise that this Regiment has many advantages both in the deployment and in equipment over the former force.
  It has a record of sadness: a record of seven men murdered in foul circumstances, many attacked, many threatened.

  811
  While not asking my hon. Friend to be specific tonight, I ask him to give an assurance that the maximum attention is paid to every method of protecting the members of this Force both on duty and in their off-duty hours.
  I come to the question of recruitment. Unfortunately, at the beginning recruitment got off to a very slow start. Some politicians in Northern Ireland who gave the impression that the "B" Specials might be brought back, or that an alternative third force might be created, did a disservice to the regiment in holding back recruitment. But it is now recognised that this is the Force that people must join to play their part in helping to defend Northern Ireland. The figures for recruiting have been very much more encouraging in the last six to nine months. At present there is a ceiling of 10,000 men, but I understand that this can go higher. I ask my hon. Friend to tell the House how recruiting is progressing, what effect the campaign of intimidation and murder directly on members of the Force has had on recruiting, and how the recruiting campaign of which he has been in charge has been progressing.
  On the subject of advertising and the Press material at present, my hon. Friend would receive a greater response if he were to stress the patriotic element in playing a part in defending Northern Ireland. This would be most useful. I understand that recruiting in certain areas has been disappointing, particularly in parts of County Londonderry, and in South Down. Perhaps my hon. Friend has some ideas about how recruiting in these areas, where there is great need for the Force, can be improved.
  Another point is that at the beginning of 1970, when the Force was being formed, a number of men, particularly in those areas, were turned down because of the ceiling on numbers in the Regiment and because of the need to keep a religious balance in the Regiment, which was a strong motivation in those days. But now there is a desperate need for men, especially in the areas of County Londonderry and South Down. Could another look be taken at the initial applications of men from those areas who are anxious to serve their country?
  Regarding vetting procedures, I recognise that these were inevitably slow in
  812
  the early days, but they have now been brought down to an average of about four weeks. I welcome this trend. I know that in Parliamentary Answers my hon. Friend has said that the Government hope to further reduce the time. Perhaps my hon. Friend can say more about this matter.
  Furthermore, there are cases in which vetting is taking very much longer than the average. In some cases it takes 10 or 12 weeks. I would ask that every effort be made to improve and iron out this problem, as well as improving the general methods of speeding up vetting.
  Another point about vetting procedures is that when someone in a small community applies to join the Regiment and is turned down, this is a very substantial stigma. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise this. For example, if my hon. Friend was blackballed from the Carlton Club he would feel a certain stigma. This is very much the position in a small community such as Northern Ireland, and inevitably it has the effect of holding back recruiting because of this fear. So, whilst I recognise that this is difficult, I would ask once again that this matter be examined to see whether some compromise can be created between, on the one hand, no explanation being given and, on the other hand, an explanation which could reveal the confidentiality of reports about individuals. I would suggest, perhaps, that some form of appeal procedure could be effective in making people a little happier about this, because this is a matter about which there has been a fair amount of anxiety.
  In addition to this, a number of men have been turned down on medical grounds. In some cases they have been told the reason. In other cases they have not been told that they have been turned down on medical grounds. Therefore, this atmosphere of stigma remains. My hon. Friend knows of a case about which I have been in correspondence with him. One hopes that this minor irritant can be overcome by referring the men to an Army doctor, for instance. A short time ago the Catholic membership of the Force was about 15 per cent. What changes have there been? A Member of Parliament in Stormont has said:
  "I would encourage all sections of the community to join this force."

  813
  Those were the words of John Hume in November, 1969. How sad that this atmosphere has changed. He was joined in his remarks by people like Ivan Cooper, Paddy Kennedy and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
  Now, for reasons which have nothing to do with this Force, they seem to have turned very strongly against it. In August, 1971, Austin Currie, a Stormont Member of Parliament, took part in a meeting at St. Mary's Hall, Belfast, with the specific purpose of encouraging Catholics to leave the Force. I was glad to see that, according to Press reports, despite a barrage of propaganda, only very few—I think only 17 on that occasion—followed his advice.
  Another body, a Republican Front organisation, the Catholic Ex-Service Men's Association, has been engaging in propaganda of the same nature to get Catholic members of the force to drop out. I strongly condemn this. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some figures generally on the extent of intimidation and pressure to get Catholic members to leave the Force.
  Another subject of concern is the importance of using the Force locally. This is felt very strongly, particularly in country areas. The men have a strong desire to serve in their own area, where they know the people and the ground, and to avoid having to drive long distances to areas with which they are not familiar.
  I recognise the Regiments' efforts to meet this aim. The formation of additional battalions is immensely welcomed as part of this process. I recognise that to go further in the localisation process depends on having a greater number of men in the Regiment. This is why one comes back to the importance of recruitment, particularly in the areas where the regiment is thin at the moment.
  We have discussed before the question of a permanent battalion of the Regiment. Last summer, in an interview published in the Belfast Telegraph, General Tuzo said:
  "I am strongly in favour of a full-time battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I think it would give a lot of men of that excellent regiment the chance to give more useful service over longer periods."
  814
  I certainly echo that aim. This is the right method of approach.
  However, this is not to be. I would therefore put an alternative idea. I understand that, at the moment, each battalion has a number of full-time men, such as the C.O., the adjutant and a clerk. It would surely increase the effectiveness of this force if each battalion were to have a larger skeleton of full-time men, not, as in the original General Tuzo idea, a full-time battalion as such. With their assistance, one could greatly increase the effectiveness of the part-time men. I hope that this will be considered seriously.
  I also understand that the Regiment was not envisaged to be used in riot situations, but in the turbulent situation of the present in Northern Ireland, a riot situation sometimes blows up where the Regiment is actually involved. I can think of a town where there was arson going on and a unit of the Regiment happened to be there on duty. In this case, the nearest Army unit was a considerable distance away, and the troops were not able to be used.
  Alternatively, let us take an imaginary situation. Let us imagine an R.U.C station in the country, guarded by men of the Ulster Defence Regiment: a crowd attacks it, and they are in the middle of a riot situation. I urge that some form of basic training in crowd control be considered, together with training in the use of CS and rubber bullets, for use in the kind of extreme situation that I have described.
  I come now to a number of detailed points. The first group concern equipment. My hon. Friend told the House on 1st February that the issue of S.L.R. rifles to the Regiment was "nearing completion". May we have more details? Are we to take it that, in time, everyone in the Regiment will have them? Are they getting enough training in the firing of this weapon?
  I am told that there is not enough winter clothing in a number of parts of the Regiment. I understand that in one county area only 10 per cent. of the men have water-proof clothing.
  What percentage of the Regiment have flak jackets. I realise the difficulties. They are in short supply and have to come from America. Perhaps special

  815
  efforts could be made to buy American surplus. They should be given to men in the Regiment.
  Then I have a couple of financial points. I understand that the tax-free bounty is £35. For the Territorial Army, which is not involved actively in the present emergency, it is £60. There is a strong case for having these on an equal footing as a recognition of the work which the Regiment is doing at present.
  A major grouse on the financial side is that P.A.Y.E. is not deducted from earnings. As these tend to go up and down a lot with the amount of additional service that the men undertake, at the end of a tax year they are often confronted with large bills. I know that this point has been looked at. If it could be sorted out, it would be widely appreciated.
  Quite often, the men use their own cars when they are on duty. The allowance of 3p a mile is very low. It is very much lower than that which applies in the Civil Service, and it is even lower than that paid to Members of Parliament, which I thought was fairly near the bottom of the list. I hope that the mileage allowance will be looked at sympathetically.
  Another minor point concerns insurance. There are certain circumstances in which the men are not covered for compensation by the Regiment. If they are involved in injuries, for example, from a hit and run driver or through being stoned when coming off duty they are not covered. A number of men have taken out general accident policies. The amount of money is not large, but as the need for insurance is linked with their service in the Regiment I hope that consideration will be given to the possibility of premiums being met centrally by the Regiment.
  A good deal of use is made of the telephone. It would be useful if more of the men, especially those in outlying areas, could be helped with telephones. Communications are vital.
  Then I hope that my hon. Friend is in a position to tell us about the interchangeability with the Territorial Army which has been operating for some time but which has not been very successful, I understand.
  Those are a few comments about the Regiment. I emphasise as I did at the
  816
  beginning, that I think that the overwhelming bulk of the people of Northern Ireland feel that it is worthy of support. They recognise very strongly its valour, bravery and determination.
  10.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. North (Mr. Stratton Mills) for raising the subject of the Ulster Defence Regiment. This is the first time that we have had the opportunity of debating this as a separate issue since its formation, although we have made points about the Regiment and its progress from time to time. As my hon. Friend says, this is by nature of a stocktaking exercise and I am grateful to him for his interest and support and for the well-justified praise he has given to the Regiment for the magnificent way in which it carries out its duties. I can assure him that I take great pride in my association with the Regiment and look forward to my next visit to the Regiment. It is a most effective force.
  Since I was given responsibility for the Regiment last October, a lot of progress has been made. There were, even at that time, still some doubts in Northern Ireland about the usefulness of the part which the Regiment had to play alongside the Regular Army in defending the peace in Ulster. My main aims then—and I see no reason to change them now —were threefold. The first was to boost and maintain recruitment to the Regiment towards the 10,000 figure. The bigger the Force, the more effective it can be and the greater geographical spread it can have. My second aim was to get for the Regiment the equipment, clothing, buildings and the rest that it needed to ensure that it was never the poor relation of the rest of the Army.
  To do this corners had to be cut, priorities adjusted, pressures exerted. I could see that unless a man had the right kit, the right weapon, the right vehicle and the right base, it was expecting a lot of a part-time soldier to face arduous, sometimes tedious and sometimes dangerous work. We have not gone all the way, and I do not want my hon. Friend to think that we are complacent about what we have achieved, but we are well on the road.

  817
  My third objective was to make it clear to everyone, both here and in Northern Ireland, that the U.D.R. is an efficient, highly disciplined force in which Ulstermen can serve their own country and yet be part of the Army alongside which they serve. In the four visits I made to Northern Ireland last year, I was able to visit every U.D.R. battalion and to see at first hand what an efficient, non-sectarian and worthwhile force the U.D.R. was. In common parlance, it was "in good nick", and it still is.
  My hon. Friend raised a number of interesting points and I will try to deal with as many as possible. The first was to do with recruitment. At the close of business yesterday the strength of the Regiment was 269 officers and 6,876 other ranks, making a total of 7,145. This represents an increase in strength of 70 per cent. over the last six months. I think that is a fantastic record. In addition, about 700 applicants have been accepted but not yet enrolled and a further 665 applications are being processed. The January average of about 160 a week is still about twice what it was six months ago.
  These figures speak for themselves and show that the Regiment has established itself as an effective part of the machinery for bringing peace and security to Northern Ireland and is welcome to the men of Ulster who want to fight for peace. It is in this way, by helping the security forces and being part of the system for overcoming the I.R.A., that we can obtain the peace in Ulster without which there can be no political or social progress.
  We are continuing our efforts to obtain more recruits in all areas and among all sections of the community. My hon. Friend has mentioned Derry and County Down. Obviously, I will look into what he said on my next visit. We are continuing constructive efforts to maintain the record of recruitment. In particular —and I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned this point—we are anxious to see more Roman Catholic applicants. The Regiment is a non-sectarian organisation where people of all denominations and none, can work together. Obviously, perhaps understandably enough, the upsurge in recruiting in recent months has had the effect of reducing the percentage of Roman Catholics.
  818
  My hon. Friend asked about the effects of intimidation. I have no recent evidence to show that this has been a significant factor affecting the number of Roman Catholics serving in the Regiment. The number serving has remained steady during recent months and I do not think that one can pay too high a tribute to the Catholic members of the community for their loyal service to the Regiment.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned vetting. I can promise every prospective applicant, whatever his religious denomination, background or experience, that his application to join the Regiment will be considered throughly and impartially by the G.O.C. Northern Ireland. As regards the vetting of applications, I can reassure the House that there has been no change in the general arrangements for considering applications as they were described during the debates on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill a little over two years ago.
  In short, apart from satisfying ourselves about the standard requirements as regards health, age and so on, our sole purpose is to establish that the applicant is of good character, is not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum and is likely to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. I believe that these arrangements have worked well during the past two years.
  Of course, I understand the disappointment of those who feel that it was not right for them to be rejected. But the application is private. No one need know if some one has made the private application. We do not publish any rejections by name.
  I know that my hon. Friend is most interested in the time taken to clear applications. He will recall that in my reply to his Question on 20th October I said that the whole procedure was taking about four weeks as compared with about six weeks a year earlier. We have improved on this further and the average time is now nearer three weeks than four. I do not believe that it would be right to sacrifice thoroughness for the sake of speed. While we should naturally continue to deal with applications as quickly as possible, we must continue to do our utmost to see that applicants are

  819
  not accepted who are regarded by the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, working on fair and proper lines, as not acceptable for enrolment into the Regiment. Perhaps if a person is rejected he could be examined by his own doctor who could tell him that he was not suitable on medical grounds.
  But I am sure that it is not right that we should adopt a general rule that we should give reasons for rejection. This is a practice to which the Army has adhered over the years. The Ulster Defence Regiment is an integral part of the Army, and I am sure that we are right to maintain this well-tried practice. I agree that sometimes the decision will be a matter of fine professional judgment, but I am convinced that the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, should not only be insulated from political and sectarian influences but should also be protected against pressures to re-open cases already decided.
  I do not know whether I have wholly satisfied my hon. Friend on this matter, but at any rate we have had very few complaints over the years and months.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned full-time elements in the Ulster Defence Regiment. We are precluded by the Act that set up the Regiment from having full-time battalions. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of having more people who can act as permanent staff of the Regiment to undertake duties connected with the basic organisation, administration and running of the various units and sub-units, including the security of U.D.R. property. We are looking very hard at a proposal to increase substantially the number of Conrates, as they are called, for security guard and administrative duties, but the question of having a full-time unit, which I have considered most carefully, would involve legislation and a change in the character of the Regiment. It is basically a part-time force for duty at nights and week-ends, supported by a much smaller number of permanent staff for the duties I have mentioned.
  The question of localisation was also mentioned by my hon. Friend. The very fact that we have had so much expansion and the creation of new battalions and companies will of itself help overcome the need that people felt to work with an
  820
  organisation that could be seen to have some effect on the area in which they live. We have gone a long way, through the additional strength of the U.D.R., to ensure that it has a more local effect.
  But the deployment of the Regiment must be a matter for the military judgment of the G.O.C., and, of course, as the U.D.R. strength increases, so its members will be able to serve nearer their homes.
  My hon. Friend referred to clothing and equipment. I assure my hon. Friend that all have been equipped with S.L.Rs. and that we agree that they must be provided with the equipment to carry out their job. Special clothing items have been provided for the U.D.R. My hon. Friend mentioned, for example, armoured vests. I can inform him that 1,720 of these are being obtained from the United States. The first consignment of 360 has already arrived and been issued, and the U.D.R. now has about 1,200 of these vests in service. To tide them over, the Regular Army in Northern Ireland has loaned some hundreds of its armoured vests to the U.D.R. All ranks have now been issued with the heavy wool jersey instead of the old pattern pullover.
  The U.D.R., together with the Regular Army in Northern Ireland, has been the first to receive the new combat liner, which is a quilted, lightweight, sleeveless garment worn underneath the combat smock. It replaces the greatcoat in the field.
  Windproof and waterproof smocks and trousers are new items which have been specially developed for use in Northern Ireland. When a production run of 6,000 suits for the Regular Army is completed, which will be within a matter of days, a further run of 5,500 suits for the U.D.R. will follow as soon as possible. They will then be fully equipped against all weather conditions.
  My hon. Friend referred to the mileage allowance. The allowance the U.D.R. men receive is in line with the T.A.V.R. allowances, and these are regularly reviewed. I could not authorise a mileage allowance which was special to the U.D.R., though if my hon. Friend can produce examples of hardship being occasioned which would affect the efficiency

  821
  of the Regiment, then obviously I would undertake to look into the matter afresh.
  I do not have time in this debate to reply in detail to my hon. Friend's questions about insurance. Those who are killed or injured due to war conditions are eligible for war pension benefits, but I will write to my hon. Friend with fuller details on this subject.
  We are aware of the dangers that the men face and the shameful, cowardly attacks on members of the U.D.R. which have resulted in death and injury, the
  822
  last only two days ago, are condemned by all decent people.
  We are conscious of the danger that members of the Regiment face, both at home and on duty. I deeply commend and admire their steadfastness. They have never allowed this evil threat to stand in the way of their sense of service to the community.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Draughtsmen
  Draughtsmen
  Unskilled Workers
  Unskilled Workers
  Older Workers
  Older Workers
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Unemployment (Increase)
  Unemployment (Increase)
  Thorne
  Thorne
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Employment (Placings)
  Employment (Placings)
  Wage Rates
  Wage Rates
  Manpower Needs
  Manpower Needs
  Index of Retail Prices
  Index of Retail Prices
  Dudley and Stourbridge
  Dudley and Stourbridge
  Vacancies (Notification)
  Vacancies (Notification)
  Seaside Towns (Older Workers)
  Seaside Towns (Older Workers)
  Training
  Training
  Vocational Training Scheme
  Vocational Training Scheme
  Monmouthshire
  Monmouthshire
  High Wycombe
  High Wycombe
  Coal and Paper Industries (The Lothians)
  Coal and Paper Industries (The Lothians)
  Rotherham, Maltby and Dinnington
  Rotherham, Maltby and Dinnington
  North-East Lancashire
  North-East Lancashire
  "People and Jobs" (Scotland)
  "People and Jobs" (Scotland)
  Unemployment (Duration)
  Unemployment (Duration)
  Greater London
  Greater London
  Dunfermline and Cowdenbeath
  Dunfermline and Cowdenbeath
  Easington
  Easington
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Fife
  Fife
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Unregistered Unemployed Persons
  Unregistered Unemployed Persons
  Swindon Railway Workshops (Redundancies)
  Swindon Railway Workshops (Redundancies)
  East Midlands
  East Midlands
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  Kilsyth
  Kilsyth
  Experimental Work Scheme
  Experimental Work Scheme
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Arbitration Bodies (Government Views)
  Arbitration Bodies (Government Views)
  Commission on Industrial Relations (Confidentiality)
  Commission on Industrial Relations (Confidentiality)
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Industrial Safety (Report)
  Industrial Safety (Report)
  Marconi Works, Wembley
  Marconi Works, Wembley
  Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd.
  Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd.
  Statistics (Classifications)
  Statistics (Classifications)
  Building Industry (Apprentices)
  Building Industry (Apprentices)
  Printing and Publishing Industry Training Board
  Printing and Publishing Industry Training Board
  Redundant Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Redundant Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
  Paisley
  Paisley
  Mining Industry
  Mining Industry
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Employment Exchanges
  Employment Exchanges
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Noise Standards
  Noise Standards
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Industrial Action
  Industrial Action
  Electronics Industry (Scotland)
  Electronics Industry (Scotland)
  Coventry, Nuneaton and Bedworth
  Coventry, Nuneaton and Bedworth
  Unemployment (Scottish Representatives)
  Unemployment (Scottish Representatives)
  Secretary of State (Visit to Bolton)
  Secretary of State (Visit to Bolton)
  Coal Miners (Ages)
  Coal Miners (Ages)
  Persons Over 45
  Persons Over 45
  Building Industry (Scotland)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities and Polytechnics (Official Visits)
  Universities and Polytechnics (Official Visits)
  Speech Therapy Services (Report)
  Speech Therapy Services (Report)
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Nursery Education (Northern Region)
  Nursery Education (Northern Region)
  Milk
  Milk
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  James Committee
  James Committee
  Classes (Southampton)
  Classes (Southampton)
  Colleges (Secondary and Sixth Form)
  Colleges (Secondary and Sixth Form)
DEFENCE
  Armed Forces Personnel (Secondment)
  Armed Forces Personnel (Secondment)
  Expenditure (Wales)
  Expenditure (Wales)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Equipment (Purchasing Policy)
  Equipment (Purchasing Policy)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Pre-Release Hostels
  Pre-Release Hostels
  Juvenile Crime
  Juvenile Crime
  Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971
  Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971
  Police Reorganisation
  Police Reorganisation
  Pakistan Citizens
  Pakistan Citizens
  Police (Allegations)
  Police (Allegations)
  Adoption Act, 1958
  Adoption Act, 1958
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  West Stirlingshire
  West Stirlingshire
  Retail Census (Confidentiality)
  Retail Census (Confidentiality)
  Coal Mines (Gas)
  Coal Mines (Gas)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Metrication White Paper
  Metrication White Paper
CIVIL SERVICE
  Staff (Open University Courses)
  Staff (Open University Courses)
  Industrial Employees
  Industrial Employees
  Non-Industrial Employees
  Non-Industrial Employees
  Letters to Ministers and Departments (Postage)
  Letters to Ministers and Departments (Postage)
SCOTLAND
  Student Union Fees
  Student Union Fees
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Belgian Trawlers (Sussex Coast)
  Belgian Trawlers (Sussex Coast)
  Work and Advisory Services (Staff)
  Work and Advisory Services (Staff)
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET (HISTORY)
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET (HISTORY)
  NORTH-WEST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
  NORTH-WEST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PRIME MINISTER (LETTERS)
  PRIME MINISTER (LETTERS)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (DEFENCE TALKS)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (DEFENCE TALKS)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT
  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  PRIME MINISTER OF NORWAY (MEETING)
  PRIME MINISTER OF NORWAY (MEETING)
  MACHINE TOOL INDUSTRY (TRAINING)
  MACHINE TOOL INDUSTRY (TRAINING)
  CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (MINISTERS)
  CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (MINISTERS)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Adjournment Debates (Attendance of Ministers)
  Adjournment Debates (Attendance of Ministers)
ENVIRONMENT
  Water, Sewerage and Waterway Authorities
  Water, Sewerage and Waterway Authorities
  Bedford (East-West Traffic)
  Bedford (East-West Traffic)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  North-West Region (Study)
  North-West Region (Study)
  British Railways (Regional Administrative Structure)
  British Railways (Regional Administrative Structure)
  Derelict Sites
  Derelict Sites
  Bournemouth (Conference Centre and Marina)
  Bournemouth (Conference Centre and Marina)
  New Towns (House Sales)
  New Towns (House Sales)
  A30–A303 Trunk Route
  A30–A303 Trunk Route
  Haringey (Financial Aid)
  Haringey (Financial Aid)
  Building Industry (Craftsmen)
  Building Industry (Craftsmen)
  Imperial Smelting Corporation, Avonmouth
  Imperial Smelting Corporation, Avonmouth
  Road Casualties (Payment for Treatment)
  Road Casualties (Payment for Treatment)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  British Embassy, Dublin
  British Embassy, Dublin
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Seamen (Loss of Hearing)
  Seamen (Loss of Hearing)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Road Vehicle Gas Fuel
  Road Vehicle Gas Fuel
WALES
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Carmarthen (Paediatrics Consultant)
  Carmarthen (Paediatrics Consultant)

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

MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS BY DESERTED WIVES
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: 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 by what means an English wife who has lived with her husband in Scotland or Northern Ireland all their married life together, and on being deserted by him has had to return to her former home in England, can take proceedings against him for maintenance, if she cannot afford to go to Scotland or Northern Ireland to proceed against him there.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I am advised that legal aid would be available for such proceedings in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer. Is he aware that a wife living in England who has to take proceedings in Scotland may not be able to afford the cost of travelling or accommodation? Are those covered by legal aid?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, where a legal aid certificate is granted it can cover reasonable travelling and subsistence expenses.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as this question is concerned with the important matter of domicile, can the noble Lord tell me whether the Government are considering introducing legislation which will remove this discrimination against women?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think there is a case here of
956
discrimination against women. Assuming the matrimonial home had been in Scotland, and the marriage broke up and the woman remained there but the man came to England, the proceedings would take place in Scotland. Then the man would have to travel up from England to contest the proceedings, and the expense would be on him. So I think it cuts both ways.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it a fact, then, that there is no question of there being any discrimination between the domicile of married partners?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should not wish to get drawn too deeply into this subject, because my preparation for the Question on the Order Paper has let me to the conclusion that this is a complicated legal subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend would be good enough to explain to the noble Baroness that a Private Member's Bill is being introduced.

PROPOSED BILLESDON BY-PASS
3.9 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: 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 plans have been made for the A.47 road to by-pass the village of Billesdon, Leicestershire; and, if so, when are they likely to be implemented.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, a recent re-appraisal of the proposals for a by-pass of Billesdon is now being considered by the Department of the Environment.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say how long these considerations are likely to take?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is not very easy to say. The scheme has to be considered against other calls on road expenditure. However, I can say that if the decision to

957
go ahead was taken and it was put in the preparation pool, construction might begin within five years.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the A.47 road is the main road from the industrial Midlands to the East Coast ports and the growing City of Peterborough, and that the volume of traffic has of recent years increased considerably?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are aware of this, and the local council has made representations about this matter. The fact that the centre of Billesdon has now been designated a conservation area will no doubt help the noble Lord's case.

CARE OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
LORD ARCHIBALD: 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, in view of the increasing expectancy of life for children born with physical handicaps, for example, spastics, spina bifidas, autistics, et cetera, there is not a much greater need for provision for them in various phases of their lives—infancy, early schooling, advanced education, and in suitable cases, university education, and also for protected employment in many cases; and whether the planning of provision of special schools, hostels, et cetera, is based on forthcoming needs rather than on past requirements which are no longer relevant.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, my right honourable friends who are responsible for the education, social services and employment of young people are aware of the increased expectancy of life of children born with physical handicaps. Planning is based on estimates for the future. With some adjustment some of these young people will be able to avail themselves of the provisions made for the non-handicapped, but many will need
958
special facilities and these are gradually being provided. A circular was sent to local education authorities in May, 1969, drawing attention to the increase in numbers of children handicapped by spina bifida and their special educational needs. In June, 1971, a circular was issued about the education of autistic children. They are not usually physically handicapped, but were mentioned in the Question. More hostels are being provided by local authorities, as are day centres for those incapable of remunerative employment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his, as usual, sympathetic Answer, may I ask whether the projection which the Department has as to forthcoming needs has been based on the fact that neither surgical techniques nor medical science are standing still, and as they are developing, so the need will develop? I wonder whether the projection is based on the present state or on the expected increase in the future in the numbers involved.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, perhaps I can best answer the noble Lord by saying that the number of places provided for physically handicapped children has been increasing. There were 225 new places provided in special schools in 1967–68, rising to 902 places in 1971–72 and it will be about 940 places in the forthcoming programme for 1972–73. At the moment there are just over 400 physically handicapped children awaiting entry into special schools.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he has considered the position of children suffering from disablement, including deafness, whose educational position is prejudiced by transport problems. Also, in his circulars which may be going forth in the future to local authorities, could he give some suggestions as to the employment of existing transport facilities which would take account especially of disabled children who live in rather remote areas? This matter is much affected by the fact that the population tends to spread more and more and transportation becomes a difficult problem to the parents of these children.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I appreciate the problem which the noble

959
Lord has put to the House. Transport is at the discretion of the local education authorities, although back in 1965 the Department of Education did ask local authorities if they would exercise their discretion as flexibly as possible. If I remember rightly, they particularly mentioned in that letter the difficulties of transport in the more far-flung rural areas. The noble Lord mentioned deafness. He may be interested to know that the Open University is at the moment providing special courses for deaf students.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, while I recognise that in the noble Lord's original Answer to the Question of my noble friend the Government accepts the need to extend the range of facilities across the needs of handicapped children, adolescents and adults, could he also tell the House what progress is now being made with the development of multi-disciplinary assessment centres?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services intends shortly to give advice to local authorities about the day care of handicapped children generally. I am advised that my right honourable friend will particularly want to lay stress on the need for the multidisciplinary assessment of these children to precede the making of arrangements for day care.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us whether in the last circular which was sent out by the Department any attempt was made to encourage neighbouring local authorities to come together with a view to providing what may be a scarce facility, which a single local authority might find difficulty in covering alone?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in almost the first question which I answered in this House the noble Baroness had made the point relating to co-operation. I think that if the noble Baroness looks at the second of the circulars which I mentioned in my initial Answer to the noble Lord—the circular on autistic children—she will find that her views are reflected in one of the paragraphs in that circular.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, while appreciating in general the Minister's replies to the noble Lord's question, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will give special attention to two areas in which I think help is necessary: first, for those who have disabled children and young people in the home and who need help—very often financial help; and secondly, in enabling parents to go to visit children in institutional care?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I will certainly acquaint my right honourable friend with the view expressed by the noble Lord. Perhaps it would be right to point out that there are between 40 and 50 homes for the physically handicapped which have been provisionally approved for loan sanction by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services during this and the next two financial years, and that this represents a 300 per cent. increase of provision in this particular section.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, as this question covers an enormous field, could the Government consider giving us an early date for debating the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for which no date has yet been allocated?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, doubtless this will be arranged through the usual channels.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he has any information about the building of schools by local authorities and whether facilities are being provided to make those schools accessible to disabled children, so that they do not have to be segregated in special schools?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that what the noble Baroness is asking for is accepted almost throughout the educational world. It is easier, I know, to accept than to do. I will certainly convey what the noble Baroness has said to the Architects and Building Branch of my Department. I might add that each new school for the physically handicapped contains a unit for nursery provision for children, so that these schools to-day are providing for children from the age of three onwards.

961
Lords, I meant provision to be made available in able-bodied schools, so that disabled children could be in able-bodied schools.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry. What I added at the end was not strictly relevant, but I repeat what I said at the beginning of my answer to the noble Baroness: I will certainly pass on and discuss the point with the Architects and Building Branch.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., a statement on the British Embassy in Dublin.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
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 Viscount Goschen be appointed to the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairman of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE REGULA- TIONS (VALIDATION) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL LIST BILL
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, to-day's business is unique in that your Lordships are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill to make further provision for Her Majesty's Civil List in the middle of what we all acknowledge to be a strikingly successful reign which all your Lordships hope will be a long and continued one. The Bill that we are discussing is a Money Bill in every sense of the term. I assume that, in accordance with precedent, your Lordships will wish me to deal with the subject with great brevity: such has been the custom of your Lordships' House for many years. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Queen, and those members of the Royal Family who share the burden of her work, to continue to serve the nation in the way the nation expects. I am sure your Lordships support this objective. The Bill provides the machinery to do this in an appropriate manner. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, following precedent, I do not propose to discuss this Bill. No one in the House will disagree with the noble Earl's remarks about the successful nature of the services that are rendered by Her Majesty and the Royal Family. There are other views on the administration of these matters, but I certainly would not recommend anyone raising them in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
3.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Before I explain the purpose of this Bill, the House will, I am sure, wish to join me in expressing our appreciation and thanks to the outgoing Chairman of the British Airports Authority, Sir Peter Masefield, for his leadership of the British Airports Authority during the first six years of its

963
existence. As many of your Lordships will recall, Sir Peter Masefield had the challenging task of setting up an entirely new organisation to run this country's most important international airports, which until 1965 had been owned and managed directly by the Government Department concerned. Although the Authority is sometimes criticised—and what Authority is not?—there can be no doubt of the great measure of success which Sir Peter Masefield has achieved in making the Authority one of our most successful and profitable public undertakings. I am sure, too, that we shall all wish to welcome the new Chairman, Mr. Nigel Foulkes, who took over on January 1, and to wish him well.
The objects of the Bill are, first, to increase the statutory limit on the Authority's total borrowings, and second, to enable the Authority to borrow in currencies other than sterling—which it is not at present empowered to do—both temporarily and long-term.
The British Airports Authority was set up by the Airports Authority Act 1965. The Act vested in the Authority the three airports serving London—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted—and also Scotland's intercontinental airport, Prestwick, and made it the duty of the Authority to provide the services and facilities necessary or desirable for their operation. In common with other nationalised industries, the Authority was given powers to borrow from the Minister in order to carry out this duty, and a statutory limit of £70 million was set on its borrowing powers. At the time of the transfer, the net asset value of the four airports, which was deemed to be a debt to the Government, was nearly £53 million. In the first five years of its operations to March, 1971, the Authority has carried out substantial developments at its airports which have increased their net asset value by £22 million. It has financed all but £5·5 million of its capital spending from its own resources, so that its total borrowings, including the initial capital debt, currently stand at just under £60 million.
Your Lordships may like me to say briefly how the Authority has spent its money so far, and may also wish to hear something about its future plans. Most of its spending has been on improving facilities at Heathrow and Gatwick, which are its two largest, busiest and fastest
964
growing airports. At Heathrow the Authority has had to make provision to cope with the new large, wide-bodied aircraft—the jumbo-jets—which can carry almost three times as many passengers as previous aircraft. It has already spent nearly £12 million on redeveloping Terminal 3—the terminal for intercontinental traffic—where separate buildings are being provided for arrivals and departures. The Authority has also had to rebuild Terminal 1 almost completely and to make substantial improvements to Terminal 2.
At Gatwick the Authority has greatly improved the airport's operational efficiency by extending the runway Eastwards and by constructing a new taxiway and new aircraft stands. Improvements have been made to the terminal building; but it is now plainly inadequate for the number of passengers using it during the summer months, and the Authority has recently started to build a Northern extension to the existing terminal, which will almost double the space available. As traffic at Stansted, and at Prestwick has grown more slowly, less work has been necessary at these airports. But the Authority has replaced the Nissen huts at Stansted with a terminal building, which they are now having to extend for the second time. The main runway at Prestwick has been resurfaced and a new office block erected there.
As to the Authority's future plans for capital investment at these four airports and at Edinburgh, which was handed over by the D.T.I. on April 1 last year, noble Lords may recall that my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade announced in another place on July 27 that the Government did not think it would be necessary to construct new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton or Stansted in the foreseeable future. Heathrow and Gatwick would continue as major airports serving the London area for as long as can be foreseen and he foresaw the possibility of dispensing with Stansted as a public transport airport and possibly closing it altogether when the third London airport became operational. These decisions provide the framework within which the Authority must make its plans for catering for a continuing increase in the numbers of aircraft movements and passengers using the London airports. Nearly 16 million passengers passed through Heathrow last

965
year and nearly 4 million through Gatwick, and by the time the third London Airport is operational these totals will be very much higher. Expenditure will therefore be required both to improve facilities, so that these large numbers of people can move as quickly and easily through the airports as is practicable, and also to provide the amenities they will need while waiting for their aircraft.
In addition, the advent of larger heavier aircraft will involve the Authority in expenditure on strengthening runways, providing new stands for jumbo-jets and further improving the three terminals at a total estimated cost of £26 million. The Authority will spend another £11 million in the next five years on improving access to Heathrow. Of this £6 million is needed for the terminal and connections to the extension of the Piccadilly Line. The line is now in the process of construction and will provide rapid access for many passengers to the airport. The other £5 million will be spent on improving the access from the West side of the airport.
At Gatwick the Authority intends to build two major extensions to the existing terminal buildings, which when completed will more than double the existing capacity; one extension, the Northern building has already been begun. The main construction work on the Southern building, which will be used mostly for domestic passengers, will start in spring 1973. These two buildings and other improvements to the terminal area will cost some £20 million. The Authority has applied for planning permission to extend the runway Westwards so that the larger jets can use Gatwick without a weight penalty. The application was considered at a public inquiry last year. I understand that a decision will be announced shortly. If the decision is favourable, the Authority will spend £6 million on this extension and on extension to the aprons. As at Heathrow, passenger access to the airport needs improving, and the Authority expects to spend about £4 million on a new link road to the M.23 and associated development. At Prestwick £1 million will be spent on over-slabbing the runway and £1·8 million on a new cargo terminal.
At Edinburgh a larger development is necessary. As many of your Lordships are aware, the existing airport is far from
966
satisfactory. In accordance with the terms of the transfer agreement by which it received the airport from the D.T.I., the Authority has applied for planning permission to build a new runway and a new terminal complex. These applications are currently the subject of a public inquiry; if planning permission is forthcoming the Authority will have to build what is in essence a new airport. The D.T.I. will help with a contribution of three-quarters of the cost—up to a limit of £6·5 million.
It is greatly to the Authority's credit that it has so far been able to finance nearly all of its capital expenditure from its own resources: over seven-eighths, in fact. The Authority intends to continue to fund much of its future expenditure in this way, but it cannot finance it all. It is for this reason that we are now proposing to increase the limit to £125 million. This limit will not of course be adequate to cover all the capital expenditure required for the building of the third London airport. But it will probably suffice to cover preliminary expenditure in the next few years such as planning and engineering studies which must take place before the airport can be built.
The second object of the Bill, which is covered by Clause 2, is to empower the Authority to borrow in currencies other than sterling within the limit fixed for total borowings. The Authority will probably not need to make use of this provision in the immediate future, but it seems sensible to take the opportunity provided by this Bill to bring the Authority in line with other nationalised industries (including the Airways Board) in this regard, rather than leave the matter to be dealt with on a separate occasion. Under Clause 2(1) these borrowings will of course be strictly controlled.
In recent years our national airports have tended to receive more criticism than praise. That is not altogether surprising. The enormous growth in air transport has meant more noise for people who live near these airports and at times frustrating delays for airport users. It is right that we should require the highest standards from our international airports, and it is right that every practicable method of minimising the disturbance to those who live near airports should be employed. Under successive Governments the Authority

967
has done its best to mitigate the disturbance. Fortunately, there is firm evidence that future aircraft will be much quieter than those in use to-day. But the Authority does deserve praise for what it has achieved in the relatively short time that it has been in existence. Even after returning substantial sums to the Government in the form of interest charges and taxation, it has shown a profit every year; last year indeed the net profit exceeded £5·7 million. It has used its profits to finance much of the substantial improvements which increasing traffic has made necessary at all its major airports. It has continued to improve its return on net assets. It has become a substantial earner of foreign currency, without materially increasing its landing charges, though there will have to be some increases in these charges this year.
The Authority will have to continue to grow and to expand its resources to provide the facilities needed for this vital section of our international transport. Your Lordships will know that Heathrow already not only handles more international passengers than any other airport in the world, but also handles more cargo, in terms of value, than any other port in the United Kingdom except London and Liverpool. Very heavy demands will be made on our international airports in the coming decade, and, in meeting this task, the Authority will have to operate within the confines of the Government's policy which gives full weight to the need to control noise and to avoid damage to the environment in the development of new or existing airports. I trust that your Lordships will also agree that within these constraints the Authority's borrowing powers should be adequate to provide what is necessary for all who use their airports. I commend the Bill to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Bill and we followed what he had to say with great interest, although there were moments when I had some difficulty in following exactly what he said because his mind was working rather more rapidly than mine. We shall give this Bill a Second Reading,
968
of course, because we give all proper support to the British Airports Authority. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in taking this opportunity of adding my tribute to the work of its recently retired Chairman, Sir Peter Masefield. As the noble Lord said, the Authority had to deal with an industry or a service which is growing and changing rapidly, which constantly needed adaptation to new technology. It had its own special difficulties, and there have been complaints from all manner of people. Yet, despite all these difficulties and all the surrounding areas of complaint from the environmental lobby (if I may so call them), Sir Peter and those who served under him did their job absolutely splendidly.
I am bound to say, however, especially listening to the warm praise which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had to offer to the Chairman, that I am all the more surprised that it was found impossible to renew his contract. I am sure we all congratulate Sir Peter on his New Year's knighthood. But there are many—many who believe in fair play and justice—who are distinctly uneasy about the treatment of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. The knighthood was fine. But was it really necessary to pull the carpet from under his feet just as the sword was falling on his shoulder? There are many of us who think that his appointment as Chairman was not renewed because he said what he believed to be true about the Government's rejection of all aviation opinion about Foulness. I shall return to that matter later, but first I want to ask about general policy for airport planning.
I believe that for several reasons we are at a point when the whole policy of airport planning needs to be looked at again carefully and quite afresh. There was a time when the only argument that one heard was that all services should go into one airport, and every operator insisted that inter-line traffic was so important that he must be allowed to operate from this one main centre. That is how we came to see the great development of Heathrow. But various developments now come together to demand a rethinking of the problem. For one thing, an over-large international airport is synonymous with time-wasting. The sheer size of Heathrow now, in my view, prevents maximum efficiency. A passenger has to

969
check in three-quarters of an hour or an hour before take-off, but there are many who add on to this time another half-hour or so simply because they are unable to find their way around, or are afraid that they cannot find their way around, and need to have more time in hand.
All this is to be deprecated, even if one is going to save a matter of hours on a trans-continental flight. But if it is a matter of a 40 or 50 minute flight from one point in Europe to another, it really is absurd that we should have to add on so much waste of time before and after the actual movement from A to B. Therefore there is an argument for segregating the short-haul traffic, which, after all, is about 60 per cent. of the whole aircraft movements to-day.
Then we have this quite amazing growth of the inclusive tour traffic—what one might call the "coach traffic" much of which could well be handled very efficiently at an airport separated from the main centre for international scheduled flights. We have also the growing belief that we should encourage and cater for much more air traffic from the Provinces. Here, too, with proper airport planning we can save time. The other day I was discussing certain new services now operating from the East Midlands airport. They were to be operated by an aircraft which is somewhat slower than the latest available machines; nevertheless, with these somewhat slower machines a businessman from the Midlands—Nottingham, Leicester, Derby and indeed Birmingham—could be offered a service to Frankfurt or Amsterdam, for example, at a journey time from office or home to destination some two hours shorter than the services now being operated from Heathrow with faster and more modern machines. This is simply because the surface journey time was cut, and similarly the check-in time was so much nearer take-off time at the smaller and, in this respect, more efficient airport at Castle Donington. In other words, here again it is more efficient to use the provincial airport.
In addition to all these factors there is the quite decisive development of new, quieter aircraft that can be made available for operation within the next decade. Here I have an interest to declare of
970
which noble Lords are well aware, but I declare it again. However, apart from my interest, this factor is there and must be taken into account when one looks ahead for appropriate airport requirements. All this means that we ought to be assured that before fresh sums of money are allocated to the British Airports Authority the Vote ought to be against the background of a known overall airport plan, and despite the details which the noble Lord has given us I am not convinced that at the present time we really have an overall airport plan. I was gratified when Her Majesty's Government accepted an Amendment of mine during the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill, which places upon the new Civil Aviation Authority the responsibility for planning future airport policy.
The first question I want to ask the noble Lord is how he sees the thinking of the planning of airport policy by the C.A.A. and the B.A.A. and the Government to be meshed in together. Which is going to be the supreme authority in this field? Who is going to be equipped to go deepest and widest in all these related matters? Is it intended that there should be one real leader in the country on airport planning, or are we going to get a frustrating conflict between the major executive body—the British Airports Authority—and the Civil Aviation Authority and the Government of the day? I suggest that we cannot sensibly vote these sums unless we know what is to be the future of other airports in the country, and in particular Luton, Stansted and Gatwick, as well as Heathrow. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made a reference to the extension to the terminal, aprons and runway at Gatwick. I thought he observed that the development at Gatwick had been less than expected, but I am told the expectation there is that they will reach saturation point before other facilities are available. I want to ask the noble Lord, where do I turn now if I want to judge of these matters? How do I find the overall planning of Her Majesty's Government in this field? Where are all the facts set out and how is the policy with regard to the B.A.A. to be fitted into the overall airport policy making?
Then I want to ask about the proposal to build the Third London Airport out

971
on the sands of the Essex coast. We did not have the Statement on this matter in the House yesterday because it was thought helpful all round to discuss it to-day, and I have a number of questions to ask which have a relevance to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that some of the money was to be allocated to the preparatory planning for Foulness. Can he be a little more specific as to what this work entails and how much of this money will be spent on what he calls "preparatory planning"? Is it possible for the noble Lord now to give me a figure for the estimated eventual cost of the Foulness project, including the cost of the access routes? Can it really be true, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, appeared to be saying the other day, that a definite decision was being taken with regard to Foulness without any estimate having been arrived at? How much money is involved in this, and what sort of breakdown is there of the eventual capital requirement?
I wonder, too, whether the noble Lord can say to what extent the proposed new responsibilities for airport planning of the Civil Aviation Authority impinge upon, or will influence, the development of Foulness? We are going to have this new body, the Civil Aviation Authority, which I wish well and I hope will be the repository of all air transport and aviation opinion and knowledge in this country: to what extent will it be able to influence this proposed development down on the Essex coast?
My Lords, I wish to ask just one more question about Gatwick. Does the noble Lord know of the uncertainty which has been created among the operators at Gatwick? I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is in the Chamber, and I should not be at all surprised if he were to confirm that there is a similar uncertainty at Luton. I know that in the case of Luton there is the public inquiry and little can be said, but in the case of Gatwick I feel that the Government are running into trouble. Although we have had this clamour about the noise around Gatwick and Heathrow, among the people at both those airports there is now considerable worry about their jobs and the future of their livelihood. So far as I can see, some of those people who did not want to have Gatwick developed at all
972
are very agitated as they believe that with the reorganisation of local government they are going to be deprived of the rateable value which that development offers.
In all these areas there is uncertainty, and I should like the noble Lord to say whether it would be possible to publish a statement or a White Paper in the light of what has happened in the last year or so, and especially in relation to Foulness, giving some indication of what the time scales are and what the future expectations may be at Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted as well as Foulness. I ask for that authoritative statement, but I go on then to ask the noble Lord, who is going to draw it up? Which Department of this Government is really responsible for these matters now? I should have thought that it would have something to do with transport, something to do with the Departments that hitherto we have thought have been responsible for air transport and aviation. But the Statement yesterday in another place was made by the Minister of the Environment, and when one reads what he had to say the impression which he creates is that air transport does not come into this at all; it is a matter of environmental effects and, as he says, regional planning. Now of course we have to take into account the environment and regional problems, but I feel that we ought also to take into account the needs of aviation and air transport. At the moment there is really no evidence at all that these criteria are taken into account by Her Majesty's present advisers. I ask these questions. I gave the noble Lord some indication of what I would ask. I have probably gone a little further, but I hope he will be able to give us some satisfaction.
3.47 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I should like to begin by following the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in paying a tribute to the man who in the last few years and until very recently has led the British Airports Authority in such an admirable and profitable way. I have known Sir Peter Masefield for nearly all of his professional life. I know him to be one of aviation's polymaths, and I think we should all like to feel that in future his tremendous knowledge will

973
continue to be at the service of British civil aviation.
This Bill is quite uncomplicated, but to me at first blush it seems a little odd. It may be that I am under a misapprehension but one gathers from the Explanatory Memorandum on the earlier Act that money which is borrowed in sterling would come from the National Loans Fund. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether I am right in assuming that any other money borrowed will necessarily be in foreign currencies. To put my point differently, is it to be inferred from the Bill that the Authority cannot go to the City of London for loans whilst it may in certain circumstances, with Treasury permission, go to Wall Street or Zurich? If that inference is correct, I should like to know why this restriction is applied. If it is correct, it would seem to be inconsistent with the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment that at the appropriate time it would be highly desirable to involve private capital in the Maplin project.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made it clear that only a small part of this money is likely to be expended on planning for Foulness, and I may say that on the whole that was a source of some satisfaction. In the great debate which we had in your Lordships' House on the Third London Airport almost a year ago, those of us who were against this project were in a small minority; but if I may say so we were all people with a pretty thorough knowledge of aviation, and we contemplated the Foulness project, as it was then called, with the deepest concern. It seems to me that the views which we expressed then have gained a great deal of ground since, and in the debate in another place, on the Second Reading of the Bill which we are considering to-day. the deepest suspicions were voiced. I believe that those suspicions, in the minds of the majority of those who continue to think about airports, will harden into the sort of certainty that some of us expressed 12 months ago.
I was glad to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, how a great deal of this money which can be borrowed is likely to be spent. I was rather disappointed that it was for the most part
974
going into improvements and modifications of what exists already—it seems that there are to be no new runways constructed to carry us through the 1970s. If I misunderstood him there, I should like to be corrected, because I know that unless we have an additional runway mileage for the second half of the 1970s we shall run out of runway capacity.
There seems to be also among the consequences of our Common Market entry, assuming that is accomplished, the necessity to develop much further than seems at present contemplated communications between provincial centres and cities on the Continent. This point was made somewhat differently by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I want to ask the noble Lord whether it is intended to spend some of this money in this direction. There is at present a tendency for all international traffic to gravitate to the great centres like Heathrow for interline exchange, and perhaps the traffic burden of London airports could be alleviated by developing intra-European air transport between twin cities, and perhaps by introduction of a European cabotage fare, a system something on the lines already operating in the United States and Australia, which would make air transport much more attractive financially to the passenger and consequently encourage the expansion of the airline network in Europe and the demand for European-built aeroplanes for Europeans.
I should like, too, to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether it is intended to spend any of this money on long term planning additionally to the planning which he mentioned in connection with Maplin or Foulness. If noble Lords will bear with me for a few minutes, I will explain why I am asking this question. Continually in the minds of all noble Lords interested in aviation is the development of QTOL, STOL and VTOL—that is to say, quiet, short and vertical take-off aircraft. In your Lordships' House a year ago I dared to make a quantitative prediction of the progress of QTOL, and I suggested consequences which would flow from that prediction in the policy of airport construction. There has already, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, hinted, been considerable progress towards the fulfilment of that prophecy. If we take as our standard that admirable old workhorse the

975
Boeing 707, with its almost intolerable noise level, 111 p.n.db., it is worth noting that the Boeing 747, the jumbo-jet, which started at the same intolerable level, has already been reduced to 108 p.n.db., which, although it does not seem at all likely, corresponds to a 30 per cent. reduction in noise energy. At the present time in the United States there is flying the DC 10, with a noise level of a different order, 101 p.n.db. Already the Trijet, with our own RB. 211 engine, is down to 98 p.n.db. It seems to me that this is very remarkable progress indeed and that we are establishing a trend which ought to have a very great effect upon what we do, and I can only hope that it will be allowed to.
There is no change since this time a year ago in the technological possibilities of STOL and VTOL. They are as certain of achievement as ever. It is merely a matter of whether we go ahead and capitalise our expertise, which is ahead of the rest of the world still, or whether we procrastinate until the others catch up and act. But either way airport planning will decisively be affected by a change in aircraft design. The aircraft of the future will undoubtedly affect the design of the airports of the future. The situation of the airports, their position, will affect the required performance characteristics of the aircraft, and the best combinations of aircraft and airports will depend upon their accessibility to the traveller.
I am clear that in the design of airports the British Airports Authority has a clear function. I am clear that the Civil Aviation Authority has a planning function. I understand quite clearly that in the creation of new aircraft the Government and the industry have clear functions to perform. But I am by no means clear with whom resides responsibility for creating the links between the urban centres, or perhaps rural centres, and the airports. This is the third arm of the overall system, and it is of vital importance. One would like to feel that there is the same kind of imagination behind the achievement of these communication links as there is behind the design of aircraft.
Is this third arm the responsibility of the Airports Authority? Can it attract any of the money for its development from the borrowing powers of this Bill?
976
I suggest that we are in some danger of designing for the future on the basis of what we have to-day rather than on extrapolation from it. For example, we are, I believe, planning the Maplin project on the basis of the sort of aeroplanes we have to-day. We know, for another example that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of a new link with London Airport at Heathrow by means of Tube railways: a system with obvious merits in dense urban complexes but, I believe, open to serious question in this new application. But we also know of thoughts and of plans for experiments with hover-trains and overhead railways, of overhead railways pneumatically sustained and driven by linear electric motors. Some of them show most promising economic and technological possibilities. Their economics should be studied in the context of airport access and of communications in the airport area.
So in addition to the questions I have asked, I make a twofold plea: first, to think of the future, and the expenditure of the British Airports Authority in that future, in a comprehensive way in which the airport and its services, the overland communications and the aircraft, are all seen as part of a single pattern. Secondly, to plan this future imaginatively, and not to assume that we shall always, for ever, get into the air by charging along the ground like the Wright brothers did at the beginning of the century. Incidentally, in the latter part of their work, they introduced means to shorten take-off because they were men of vision. We must extend this imaginative thinking not only to aeroplanes, not only to the airport services, but to the overland communications as well. In other words, I hope that some of this new money can go into new thinking.
4.3 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, like other noble Lords, may I be allowed to pay my personal tribute to Sir Peter Masefield? In the years that he has been Chairman of the British Airports Authority he has left a very fine achievement behind him and, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I am extremely sorry that he has not been allowed to continue his work there. I do not know why: we have never been

977
told. Sir Peter has tremendous experience of the whole field of aviation. Many noble Lords will recall that at the end of the war he was Chief Executive of British European Airways. He is still a comparatively young man, and I should like to see his services used in this advancing technology in the country. We owe him a great debt for what he has already done for the nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, complained about the problems at Heathrow. He should cast his mind back to January, 1946, when the late Lord Winster went down to London Airport and dug the first sod. The Socialist Government of the day were determined to rush up London Airport at Heathrow, regardless of what was happening in the rest of the world (very little was done in research in America), and the result was that we finished up with the centre of the airport holding the majority of the buildings. Every bag of cement that has to go into London Airport for building has to go through a tunnel. We all know the untold delays that happen in trying to get through these tunnels. The Labour Party must bear a very big responsibility. In fact, I think the planning of Heathrow is a lasting monument to Socialism. Sir Peter Masefield took over a very real mess, and he has made it tolerable. I must say that the new terminal building compares with anything in Europe. I think we should also pay a tribute to the staff of London Airport, who have worked under great difficulties and made something worth while; and we have to make the best of it.
Having said that, I think I should add that the British Airports safety control system is probably the best in the world. It is not perfect, but it is a very fine system, and far ahead of anything I have seen elsewhere. One very murky day last year I sat in the front of a VC.10 going into Kennedy Airfield. The control was bad. One could not hear what the controller was saying in the control tower: he had a very mixed accent. There were other airliners on the right, the left, in front, and behind, and it was a question of following the leader. If ever an airline captain earns what is considered a monthly salary, these men flying into Kennedy Airport certainly do it all the time.
978
We certainly have a very fine control system in Britain. Apart from the five airports under the control of the Authority—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Prestwick and Turnhouse—there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, no real long-term plan covering all the airports in the United Kingdom to serve the population with a properly thought-out system. After all, they are all taxpayers and they are entitled to these facilities, as well as those living in Greater London or near the airports I have mentioned. We have had talk about the Severn Airport, in the West Country. Is it to be Filton? Can we be told something about the long-term planning? We have Manchester Airport, Ringway, one of the best administered airports in the country. It is well thought out and built for expansion, but there is a war going on between Manchester and Liverpool. Liverpool want to catch up with Manchester, 38 miles away. The Government must give thought to the broader problems covering the whole country, not as they are to-day but as they will be in ten years time.
There is also a need for the co-ordination of the Scottish problems with airports. Clearly, Turnhouse ought to be developed even further. I have no doubt that the new Civil Aviation Authority has been told to deal with this problem when it gets under way; but Government action is necessary, to give guidance to the new Authority to get on with the job. We have heard about the profits made by the Authority. Well, my Lords, I am not surprised that they have made a profit, because the landing charges are just about the highest in the world. Ask any operator. Whether it is the landing fee, or the cost of hiring a bench and a shop, the charge is just about the highest. It is no good making a profit if you are going to price yourself out of business, and if charges are too high airlines will tend to go to other parts of Europe. The Airports Authority must be competitive.
Speaking about these new airports, I was amazed that the international building at London Airport, which went up only four or five years ago, was put up without refrigeration, air-conditioning. I think it is to be installed this year, but with inflation, it will cost far more; and, of course, it is very difficult to put the trunking in long after the building has

979
gone up. It should have been thought out at the beginning. Why do passengers, many of them infirm or aged, have to walk half a mile to get on and off the aeroplanes in a modern airport? There is one escalator at London, but at Schiphol passengers ride on an escalator all the way. Worse still, you can arrive at London Airport, and probably twice out of four times although you expect the aeroplane to taxi up to a pier it does not do so. It stops outside the pier, for some unknown reason, and there are no steps available. You can wait for a quarter of an hour, and then they say, "We will unload at the rear." Then you go off on the bus when the last passenger out of 130 has got on. This is the sort of thing which irritates passengers who are paying a high price to get from point A to point B, and then suffer a frustrating 20 minutes hold-up at London Airport. It does not happen at Manchester. Up there they are far ahead in dealing with these smaller matters—but of course their problems are not so great.
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, who has had years of experience in the aviation business, referred to noise. This is a problem that we have to keep very much in mind. He gave the decibel figures, and, undoubtedly, the RB 211 engine, over which there has been so much controversy, is going to be a very great engine, with years of development ahead of it. The noise factor is probably 40 or 50 per cent. less than with other engines. Surely, when we have complaints about noise at night during landing and take-off, and when operators are restricted in taking-off during the dark hours, it will be for them to purchase engines with the lowest decibel figures for noise. There is a great opportunity for British engine manufacturers to keep the lead which they already have in this field.
The aircraft industry as a whole is growing at a very rapid rate. I know that this Government have been immersed in all the problems that they inherited, and in many others, since they came to power, but I should like to see this House and the other place more immersed in thinking and expressing views about aviation as a whole—not merely about the airports but about the industry, both civil and military. We have for years had a lead in vertical take-off air-
980
craft with the "Harrier", a lead far ahead of any other nation; so much so that the Americans are now placing a second order for this aircraft. Unfortunately, the Labour Government which came into power in 1964 cancelled the P.1154 vertical take-off aircraft. That cancellation was very regrettable. I agree that not all of the research and development programme could have gone ahead as it was, and that there had to be cuts, but we should surely continue in a field where we have the lead over all other nations. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, shakes his head. I do not know whether he is in disagreement, but I think we have a very definite lead in this respect. The point I want to make is that if we can get a lead in developing a medium-sized vertical take-off transport aircraft for inter-city travel, such as to Paris and Brussels, that will save miles of concrete runways in the years ahead. I hope that we shall get some guidance from the Government on this matter.
As regards Foulness, fortunately we have been told that that is now to be known as Maplin. It is easy to be critical when one does not have to answer to 100,000 constituents, as I had to do when I was in another place, but I always felt that if a third airport was needed it was needed well North of London to draw off the population of the Midlands. Unless communications with the South-East Essex coast are extremely good there will be a problem, because the airport will be in the wrong place. But from the points of view of siting and of the approach over the North Sea, the airport will be admirable, provided that the approach does not interfere with the Continental control on the other side of the North Sea. It offers great scope for a deep harbour. Our harbours are far behind those of Rotterdam and other European ports, and this project will help us when we are in the Common Market. With our unemployment problem, Britain must get out of the old industries—which is happening, anyhow—and into businesses like this which employ our people in new technology.
We have now selected the site, and I think that, on balance, Maplin is best, but I want to be assured by my noble friend that the communications—the railways and the trunk roads—are being thought out and will be available before

981
the airport is completed. I say that because only now are we being told that an Underground railway is to run from the West End to London Airport. It was necessary years ago. So we want good communications throughout Essex, and I hope we can have an assurance on that point. Maplin will undoubtedly give flood protection to London and we shall need the full co-operation of the Port of London Authority and all those concerned on this aspect.
But I would ask my noble friend whether in the months ahead we can have a White Paper covering the whole field of aviation, including airports and vertical take-off aircraft. I know it is very difficult to estimate at this stage how much is going to be spent even on Maplin, but perhaps, with all the qualifications, we could be given an approximate figure. After all, in industry one has to plan and there has to be a cockshy at what will be spent over, say, the next five years. One accepts that the engineering, planning, drainage and so on will cost a lot of money, but I think the House would like to be given an approximate figure. May we and the nation, also be informed as this airport progresses? We have a right to know, because it is a very big venture, costing about £800 million all told. I wish the venture well, and I also wish the British Airports Authority well. The Authority has done a very fine job of work and I am sure we are appreciative of all its achievements.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I think it is quite right that to-day we should come to praise the work of Sir Peter Masefield. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have had the privilege of his friendship for nearly 35 years. I have known his work in aviation. When I was on the Board of British European Airways he was finishing his period as Chief Executive, and I can pay tribute to his work in that field. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, I trust that his experience, his energy and his integrity will not be lost to civil aviation in particular and to British industry in general. I should particularly like to endorse one piece of work for which he was responsible and which my noble friend has just mentioned; that is, the control system at
982
London Airport. During my period on the Board of British European Airways (I am sorry to have to refer to it again, but I was very close to the picture) one of my duties was as Chairman of the Air Safety Committee, and I was in close touch with many of our aircrew. I can make one statement without fear of contradiction. If you asked British or international airline pilots which airport they would prefer to come into when, as they say, the birds are almost walking, they would choose London Airport, and London Airport Control. We in this House, and indeed the whole country, can be proud of that fact.
I support wholeheartedly the plea which was made by my noble friends Lord Beswick and Lord Harvey of Prestbury for more overall planning of our future policy for airports throughout the country. I am not happy that overall planning of airports should be, as it were, confined to the British Airports Authority. There is so much involved, and a much wider view is needed than any single Corporation or Government Department can take. Our minds are very finite and the minds of bureaucracy are particularly finite. I remember very well that the last Bill which another place was passing when war broke out was called the Heston Airport Extension Bill. In those days there was a little airport at Heston which has gone right out of service. The Bill proposed to lengthen the Heston runway, to knock down a church and to remove a few houses, and it aroused tremendous opposition. We thought at that time that we were doing something bold, not only for those days but for the future. But how inadequate was our thinking in those days in relation to what is required to-day! My feeling is that Government Departments and Government agencies cannot, and indeed should not, be expected to look at great national issues which need great and wide review.
As regards the new London Airport, I prefer the name Maplin, which is much more pleasant than Foulness. I was one of those who doubted whether we should go forward with the scheme. I am not going to weary your Lordships with any of the arguments put forward by those who had doubts. The Government have decided to go forward, so it is up to all of us to endeavour in every way possible to make that project a success. But,

983
my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, spoke of the danger of designing for the future what we have to-day. I have just given one small example as regards the past, and I fear that unless we have a better knowledge of overall planning and what is intended we may commit the same error again.
My Lords, I read the Statement which was made in another place yesterday, and it is right that we should refer to that Statement to-day as your Lordships have not had an opportunity to debate it. Furthermore, even if we were in another place I should be within the Rules of Order, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told us, some of the money is going to be used for planning and engineering. Therefore, I make no apology at all for dealing briefly, in just a few words, with some aspects of yesterday's Statement. My first question is this: can the Minister say that the road and rail links will be ready when the first runway is available in 1980? Because I think it would be silly to have aircraft using an airport without surface links, and the present surface links to Maplin are virtually impossible and impractical for any passenger. That is my first question. The Statement contains one decision and three "no decisions". The first decision is that there should be no basic industries at Maplin. Then there is no decision on the question of an industrial estate; there is no decision on secondary industries; and there is no decision on how, when and what amount of private capital is to be injected into the scheme. I attach no blame, but it is the "no" Statement of the week—there are three "Noes". Certainly if decisions on those points cannot be announced yet, they must be announced soon as part of the overall planning.
My Lords, as well as answers to those questions I think we should like to hear something of how the machinery of government is coping with the multitude of open questions affecting nearly every Department of Government. There is scarcely a home Department that is not involved in this project, and consideration by an Inter-Departmental Committee is no doubt necessary. But I think there is a real danger, as many noble Lords who have been in Government will know, of issues being bogged down by
984
disagreement and then the Minister saying, "I cannot accept what my colleagues want; I must take it to the Cabinet". Then, either the Cabinet—a busy body which has larger issues to deal with—has to give a decision or there is a compromise that weakens the objective aims and is probably accepted reluctantly by all. My Lords, I am not urging a dictator, but I do urge a single supremo, an overlord, in the Cabinet, whose decision will stand with the full backing of his colleagues.
The Statement says that the Minister of the Environment intends to make further statements in the future. I would ask for something more definite than that. I would ask whether the Government would consider reporting to Parliament, certainly not less frequently than twice a year during construction, on progress in all its aspects, forecasting any expectations for completion on which disappointment may have to be faced and drawing attention to any great increase in expenditure which will make estimates look false. Also in the report particulars should be given of any great difficulties or snags which have been met which will cause unforeseen delays. I think Parliament and the public are entitled to have this periodic information on this vast project, and I hope that the Minister will give that suggestion sympathetic consideration.

ATTACKS ON BRITISH EMBASSY IN DUBLIN
4.25 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. This is the Statement:
"As the House will be aware from Press reports, the British Embassy in Dublin was yesterday gutted by fire. This was the culmination of 36 hours of attacks on the premises of the British Embassy and of the Embassy's Commercial Department, about 50 yards away from the main building. In the

985
course of the night of the 1st/2nd of February, the door of the Embassy was blown in by a gelignite bomb and renewed attacks with petrol the following morning led to the fire which destroyed the building. The staff were evacuated from the buildings early yesterday morning and there were no casualties.
"The Government of the Irish Republic have a duty, in international law, to protect the premises of foreign Embassies within the Republic. On this occasion the authorities had ample warning of the danger, both through the build-up of the crowd's activities and through specific warnings conveyed during the early evening of the 1st of February by the British Chargé d'Affaires in Dublin and by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office yesterday morning to the Irish Chargé d'Affaires in London. Accordingly, my right honourable friend the Minister of State summoned the Irish Chargé d'Affaires yesterday evening to protest at the failure of the Irish authorities to carry out their responsibility. He made it clear that the British Government look to the Government of the Irish Republic for the most stringent measures to ensure the protection of all the members of the Embassy and that we would expect full compensation to be paid for the damage suffered. The Chargé d'Affaires accepted full responsibility on behalf of his Government and expressed great regret for what had happened."
That, my Lords, is the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess for making that Statement. Of course, all noble Lords—certainly we on this side—utterly deplore the attack on the Embassy, and we welcome the fact that the Irish Government accept responsibility and (because there are reports to the contrary in the Press) have in fact, as I understand, expressed their regrets as well. This, of course, is part of the hazard of serving in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have had a number of Embassies burned down, but I must say that Dublin was not a place
986
where I had expected a British Embassy to be attacked in this way and not be protected. I certainly do not wish to make any further comments to that effect. I am sure our particular sympathy goes out to the members of the Embassy. To have this sort of thing happening must be horrifying; I should like again to express our sympathy to them.
The only further point I would make is that the effects of the situation in Northern Ireland seem to be escalating all round the world. There have apparently been attacks on British property in different places—in Berlin, I understand. I do not know whether that is true—perhaps not in Berlin. There are so many explosions occurring. But this does once again lend point (and I do not wish to repeat yesterday's debate) to the urgency, which we have tried to press on the Government, of new initiatives. In this connection I would ask the noble Marquess—he may not have yet had a chance to do so—whether he has had an opportunity to consider the really rather important statement issued by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be aware of what a valuable stabilising role the trade unions have played in the Ulster situation. Would the noble Marquess give consideration to a set of proposals on which I will not take up the time of the House but which seem to be, again, a possible approach to a solution? Because of the degree of urgency which this recent incident has produced, I only ask the Government whether they will give consideration to it.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in regard to this deplorable outrage. Having said that, I should like to ask two short questions. First, would the Government agree that recent statements by Mr. Lynch and his Minister for Foreign Affairs give some colour to the assumption that the Irish Government are now assuming at least some responsibility for the activities of the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland? Secondly, would it not in these circumstances be advisable for Her Majesty's Government to inquire of the Irish Government what exactly their own

987
proposals would now be for a general solution of the Irish question?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the reception that they have given this Statement. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his expressions of sympathy with the members of the Embassy in Dublin in which I am certain all of us will join. The noble Lord drew my attention to the trade union representatives who have been so helpful in Northern Ireland in the present difficult situation. I understand that they are having a meeting later to-day with the Home Secretary and I have. no doubt that he will consider very carefully any suggestions that they have to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me whether I thought there were signs that Mr. Lynch and the Irish Government were intending to take more stringent measures with regard to the I.R.A.—
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, my question was whether it was not reasonable to suppose that the Irish Government now seem to be assuming some responsibility for the actions of the I.R.A. in Northern Ireland. I asked the Government whether they thought that that was a legitimate assumption.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am sorry if I misrepresented what was said by the noble Lord. I do not think I should like to go so far as he has gone in his question. I am hopeful that this outrage in Dublin will bring the Irish Government more to the realisation of what really is involved and how dangerous it is to let the situation get out of hand. As Lord Shackleton said, this is something which calls for a political solution; and it is for that that we must continue to strive.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, while voicing the general condemnation, may I ask one question? Can the noble Marquess give an assurance that the Irish authorities who have in the past over many years been successful in safeguarding the lives and welfare of members of the staff of the British Embassy, will continue to do so in future?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, they
988
have accepted full responsibility in this regard; so that I hope that the noble Lord's prediction will be correct.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, if I understood the Statement aright. the Irish Government have accepted the financial responsibility; but would Her Majesty's Government agree that it is hardly reassuring to those in Northern Ireland who, it is sometimes said, favour a united Ireland, that they should go into combination with a Government which allows mob rule?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that this is going a little wide of the Statement, if I may say so.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, if these outrages are going to continue, Her Majesty's Government will envisage restricting some of the very special privileges that citizens of Eire enjoy in this country? Is my noble friend aware that there are a large number of Irish citizens in this country—about one million of them, I think—which number may have been infiltrated by some I.R.A. members?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that this subject also is rather outside the terms of the Statement; but naturally it is a matter which must exercise the minds of anybody trying to solve this dreadful problem.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, since clearly the last two interventions suggest speeches undelivered yesterday, whether he also has given consideration to the extent to which these events show a potential threat to the Irish Republic? There have been some activities already; and this is a very striking additional sign. This is the frightening thing. It emphasises the need for major initiatives. I know the difficulties of finding them; but there are ideas, and I should like to see some real energy on the part of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said about the potential danger to the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that that is something which calls for consideration.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, can the noble Marquess tell us whether any kind

989
of explanation has been given by the Republican Government in Ireland as to the alleged inactivities of the police during these proceedings? Many of us, I expect, saw on television last evening the complete impassivity of the police at a time when one would have thought that sonic attempt at least would have been made to protect the Embassy.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords saw the films on television last night which were most distressing, particularly with regard to the inactivity of the Irish police, who, I understand, before the Embassy was burned down, were doing their best to help the situation. I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. I do not know whether the Irish Government have made any explanation. I understand that the British Ambassador saw Mr. Lynch this morning and possibly discussed it then.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
4.35 p.m.
Debate continued.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, the Second Reading of this Bill gives me the opportunity of bringing to your Lordships' notice a small matter, but one of great concern to many which comes under the subject of the Airports Authority. Badly disabled people are being put into an embarrassing and penalised position. Once more it is people less able to help themselves who are being made to suffer by a most inhumane regulation which is now in force at London's Heathrow Airport, which must be one of the biggest in the world.
If you are disabled but fortunate enough to be able to walk with sticks or crutches, and the aid of someone's arm, you are treated like any other passenger and no extra charge is made. But if, instead of having legs that work, you find yourself in the position of having to substitute by using four wheels you come into another category. The Airports Authority at London Airport say that you must be transported to and from the main building and the aircraft by a so-called "ambulance" and lifted by a fork-lift into and out of the aircraft. May
990
I add that the so-called "ambulance" is not what any sane person would be proud to call an ambulance: it is a rattling old van, with no heating. For this service the airlines involved are charged £10. Most of these absorb this amount within their own costs; but not all do so. At least two international airlines pass on this charge of £10 to the poor, unsuspecting disabled passenger. Passengers are not warned beforehand of this charge, as no travel agency knows of this regulation and so is unable to advise clients to travel by another airline with a more humane outlook. On arrival at London Airport the passenger, the disabled traveller, is suddenly told that he must pay £10 or will get no help to disembark.
One of the cases brought to my notice concerned a lady of about 60 who suffers from multiple sclerosis but manages to carry on her profession of an art critic which takes her abroad a great deal. She was deeply shocked and terrified, on arriving at London, to find that to disembark she had to bump her way down the steps from the aircraft on her "behind". Her harrowing experience and desperate situation were eased by a member of the airport staff who transported her from the bottom of the aircraft steps to the main building, a few hundred yards away, in his own private car. This lady told me that the airport staff sympathised with her, and that on that day, October 29, 1971, there had been three other cases similar to hers.
My Lords, to an Airports Authority which deals in millions of pounds, as we have seen from this Bill, £10 must seem a very small figure. But to a badly disabled person, who may have scraped together enough money to come to this country for treatment, or who may have managed to leave the frustrations of present-day Britain for a few days much-needed holiday, £10 can seem an enormous amount. It seems that over this matter the Government have slipped back a hundred years in their attitude to disabled people. Instead of encouraging those who need encouraging to lead an independent life, they are doing all they can to discourage airlines from taking disabled passengers on their aircraft. Because of this extra charge and the extra difficulties involved, the less persistent disabled person will give up the unequal struggle and vegetate at home,

991
thinking that he is a nuisance and not wanted.
Can this really be the attitude of the present Government? If so, it is time that something was done to change their view. As we are about to enter the Common Market, our rules and regulations may be increasingly copied, and it would be disastrous if every airport in the world charged £10 to transport a disabled person to and from an aircraft. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter and will be able to rectify the present situation without delay.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, at the outset may I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on a most moving and eloquent speech. I hope that my noble friend will say that he will be able to call the attention of the British Airports Authority to this problem. I should like to add my tribute to that of others speakers to the outgoing Chairman, Sir Peter Masefield. Undoubtedly he has played a most distinguished part in the very successful record of the British Airports Authority. His reign, since the Authority started, has been particularly impressive from the financial point of view. I believe that the accumulated profits now reach £38 million. From my personal knowledge, I know that he devoted a great deal more time to his appointment than perhaps people might expect from the occupant of the post of a part-time chairman. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that Sir Peter Masefield will not be lost to British aviation. In saying that, I should also like to associate myself with those noble Lords who have wished success to his successor, Mr. Foulkes.
The first point to which I should like to draw attention in this Bill relates to capital. My noble friend said that the Bill would give adequate capital to the British Airports Authority. I did not notice for what period of time that adequate capital would last, but it seems surprising that it is adequate when one thinks of the enormous cost involved in meeting the ever increasing demand for air traffic. I believe that at present Heathrow handles some 16 million passengers per year. It is estimated that by 1975 the figure will be 25 million, and by 1980, 30 million. I am delighted that the British Airports Authority has recently
992
taken over Turnhouse Airport at Edinburgh. Without wishing to pre-judge any planning appeal, I hope that they will be successful with their plans to modernise and extend the airport facilities for what, after all, is Scotland's capital city. I am sure that those who like myself fly with B.E.A. up to Edinburgh look forward to the day when the jet service will be introduced.
If asked to comment on improvements to facilities for passengers, both at Heathrow and at Gatwick, there are three matters to which I should like to draw attention. The first is the facilities for leaving luggage, which are very limited. Those who wish to leave their luggage at the airport and perhaps spend a day in London, find it a little difficult, and I hope that the situation may be improved. The second matter refers to the facilities provided when cars break down within the airport precincts. I am aware that the A.A. have a voluntary service, but I think the Airports Authority could do more in this respect. The third matter is the question of the moving escalator which the Airports Authority introduced at Heathrow some nine months ago. After much trumpeting over the introduction of this service, at the time when the Jumbo-jet terminal came into use, to my knowledge this escalator has worked for only about one month out of the nine. For the elderly, and even for the moderately fit, it is a long way to walk from the terminal to where one embarks in the aircraft. The same situation occurs at Gatwick, where at present there seem to be no plans for installing an escalator. About a week ago, when I left Gatwick, I had to walk something like a quarter of a mile to the aircraft.
When discussing the finances of the British Airports Authority, one is reminded of the controversy that arose at the time of, or soon after, devaluation, when the Authority raised its landing fees Controversy arose particularly because there seemed to be little consultation between the Airports Authority and the operators. One recognises the immense value of the foreign currency earning capacity of the airports, but I see from the Second Reading debate in another place—I do not know whether it was referred to by my noble friend—that the Airports Authority intends to increase landing fees by a further 8 per cent. in April. One understands the feelings of

993
the operators about their monopoly and one looks, on the other hand, to the target for the Authority set by the Treasury which, I believe, is 14 per cent. One wonders whether this target gives the Authority an over-aggressive commercial policy which possibly could cause harm to the airports, in that traffic may be turned away. One has to recall that at Heathrow, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. fees make up about 50 per cent. of the landing fees.
Of all the problems that face the British Airports Authority at the present time the major one which has been mentioned a number of times this afternoon, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is the question of the future of Foulness. I would not agree with the noble Lord when he said that he was happy—perhaps he did not use these words—that no Statement was made in the House yesterday repeating the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend. After all, this is one of the largest planning decisions. One understands that it will cost something in the neighbourhood of £1,100 million. I should have thought that this House was fully entitled to all information, particularly about Statements made in another place.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, let me make clear that I was not against the Statement being made in your Lordships' House, if this was to be done. I was simply referring to the fact that by reserving discussion or comment until to-day I thought that I was saving time.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to save time, but some of us did not notice the Statement that was made in another place and read about it only this morning in the Press. Probably there has been no time to study it to-day. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would give an assurance that Parliament will be consulted about the final estimate of costs for the building of Foulness as and when it is known. I would add that in the Statement that we missed yesterday we even missed the fact that it is now to be called Maplin and not Foulness. I hope my noble friend will give us an assurance that before any final commitment is made, Parliament will be fully informed on this information. I
994
should like to ask my noble friend also whether Her Majesty's Government have consulted both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. as to the likely capital cost of their facilities that will be needed at Foulness.
There is, I believe, an ever-growing band of informed aviation experts, possibly headed by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, who anticipate that when the final decision on Foulness is reached there will be much clearer evidence of the effect of quieter engines, much greater information on the studies of the short take-off aircraft, and much more evidence on the effects the wide-bodied aircraft will have. With the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, I hope at that stage that the Government will consider these factors before reaching a final, irrevocable decision.
Turning to the question of noise and of short take-off aircraft, I think it would be interesting to know what programme my noble friend's Department have for reducing the noise of engines, and what programme of investment on the development of production, and also the sort of aircraft. May I say how much I welcome the Government's decision to ban night flying at Heathrow. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked again about the British Airports Authority, and other noble Lords have done so as well. One appreciates that this will now be the concern of the new Civil Aviation Authority—possibly thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for putting down his Amendment to the Bill, which was accepted. I should like again to wish the chairman designate of this new Authority every success. I would ask my noble friend whether he can give an assurance that the Government consider that the national airport policy is a matter of priority and one which they wish to see the new C.A.A. tackle at a very early stage.
I would conclude by asking a specific question to which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, drew attention. I do so in case my noble friend missed it. It is as to the limitation under Clause 2. As we have already heard, the British Airports Authority are limited to borrowing money from abroad. The question I wish to ask it: Why is there this limitation and why cannot the Airports Authority borrow money on the home market? This is a question the answer to which will

995
be of interest to other noble Lords, as well as to members of the British Airports Authority.
4.54 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill and it is only the merging of it, as it were, with the Statement which was laid on the Table yesterday that has emboldened me to put down my name. I have therefore come unprepared and your Lordships will be relieved to hear that as a consequence I intend to be quite brief. My mind goes back to the papers that I left on my desk and would have brought. I have thought of the debate which was raised by my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury on the Thames barrage scheme. I urged then that we might think so big that the new airport, docks extensions in the Maplin Sands and the barrage might be made one great scheme. I did so chiefly because it seemed to me that that would provide the swiftest communication between Maplin (as it is now called) and Heathrow, Gatwick and Victoria.
This point has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords who have spoken, but it is the particular point that I want to make. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said that this matter must be settled before any runway at Maplin comes into operation. Therefore it seems to me to be of primary importance that thorough thought should be given to it and to the need for rapid communication between existing airfields, which may well be employed for short haul, and (shall I say?) Maplin with perhaps a Concorde to catch. Obviously, if a passenger is coming from Edinburgh to fly by Concorde to New York he can be there much sooner by Boeing 707 from Prestwick than by coming down to Gatwick, taking the train to Victoria, a taxi across London and joining a train at King's Cross to get to Maplin. I refer to King's Cross because I think I am right in saying that, as matters stand. the plan is that the rail link with Maplin should come to King's Cross. I have some knowledge of this problem of air transport and this seems to me to be absolutely out of the question.
I will not weary your Lordships more along those lines except to mention another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton; namely, that the hover-train and the monorail may well
996
develop into a really rapid means of transport from one airport to another, and it may be that without the grandoise scheme of a barrage off the Isle of Sheppey the right place for the rail link with Gatwick, Victoria and Heathrow would be much further up the river than the new docks would be.
My noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury referred to the absence of a rail terminus inside Heathrow. I do not know how many of your Lordships are aware how that situation arose. My information, which is on the best authority, is that the only stumbling block between the original plan—no matter that the central building arrangement may have been bad and would consequently require an underground approach—which was for a direct link by rail from Heathrow to Victoria, was a quarrel (or shall I call it a disagreement?) between the railway authorities and the airport construction authorities as to who should pay for the additional two lines that were necessary to extend the bridge across the Thames. Simply because this issue could not be resolved, we find ourselves to-day with the problem of an enormously costly arrangement of putting an underground railway into the centre of a major airport.
That brings me to something that nearly every other speaker has urged upon my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. When my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye was speaking I was sad that he used the two words that I have scribbled on my notes, "overlord" and "supremo". It seems to me that if anything comes out of this debate it is the unanimity of opinion that manifestly the interests here are so disparate that there must be some overall authority to decide what is to be done.
From that I come to the other matter of cost. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn when noble Lords urge him to say what this scheme will cost, because the problems of policy are so great. Surely the cost will depend to a very great extent upon what any "supremo" will decide as to who is going to build and pay for the docks: how much is to be paid for the docks, how much of the cost is to be contributed by British Rail and how much is to be subscribed by private capital and private enterprise. Therefore I have great sympathy with my noble friend who will

997
reply on that count. Of course it would be only right for me to say that the first speaker to talk about the absolute necessity (although he did not use the word "overlord" or "supremo") for such a person, was the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, so I think we are unanimous in that respect.
There is one thing I might have said: as a Scotsman and a citizen of Edinburgh, the news given by the noble Lord is very good. However, I should like to urge one particular point, which is that no considerations of where the airport buildings are to go, and no deliberations in regard to their design should be allowed to delay the completion of plans and the commencement of the runway. A son-in-law of mine is a very go-ahead architect and after a visit to the Montreal Expo. a few years ago he said that what had struck him most during his visit was what he called the "blown-up" buildings—buildings which had been constructed there of modern materials and designed with very great capacity but at no very great cost, because they were good for only three or four years. From that he suggested to me, and I suggest to my noble friend, that it should be considered that if the existing buildings at Turnhouse are to be inadequate when the new runway is completed it might provide a more speedy completion of the runway and ultimately provide a better plan for the final airport buildings if the existing ones could be supplemented by "blown-up" buildings (if I may use this Canadian term) by using quasi-permanent structures. Above all, this should be borne in mind if it means that a second runway will be available to Edinburgh at the soonest possible moment.
I have only one other matter to put forward. This has not been touched upon by any other of your Lordships, and it concerns the stacking of aircraft. My noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury mentioned the problems of coming into Kennedy Airport and similar airports, but I think I am right in saying that it is not only the problems on the ground that form limitations with regard to Heathrow and Gatwick. Nor is it, indeed, the problem of stacking inward bound aircraft. The problem that arises after take-off from either of these airports is for the Traffic Control to find a slot for an aircraft which is making, say, for
998
Paris. A delay of 10 or 15 minutes on such a journey is a very serious matter. That is all I have to say, my Lords, except that I should like to return to the point with which I began; namely, that it seems to me that the planning, the design and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said, the completion of the land links to Maplin come very near the top of the priorities list.
5.4 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak because I had not read the Statement until this morning, but it contains one paragraph which restricts the new port at Maplin so that it will not take oil tankers, and says that a steelworks should not be developed in the area. I cannot help feeling that that is a very retrograde statement to make. I look upon Maplin as a new Europort for England. It will be the nearest port to the Europort in Holland. We all know what a lot of good these ports have done: into them we bring iron ore, convert it into steel and then into motor cars, and these can be shipped, all within a very small area. This may be forward thinking, but surely the motor trade ought not to be concentrated in the Midlands but ought to come down to the South and occupy land which is now under water and which we are going to reclaim. Unless you have the oil coming in and can convert iron ore into steel and steel into manufactured goods in that area, I have little hope of Maplin being a feasible proposition.
5.6 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers, but I shall be very brief. I rise only because Foulness has been introduced into this debate, and as I, for perhaps ten years past and indeed right into the pre-Stansted days, have been very active and, to your Lordships' knowledge, very vocal in advocating the case for Foulness, you may think that if I remain silent I am sulking. Speaking as a former news editor of one of our national daily papers, I think it is fairly safe to say that the dramatic intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is what is going to capture the headlines to-morrow and that the technical and financial provisions of this Bill are going to get very short shrift indeed.

999
I speak under some disadvantage here. Many of your Lordships who have addressed the House have yourselves been active aeronautical experts, either managing great aviation undertakings or actually sitting in the pilot's seat of aircraft of various kinds. I have never been anything like that, but it came near to it once. Back in 1917 I was an infantry company sergeant-major round about Poperinghe and they suddenly appealed for people to transfer from the infantry to the Royal Flying Corps. So I went along to the aerodrome at Abeele and presented myself. They thought I was a likely young chap but, they said, "You will have to transfer to the Flying Corps in the rank of sergeant instead of being a company sergeant major." My father was an old Regular soldier, and if I had written home to him saying, "I was a company sergeant major yesterday, I am a sergeant to-day, but this is nothing in the way of a black mark against me", I do not think he would have believed me. So I left the Flying Corps behind me as one of those things that might have been.
We have had a good debate to-day, but there have possibly been one or two rough edges. The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton (incidentally I used to live in Kings Norton), says that we need more runways. We have heard from other speakers in the debate who say that vertical and short take-off aircraft will render more runways unnecessary; and that has been the very essence of the argument that has been used from time to time against building the airport at Foulness. We were also told that at Gatwick and Luton there is at the moment a grave state of uncertainty. I suppose that was intended as a criticism of the way the Airports Authority is at present carrying out its work and projecting its future plans. For the same reason, I feel that we do not want to import any more uncertainty at this late hour into the question of the airport at Foulness. That was an imaginative and courageous plan, which has become even more important now that we have decided, whether rightly or wrongly—and the House knows my view—to go into the Common Market.
I agree with speakers who have said that there must be some kind of overall Minister in command of this operation.
1000
It need not necessarily be one man; a small Cabinet sub-committee of the Ministers concerned with aviation, industry, and the environment, could make a workable sub-committee. Incidentally, I do not agree with my noble friend who suggested that we should station the motor industry in or around Foulness. We have a fairly substantial motor industry in Essex at the moment, known as the Ford Motor Company. I doubt whether the labour would be available if another motor industry of great magnitude were installed at Foulness.
I must refer, as everyone else has referred, to the Statement which was circulated yesterday. It is a very satisfactory Statement—and if I say anything which indicates that something done by a Tory Government is satisfactory, your Lordships can take it quite certainly that I mean it. The Statement foreshadows prompt development, both of the airport and of the seaport. It promises us a deep seaport with an oil terminal and equipped for the container traffic. This is something that should have been done long ago, before we allowed Rotterdam to get ahead of us. Rotterdam can become the focal traffic point of Europe if we allow this opportunity at Foulness to escape us. I am delighted that there are to be no steel works, no oil refinery and no other big primary industrial establishments. All that I have said is completely in line with the view of the planning authority of the neighbourhood; that is to say, the Essex County Council, of which for 22 years I had the honour to be a member. That is exactly the view they take: an airport and a seaport—not a gigantic one, but one which is adequate—with the necessary secondary industries that have to be grouped around an airport. They do not want a great major industrial complex settled there, mainly because of the crush that would be created on accommodation for the people who would be employed.
From the financial point of view, as explained in the document circulated this morning, it is said that the scheme is to be basically under "public sector commitment and control". This means to say that the construction of the airport is to be a nationalised undertaking. I agree completely with this; but I similarly agree, as anybody looking at it realistically must do, that there will be

1001
scope for contracts to be placed with private enterprise firms later for the hotels, the secondary industries, the dredging operations, and so on. From what we have read, there are three or four very efficient groups of contractors, dredgers, and others, which have been formed, and although they are probably going to be disappointed that they do not get in and do the job as a complete private enterprise, they can be well content with the contracts that will be coming their way as the scheme progresses, I am a little unhappy about the way land speculators have been diving into that corner of Essex during the past two years. I sincerely hope that some steps will be taken by the Government to see that, after millions of pounds of Government money have been poured into the enterprise, the cream is not skimmed off by people who do no more useful work than sit at their desks and sign cheques and options.
There are two or three matters that I should like to raise, although I know that I cannot get the answers to-day. But, for reasons which will be apparent, it is desirable that the answers should be given as soon as possible to allay any public apprehension that there may be. First, what is to be the route to be followed by the roads? I know that territory very well. I have a fairly good idea where the road could go without causing much damage to anybody, but if the wrong route were taken it could be a calamity. What route will be taken by the new railway? I believe that a straightforward trouble-free route could be chosen, whereas other routes could cause a considerable amount of inconvenience and expense. We want to know fairly soon the position of the runways, because this is a matter of great controversy in the neighbourhood. The runways must not be too far to the South; they must not be so far to the North that they interfere with the estuary of the Crouch. As soon as we can we must know what the Minister has decided about the route of the roads and the railway. This is a primary matter that has to be settled and made public.
We want to hear something about the provision to be made for housing the many scores of thousands of workers who will ultimately have to be accommodated there—and I wonder what kind of under-
1002
taking will carry out that work? Will something in the nature of a New Town Corporation be set up? Something like that is required; you cannot scatter the job between three or four local councils. One authority should be put in charge of a vast housing undertaking. But more important than all this, there was a hint in the paper circulated this morning about the undesirability of allowing all the industry and housing accommodation to trespass across the Crouch into the district North of that river. The attitude of Essex County Council is that there should be no trespassing into the territory North of the Crouch by anything associated with the Foulness Airport.
I am delighted, as other noble Lords were, to see that the term "Foulness" has been dropped and that "Maplin" has been introduced. "Maplin" is strictly more accurate because the airport is to be built upon the Maplin Sands. There is a little misunderstanding about the derivation of the Word "Foulness". I have heard it pronounced "Foul-ness". I have heard it suggested that there is something odiferous about the neighbourhood. However, it is not that. The word "foul" comes from the little birds that inhabit the sands. The word "ness" comes from the promontory that sticks out into the sea at that point. My Lords, I hope that we shall get information about this undertaking as frequently as possible.
5.18 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, at the risk of helping the unlisted tail to wag the listed dog in this debate, I venture to put in a word in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. She mentioned three categories of handicapped people likely to be flying: those travelling in pursuit of their profession; those coming to this country for treatment; and those going abroad for a holiday. There is a fourth category which I suspect may be numerically the largest. From this country every year hundreds, if not thousands, of handicapped people make pilgrimage to Lourdes. They fly out and they fly back. Almost all the pilgrimages are financed on a shoestring; the overwhelming majority of the pilgrims come from the poorer sections of society. If the impost to which the noble Baroness has referred is levied on every one of these, quite a

1003
number will be unable to go on pilgrimage, which is contrary, I am sure your Lordships will agree, to Christian charity.
Having said that, I should also like to support her picture of the other side of the story, the helpfulness and courtesy of the airport staff. I have seen regulations bent wherever they could be bent to help the handicapped, and red tape cut through as if it were butter. There is no doubt in my mind that the point the noble Baroness has made must be borne in mind by the Government.
5.20 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, having travelled by air back to this country last week with a son with a broken leg I would endorse that the airport staffs both at Zurich and at London Airport are very considerate indeed in allowing wheel-chairs to be pushed through and in allowing special access and every possible facility. I could not praise them too highly for the way in which they work to make this possible. I wanted to intervene to support something the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said in opening from the other Benches. More and more I have come to the conclusion —and I have to travel a lot by air both on inter-continental and on inter-U.K. routes—that one needs to separate the inter-U.K. from the long, continental routes. We are still treating these short flights—and I would probably include shortly inter-Western Europe flights—of one hour in the same way as other flights. It is really ridiculous to treat them in the same manner as we treat flights to Africa, to America and to Australia. One is forced to report 30 minutes beforehand now. This perhaps made sense twenty years ago when manifests were laboriously hand-written out in capital letters. Now all this is done by computer, not in milliseconds, not even in microseconds, but in nanoseconds. But not for poor human beings! They perforce have to be there 30 minutes before flight time; and, being prudent people and allowing for possible blockages on the roads, either into the airport or on the trunk roads leading to the airport, they allow themselves probably an extra 15 minutes. So one is always setting aside before take-off quite as much time—probably more—as that of the actual flight. I would therefore think that we
1004
have to separate the manner in which we deal with these short-haul passengers.
I have travelled a lot on the Boston-New York airbus route, and there one reports on the hour up to the moment of take-off. If you arrive at one minute to six and there is a place on the 6 o'clock 'plane, you catch the 'plane; if you arrive at one minute past six, you have to wait an hour because another hour elapses before the next 'plane leaves. The way to treat inter-city travel in this country is quite simply in this manner. You carry on your own luggage so you do not have to wait even while that is unloaded. Furthermore, I cannot see why air travel is the only facility where one is free to have what is called technically a "no show". You book a ticket and you do not turn up, and you are apparently entitled to travel on another day. If I book a ticket for a theatre or concert, or almost anything else, and do not occupy my seat, then I forfeit the place. I cannot help feeling that this should be so in air travel. So one would find that in fact there was a general encouragment to have higher load factors, and this would add to the economy of the airline and would probably in due course—when we can break away from IATA and its restrictive practices—lower air fares for the benefit of all. Is the noble Lord going to interrupt?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was only going to support what was said about services in the United States. At a time last year when almost everywhere else airline traffic was stagnating, there was between a 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. increase in the total traffic carried there.
LORD ORR-EWING: Well, my Lords, I think this is imaginative, and that is one of the reasons why I support a third airline in this country. Sometimes the Corporations have been a little rigid; they have not allowed trickle loading when one arrives at an airport. Now it is allowed, but it was not allowed until it was pioneered by, I think, British Eagle, on the Edinburgh route. All these are ways to help stimulate enterprise and comfort, to the benefit of the travelling public. I would hope that we may send out a message that we cannot go on having to report 30 minutes early for the convenience of the administrative

1005
staff and that this system should be changed for inter-United Kingdom flights.
Now I come to the bigger question. In a democracy I cannot believe that any Government like to create a new airport, which means a new centre of noise and grave discomfort to all the people who are living around that new airport. That, surely, was one of the reasons why Foulness was selected. But equally I think that one should make the optimum use of existing airport facilities, and that one should spend money, and spend it more wisely and more productively, by improving the navigation systems and by improving the control systems, so that the traffic can be packed in and out of the airport to the maximum extent. The noble Lord in introducing this Bill said that London had a greater number of international passengers than any other airport in the world. The point to look at in this is international passengers; but, of course, it does not handle anything like as much as the airports at Chicago, Washington or New York. All those airports on the North American continent handle more. Therefore, I would say that we can still—and we must until Foulness is ready—go on improving the handling, improving in the technical sphere; improving the control systems and, above all, surely, investing in quieter aircraft. And if necessary we should be awkward. After all, the Americans were very awkward about the Comet. It was too noisy, until their own jets were ready to handle civil traffic, and then it was allowed. Unfortunately for Britain, it ran into other troubles and this delayed its massive introduction into service, which was of some advantage to its rivals. Well, if they can be awkward, so we can be awkward. We can start setting standards and—the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, made this point very rightly—the number of decibels now is reducing each time, and it is encouraging that the number is going down. We should encourage it by spending Government money on research and development to this end. We shall be benefiting the sales of our aircraft and benefiting literally millions of people who live around the international airports of the world as a result of this R. and D.
I still think it is probably necessary to go to Foulness. But let us be quite honest: if we were an operating airline
1006
we would wish to operate out of an established airport, and we are going to find it very difficult to move established airlines out of London Airport. For one thing, they have all their spares stacked in one place and there is a very big investment in spares, and they do not want to have to repeat this and have another stack of spares, very expensive spares, at Foulness and possibly at Gatwick as well. Secondly, there is the recruiting and training of staff—key staff in the technical sphere. Are they to be repeated also, once at London Airport, once at Gatwick, and once at Foulness? There would be grave objections to this from the airlines. So there will be tremendous pressure from everyone to stay where they are. That is why I say, go ahead with Foulness, but do realise that it is going to be a long haul and a very expensive haul. I would urge my noble friend not to fall into the trap, quite understandably set, and to say, "Please do not quote us a price until the surveys in depth and all the planning has been looked into. It will be wrong even then, but it will be much more wrong if you quote it to-day". I am sure that my noble friend will not fall into that trap. We can all think of occasions in the last twenty years when prices have been put on projects that have always proved to be utterly and completely wrong.
I think it is right to support Foulness. One of my reasons for supporting it is that obviously it is not going to create a new centre of noise, because most of the noise will be over the sea and therefore it is not going to disrupt the people who live there. My second reason is that it will give tremendous incentive for development of a hover-train or monorail. I very much doubt whether this country is going to punch ahead in that important area without an incentive, which Foulness I believe makes absolutely essential. Then we have to consider also possibly high-speed links between the three London airports, for the sake of key staff and the sake of key spares, because they will not always be available in the right places.
So I have lastly come to support the idea that there is so much at stake in future development of the airport system around London that there ought to be some co-ordinating authority. It is not common practice, as the last noble Lord

1007
who spoke rightly said, to list Cabinet committees. I have never quite understood why not—it generally becomes known—but it has not been done, and this may be a way to do it. But certainly we want someone to co-ordinate all these plans if we are to go punching ahead as fast as we should do, and if we are going to match up to what the French, the Germans and the Americans are doing. If we do not match up to them we shall lose our air traffic to those centres where facilities may be better than our own. So may we please have a co-ordinating authority to handle these vital matters?
5.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have been asked a very great number of questions in the course of this debate, which I suppose was inevitable, and I am bound to say at the outset that a great many of the questions I have been asked are matters for Mr. Foulkes and his colleagues; and we wish them well in dealing with them. In many cases also they are matters for the airway authorities, the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Many of the matters that have been raised are really within their purview, but I will of course bring them to the attention of the authorities concerned, although I doubt whether that is in fact necessary; they will be watching this debate very carefully. Certainly this debate has been worth while and it will be worth their while to pay attention to it. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, including of course the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in opening, asked a number of important questions. The first was about an overall airport plan. He asked what is to be the supreme authority, and he laid stress on the need for one real leader. As has been said in the debate, the noble Lord was himself responsible for the amendment in the Civil Aviation Act which really gives the key to the answer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will of course continue to exercise the statutory obligations laid upon him in respect of the British Airports Authority, and his Department will continue to be the sponsoring Department for that Authority. But the Civil Aviation Authority will take over from the Department of Trade
1008
and Industry the licensing of airports, and consequently will be responsible for licensing the airports of the British Airports Authority. As noble Lords will be aware, all airports used for commercial operations or instruction in flying are licensed annually to ensure that they are adequate, from the safety standpoint, for the operations they have to carry out. We do not anticipate that this will give rise to any difficulty or friction between the two authorities.
The Civil Aviation Authority, under Section 33 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, will have a duty to make recommendations to my right honourable friend in regard to what aerodromes are likely to be required in this country from time to time in addition to, or in place of, existing aerodromes, and these recommendations must be published by the Secretary of State. So it is clear that before making any such recommendations the Civil Aviation Authority will have to undertake a study in depth of the aerodrome requirements of this country and will need to consult with all interested parties, including, of course, the British Airports Authority. Any recommendations they make will be made with the object of providing the best guidance possible to all aerodrome owners in the United Kingdom, and we expect to see close liaison between the Civil Aviation Authority and all aerodrome owners, including the British Airports Authority, in this matter.
Many noble Lords have referred to the question of a national airports plan. If that plan arises it will arise in this way.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, and I hope the way in which he sees the position will work out. Everything that he has said is hinged upon the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry. Can he therefore say why the responsibility for making the Statement yesterday, about the biggest single project of all, was left to the Department of the Environment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, because the Department of the Environment has to deal not only with transport problems—ground transport—but with the whole question of the environment of the airports, with all the questions that have been referred to by the noble Lord,

1009
Lord Leatherland, and others. It was proper for him to make the Statement because he is at the moment co-ordinating the whole issue.
If I may, I will just touch on this because a great deal has been said about it in the course of the debate. There is of course a committee which is dealing with this matter, called the Progress Review Committee, and it is for Ministers to exercise control and to make certain that the whole plan is well co-ordinated. I should only like to say that, so far as the Maplin airport is concerned, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go ahead with this project and to make certain that by the time the first runway is in operation the transport links are fully operational. What those transport links will be I am unable to say, but I fully take the point made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, that this is a great opportunity to develop means of transport, such as the hover-train or the monorail, or the fast train services; and of course there are road links to be considered as well, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred. All these have to be worked together in one plan, with the intention that the runway shall be in operation by 1980.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked for a statement on the future of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. In the course of my opening speech I referred to the Statement made in the other place on July 27 of last year, and I think perhaps it is worth putting emphasis again on the main points. The first point was that it is not expected (in spite of what my noble friend Lord Kings Norton said) that new runways will be required in the meantime. This is a calculation that has been made. Secondly, Heathrow and Gatwick will continue as major international airports for the foreseeable future; and thirdly, after the third London Airport is open Luton and Stansted will probably not be required for commercial air transport operations. Lastly, when the third London airport is in operation it should be possible to impose stricter limits at Heathrow and Gatwick in the interests of noise control.
May I turn now to the second question asked by the noble Lord, Lord
1010
Beswick, which was the cost of the Maplin project? I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that it would really not help to add to the indications of cost that were given in the Roskill Report, and it will have been noticed by those who have read the proceedings in another place that the Secretary of State did not respond to the request for putting a price on the developments at Foulness, because of course such price would be extremely difficult to calculate. In any case, one would have to differentiate between the cost of actually building the airport and the cost of all the developments that are required—the communications and the like. So I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, and my noble friend will excuse me from giving that reply at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that there was a great deal of uncertainty at the present time. He is in as good a position as anyone to know that inevitably there is a certain amount of uncertainty in these matters, and I would suggest to him that any uncertainty that exists at the moment, apart from the longer-term uncertainty, relates to the planning procedures. In fact I indicated in my speech that, subject to approvals being given, those uncertainties should soon be removed. The noble Lord also asked whether a White Paper could be published. I hope that I have sufficiently answered that point for the time being. I shall of course draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend, but I hope that what I have said now will be sufficient to indicate the present intentions of Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, in a very interesting speech indeed, asked first of all why it is necessary to borrow from the National Loans Fund and also to add the possibility of borrowing from abroad but not at home. This is the normal practice so far as a nationalised industry is concerned and there really is no good reason to alter this practice at the present time.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, is borrowing in this country excluded?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; there are no powers at the present moment for the British Airports Authority to borrow in this country.
LORD KINGS NORTON: It seems a little odd.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was extremely interested in the suggestions that the noble Lord made for intra-European transport between twin cities and the possibility of developing a cabotage system. I am sure that he will have ample opportunity to develop these ideas; and many of them, of course, subject to the licensing procedures. could develop quite spontaneously. I think he was perhaps under some misapprehension when he was asking about the possibility of the sums we are talking about in this Bill being devoted to airports other than those controlled by the British Airports Authority. That is not possible; that does not arise.
As usual we paid very great attention to what the noble Lord had to say about QTOL and STOL and VTOL, and my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury also referred to this. The Government. in collaboration with other bodies, including B.E.A. and B.A.A. and aircraft manufacturers, are studying a range of possible future aircraft with reduced runway requirements. In the course of these studies it is necessary to examine a wide range of problems, including how such aircraft would operate; how many could operate from various possible sites; the extent of noise disturbance at each possible site; the overall cost of developing such a system, and whether the demand from European as well as from British airlines would be sufficient to make production and use of these aircraft economically feasible. All I can say is that it is too early to predict when the Government will be in a position to make a firm announcement about the results of these studies. Nevertheless, the present indications are that STOL aircraft, even if they are developed, will not be available in time to affect the need for extra runway capacity for conventional aircraft at the end of the the Roskill Report and it is still the position. The successful development of STOL aircraft could affect the size of the ultimate development at Maplin. I cannot say more at the present time.
I come now to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. This is essentially, of course, one of the matters that is not directly in the ambit of the
1012
Government. I thought perhaps she was a little hard in castigating the Government and saying that they had slipped back 100 years in this matter. I can only give her the information that is available. I know that she has been in correspondence about this, and the information came to me at the last moment before the debate. It is this. The Authority, at the request of airlines, supplies the ambulance service on repayment, and although most of the airlines absorb this cost, there are some, such as Air France, which pass the charge on to the passenger. I quite agree that this may be rather a shock to some of the passengers, but Air France regulations apparently require that they pass on to passengers the cost of any special facilities. As to the point about disabled people not being allowed to be carried on or off aircraft and being forced to use the service of the fork-lift truck ambulance, I am not quite certain how far this is so. All I can say is that it would mean that disabled passengers who travel by airlines which pass on the charge must pay the charge themselves even if they are accompanied by people who are prepared to carry them on and off the aircraft. That is denied both by B.A.A. and Air France; they say that there is no such rule.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I personally have often travelled by various airlines and have never been allowed to be carried on. In one case my husband and the captain of an aircraft flying to Spain offered to carry me on, and were not allowed to do so by some authority at London Airport. I kept the aeroplane waiting 20 minutes. which was not very popular with the other passengers. The reason was that the man driving the fork-lift truck ambulance was having his supper.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is very direct evidence and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye praised the control system at London Airport and I was very glad to hear what lie said. I know the part that he himself has played in this. I think that he was perhaps being a little unfair in saying that Government Departments cannot and should not be expected to look at great national issues. We have from time to time inquiries,

1013
such as the Edwards Committee, into the whole field of an industry. That, after all, is what Governments are there to do, to co-ordinate this work, even if they do not do it themselves; it is what they have to do from time to time. He criticised the Statement that was made by my right honourable friend in another place. I found a slight contradiction in what he said, because on the one hand he was criticising the progress report—this was, after all, a progress report which as such does not indicate completion but indicates that some things are not done—and at the same time he was asking for further progress reports. I noticed that my right honourable friend concluded what he had to say in words which are very well known, "Further announcements on these and other aspects will be made in due course.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it is quite true that he said that. What I was asking was whether there could be some periodic progress reports or a White Paper, because those words really mean absolutely nothing; it may mean no progress report for a year or a year and a half. Could there not be some periodic information to Parliament as to how matters are going, matters of finance, construction and various other matters?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that most members of the Government know very well that if there was no such report over a period the noble Lord would be clamouring for one, so I do not think we need fear that the progress reports will not be forthcoming. But whether they should be forthcoming at particular intervals is another matter, and perhaps the noble Lord will leave it for further consideration.
My noble friend, and also the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, complained that no heavy industry was to be allowed at the port. I do not think this was a complaint; I think it was a question which my noble friend was asking. I should make it quite clear that there is an obvious distinction between an airport with the possibility of a seaport associated with it and the sort of Europort that exists at Rotterdam. What my noble friend said was that heavy industry was not acceptable, either on
1014
regional planning grounds or on grounds of compatibility with the airport. I think I might add that there really is no evidence that a seaport/airport combination would be a great attraction to industry. This does not mean, of course, that the seaport might not be visited by tankers and the oil pumped inland; but this is the way this is looked at.
My noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury made a most interesting speech, and asked a great many questions. Some of them, again, are not really matters for this debate. He also asked for a White Paper covering the whole field of aviation. He went into the question of noise and the development of aircraft; he also asked about the Scottish position. The Scottish position will simply be this: that Prestwick and Edinburgh will be under the control of the British Airports Authority, and Glasgow, as a municipal airport, will be on its own. The remaining airports, so far as I can remember, are to be transferred from the D.T.I. to the Civil Aviation Authority.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, what I am not clear about is what happens in the case of a municipal airport, such as Ringway, at Manchester. To what extent will that be co-ordinated into the Authority's airports? I am thinking also about Liverpool, which wants to develop its own airport.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think this will be a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority to advise on. I do not think I ought to follow up this matter now, because it is outside the purview of this debate, and the airports mentioned do not come under the British Airports Authority.
I think I have detained the House long enough. I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord Ferrier for their speeches, and I will study any points that they have raised. The only point I think I should deal with now is the point that my noble friend raised about landing fees. It is the case that the B.A.A. are proposing to introduce an overall 8 per cent. increase in charges in April. However, this does not mean that it will be evenly spread over all services. In fact, there will be a reduction for internal aircraft, and an increase on a good many of the heavier aircraft.

1015
The charges will fall more heavily on the heavier aircraft.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, and I apologise for doing so again, because the noble Lord has done absolutely splendidly in answering the questions. But there was one question of mine to which he did not refer, and ironically it was the only one relating to the Bill that we are discussing. I asked what proportion of this money, the £125 million which they will now be allowed to borrow, is due to the proposed expenditure on what was termed the "preparatory planning of Foulness". I noted with extreme unbelief the suggestion advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that it is possible to start on a proposition without knowing how much it is going to cost. I think there must be some proportion of this accounted for in the way described, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say how much it is.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this represents an increase, does it not, of just on £55 million, and it is to cover a period of something of the order of five years. I think that over that period it would be difficult to quantify minutely the actual amount to be spent on these kinds of researches.
LORD BESWICK: What order of cost?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord the order of cost, but I think the main point that is worth mentioning here is that it will be some time before any heavy cost falls upon the B.A.A., and it is quite likely that the main airport construction will not start until the middle of 1975. Therefore it is bound to be some time before the main costs arise, and no doubt it will be necessary to come to Parliament in connection with the large costs that are involved in the construction of the Maplin airport and the communications.
I hope that I have dealt with the various points tolerably well, and that the House will now be prepared to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINERAL EXPLORATION AND INVESTMENT GRANTS BILL
5.56 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Bill be read a second time. This is a very short Bill of only two clauses, excluding the Short Title, and the Bill incorporates two quite separate pieces of legislation. The purpose of Clause 1 is to give effect to the scheme which the Government announced last summer to encourage exploration and evaluation of non-ferrous metals and certain other minerals in Great Britain. It is a fairly safe prediction that over the next fifty years, taking the world as a whole, the pace of industrialisation will continue to increase. This, in turn, means that world demand for minerals and especially for metals is bound to continue to grow. The supply situation is, however, less clear. Some people have already claimed that the reserves of various non-ferrous metals are dangerously low. That is possibly an exaggerated view of the situation, but we have certainly reached the stage where some metals are becoming increasingly difficult to find and to mine, and the price of these metals in real terms will in the long term tend to rise.
Over the past century this country has become very dependent on overseas sources for its non-ferrous ore supplies. There is now a growing realisation that even these sources are not inexhaustible and, with political pressures growing also, we clearly should no longer rely too complacently on them without further examination of our own indigenous resources. If these could be economically developed there could be substantial benefits in terms of balance of payments, security of supply and, in some areas, new employment opportunities. Modern technology now holds out the prospect of improved methods of mining and treatment of low grade ores. Fortunately, we are well placed to take advantage of these developments. Size for size, this country has as varied a geology as any country in the world, and it is widely believed that substantial deposits exist here which could be economically worked.

1017
A number of the largest mining houses are interested in prospecting in this country. These include not only R.T.Z., Consolidated Goldfields, and other companies based in Britain, but also companies from Canada, the United States and Europe. If we are to take full advantage of this situation we need to know more about the location and extent of our mineral resources, and only the mining companies are fully equipped to provide this information. The mining industry is international and deploys its exploration effort where the prospects seem most promising. We must therefore try to ensure that conditions here, if not the same, are no less favourable than those offered in other parts of the world. Mineral exploration is, however, a risky business and also a very expensive one. Fewer than one in ten exploration projects lead to the development of a mine. The cost of trying to prove quite a small deposit may amount to £1 million, while a major project could cost £5 million or more. This is of course quite separate from the investment which might be required later in actually establishing a mine, and which could be anything up to £100 million or more. Even where the result of the exploration is favourable it will frequently be at least five years before any return is seen for the money invested. For all these reasons, we decided to introduce this scheme. The response has been very encouraging. We have already received more than 100 applications for assistance towards exploration work costing over £3 million, mainly in areas such as Scotland, Wales, the North Pennines and the South West, where there is a need for more employment. We have given the go-ahead, subject of course to this legislation, to over 50 projects. The minerals involved include copper, tin, nickel, tungsten and fluorspar.
Clause 1 provides the financial authority for the scheme. It restricts the total sum to £25 million with provision for a further £25 million by Order. The contribution to any particular project will be limited to 35 per cent. of the qualifying expenditure and will be in the nature of a loan; if the project is successful and leads to minerals being extracted, we shall get our money back with interest. Whether the project is successful or not, however, the geological information obtained as a result of assisted work will
1018
be made available to the Government and to the Institute of Geological Sciences. The Bill permits contributions to be made in respect of any minerals but, for the present, the scheme will be confined principally to non-ferrous metal ores and three other minerals—barium, fluorspar and potash—where there are good arguments for encouraging exploration. It will not apply to hydrocarbons for which exploration is proceeding satisfactorily and there is no need for an additional incentive. But, later on, if circumstances change so that there are good reasons for bringing other minerals within the scheme, we shall be able to consider this.
The scheme will be discretionary—the Bill permits the Secretary of State to impose such terms as he thinks fit—and I would like to say a few words about how we envisage it will be administered. We shall want to satisfy ourselves that the work proposed and its cost is reasonable in the light of the known geology of the area, and that the applicant has the financial and technical resources to carry out the work. Overseas applicants will be welcome, but they will be asked to form a United Kingdom-registered company. Some people have formed a mistaken impression about the implications of the Bill for the environment. We have gone into this with great care and we believe that adequate measures exist for its protection. This Bill is concerned only with the exploration and evaluation of mineral deposits. Mine construction and commercial extraction do not benefit. The effects of mineral exploration on the environment are very slight. The first stages involve geochemical and geophysical surveys which produce negligible disturbance. This is normally followed by drilling. Exploratory drilling involves very small diameter holes—a matter of a few inches—from which the core is extracted and samples are sent for analysis. Some rather bulky equipment is sometimes, but not always, used in this process and this is removed once the operation is completed. Within a few months it would be difficult to identify the spot where the work had taken place.
In the later stages of exploration, rather more substantial work may have to be

1019
done, but in all cases involving interference with the environment, even of a temporary nature, planning permission must be sought. This scheme will in no way affect the operation of the normal planning controls. It is open to planning authorities to impose conditions under the Town and Country Planning legislation on the way the work is carried out, and to require reinstatement of the site afterwards. I am quite confident of the adequacy of these procedures as a safeguard. The Bill provides that before making a contribution the Secretary of State must be satisfied that planning permission has been obtained or is not necessary, and if there is a serious breach of planning conditions he would withhold the grant. If at the end of the day the company decide that it would be worth while to construct a mine, then entirely different and more serious planning issues arise. The planning authority will have the opportunity to consider all the implications and we are satisfied that the planning machinery is adequate.
The problem of the environment arises, quite irrespective of the present Bill, wherever a mineral is extracted. Most of the minerals currently being worked in this country will not be affected by the Bill. The fact that an exploration project may be supported under the Bill will not be relevant when an application for planning permission is being considered. Very few exploration projects will lead to a mine; this is the nature of mineral exploration. But when it leads to the possible construction of a mine, there will be full opportunity to consider afresh the whole question of whether such construction in a certain area is in the total national interest—environmental and economic.
I turn now very briefly to Clause 2, which modifies in two minor respects the provisions of Section 1 of the Investment and Building Grants Act 1971. As the House will recall, the Act put into effect the Government's decision to end investment grants by, in general, precluding the payment of investment grants on expenditure incurred after October 25, 1970, unless it consists of a sum payable under a contract made on or before that date. Since the passing of the Act, it has become clear that, in so far as they relate to hired assets and to ships, the provisions
1020
are more restrictive than I believe Parliament intended when it passed the Act. The purpose of Clause 2 is to remedy these two small defects. I hope that your Lordships will approve the provisions in this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
6.7 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Earl for his clear explanation of some of the reasons for introducing this Bill. I want straight away to relieve him of any anxiety that he may have, by saying that we on this side welcome the Bill, but I shall naturally have to carry out my responsibility of examining certain of its aspects. I think there are three matters to which I would invite your Lordships' attention. The first is why we need a subsidy; the second is whether the incentive to exploration has been reasonably balanced by an incentive to restoration—a matter upon which the noble Earl touched; and the third point is that I should like to relate the situation in this Bill to a very important mineral.
First, then, on the question of the subsidy, as the noble Earl probably knows, and as the House knows, the Labour Government did a great deal to prepare the way. Indeed, it was my lot to play a totally unimportant part in this when I had discussions and negotiations with representatives of the landowners, and when I had to deal with this aspect of the matter in the Finance Act which escaped the General Election. I want to make it clear that, with agreement all round, very special trouble was taken to see that, whatever else the Election chopper may have caught—and I have some dim recollection that the Election chopper catches even Cabinet Ministers from time to time—it should not prevent the very considerable easement of taxation to landowners in respect of the receipt of mineral royalties going through both Houses before the Election, and that indeed was achieved. But the arguments then for doing that were not wholly the same as the arguments now for doing this. A major argument then was the pressure of the balance of payments. That is still an argument—it is always an argument; but it is nothing like so pressing an argument now as it was then. But the greater difference lies in the fact that, then, the situation was understood to be that,

1021
whereas there were companies queueing up and anxious to start exploration, followed by development or exploitation, there were landowners whose tax position all told was such that they had no interest (using that word in its real sense; they had no real interest) in coming to terms with the would-be explorers and entering into licence agreements with them. Therefore, special provision for the landowners had to be made so that explorers could be enabled to do what they were bursting to do.
Why, then, is it necessary to give the would-be explorers this £50 million incentive? The noble Earl did not explain that. He has left it to me, therefore, to give your Lordships the explanation—and it is a simple one. What has changed since then—the reason why the Government have now to give to the explorer an incentive which the then Government did not need to give at that time—is that the Government have withdrawn the incentives which were available to investors. The investment incentive of the investment grant has been withdrawn by a most unwise act of Government policy, with the result that it is necessary now to find some incentive to attract those who would have explored had the ordinary investment grants been available to them. The noble Earl did not mention that. He may have thought it was not necessary to mention it as it had been explained by his honourable friend in another place; but, perhaps, as we want to be complete in our knowledge in this House, I will be forgiven for quoting what the Minister for Industry, Sir John Eden, said on introducing this Bill for Second Reading in another place on November 10. At column 1025 he said:
"Most metal mining companies exploring here have little or no United Kingdom profits available and, because of the long time lag before capital allowances relating to exploration can he claimed,"—
and may I say, in parenthesis, that your Lordships will appreciate that capital allowances are what the present Government have introduced in place of the investment grants which previously obtained—
"their value"—
that is to say, the value of the capital allowances—
1022
"in discounted cash flow terms is much reduced. It was becoming clear that, in face of the problems I have outlined, momentum in their exploration effort was being lost. The Bill is geared to their special needs and provides an additional incentive for exploration mainly in the metal mining sector".
That is what the responsible Conservative Minister said in the other place, and what I am adding and underlining is that it does not apply only to exploration; it applies to all investment. What we are seeing here is the compulsion of facts upon a Government to withdraw from a foolish policy in a particular area where the compulsion is so great that they needs must do so. As we all know, if a company is not making profits then allowances from the tax which is based on those profits is useless. What we also know is that if you are engaged on an investment as to which it will take several years (as has been made clear by the noble Earl this afternoon) before any return is possible, then the incentive effect of that, the likelihood of getting some relief from profits—if you make them—in four, five, six, seven or eight years ahead, is not sufficient to encourage investment, either in this field or in any similar field. Indeed, as the noble Earl has made clear (and I hope I shall not be accused of taking on some of the atmosphere of yesterday's debate in what I am now going to say, in its being a little Irish) the only time when the incentive is likely to be paid is when it will not be paid: because by that time, in order for capital allowances to be relevant, the company will be making a profit, and, as this incentive scheme is drawn, if it is making a profit then the Government will ask for repayment of the subsidy given—and I very much support that attitude. So, my Lords, what I am making abundantly clear is that the change in the situation is due entirely to the Government's having changed the policy on investment grants. They have withdrawn incentives from would-be investors in many fields—and that is one of the reasons why we are suffering from such a lack of investment in the economy, and in particular in this field—and that withdrawal has had such a drastic effect in this field that they have had to produce a special subsidy in order to cope and to compete with what is readily available abroad.
My Lords, the Bill is a very curious Bill, in that it has one clause dealing with

1023
what we have been discussing and another clause (and the noble Earl did not explain this) apparently dealing with something totally different—on the surface, at all events. Because Clause 2 talks about the alteration in the Act providing investment allowances for ships. One might think, at first blush, that if a shipowner wanted to know where he stood under the law with regard to expenditure incurred on a new ship, with a view to obtaining some tax relief or an investment grant relief, he would not immediately think of looking for a Bill headed "Mineral Exploration". He would think this an unusual combination of ideas. But, of course, the Government are right to put in the alteration of these two minor matters of investment grant. The Government are right to put Clause 2 here, because it relates to investment grants, and this Bill is about the withdrawal of investment grants. Had it not been for that reason, the draftsman would have suggested that Clause 2 should be tacked on to some other, more suitable, Bill. So that, my Lords, is why we have this Bill; and I wanted to make it very clear before turning on to the second aspect; that is to say, the aspect of conservation.
I listened very carefully indeed to what the noble Earl had to say, because he and I and I am sure all of us are equally interested that there should be a reasonable balance between those who explore and then, we hope, win minerals for the benefit of the country's economy generally, and those who are interested in maintaining the beauties of our countryside for the benefit of the population generally. With the greatest respect to what the noble Earl said, I should have thought that giving a subsidy to one side of that pressure alone was liable to get the pressure out of balance unless one is very careful. Now I know the noble Earl said —and I took his point—that this is not a new situation; that this applies to all kinds of exploration and exploitation and the winning of minerals, whether they are covered by this Bill or not. I realise that. But the noble Lord is proposing, and I am agreeing, that we should provide up to £50 million to encourage exploration and subsequent development. I should have thought, especially having regard to some of the debates that we have recently heard, that it would not have hurt to provide a tiny fraction of that sum for those organisations which
1024
are concerned with the preservation of the countryside, who need to stimulate public opinion and to counter, even in a modest way, the pressures that are going to be put on by this particular subsidy. So I ask the Government to consider whether they are quite satisfied that they are not upsetting the balance unduly in favour of the despoiler rather than the conserver of the countryside.
I realise that planning permission, where appropriate, can require restoration of the site, but I want to go into one detail about that aspect because I think it is relevant. I could be wrong, but, as I understand the position where exploration is concerned—and I am not talking about the later development now—some, but not all, of the processes are subject to planning consent. We therefore have a situation in which exploration can take place without necessarily having planning consent. Once exploration has taken place and a lot of money has been invested in it, there is additional pressure built up for development. Indeed, there is no point in the explorer and the taxpayer contributing to an exploration unless it is in the hope that it will be followed by development, by exploitation. Therefore I should have thought that, notwithstanding what the noble Earl has said about application for planning permission at the development stage, one wants to anticipate the pressures that are going to be brought to bear then by making sure, so far as possible at the start of the exploration, that if it is going to be a successful exploration one is not going to run into unnecessarily difficult planning situations. If you do, it is a matter which ought to have been faced at the start and before great pressures have built up.
I am saying this on the assumption that what I said earlier is correct: that there is at present no compulsion to have planning permission for all the processes of exploration. If there is this compulsion, then it is already under control. If there is not, there is an area through which activities might be started, money might be spent and great processes opened up, and difficulties and unnecessary pressure will be put upon those who wish to hold the balance of conserving the countryside. My assumption behind all this is that noble Lords will share with me the view that there ought to be a balance; that nobody is going to

1025
think wholly of the countryside and nobody is going to think wholly of minerals; that there should be a reasonable balance of both. That is all I want to say on that point.
I now turn to the third point: that is, the relationship between this Bill and a very important mineral indeed called coal. The noble Earl said that the money to be provided under the Bill, a total of £50 million, would be available as a subsidy to all minerals although he had certain minerals in mind at the moment. I want to remind the Government that we are at the moment in the depths of a coal strike. If the noble Earl says to to me, "We discussed this on Monday, only three days ago", I shall say that that gave the Government an opportunity for considering the questions I then asked, questions to which they will no doubt be ready to reply to-day. But the difference between now and Monday is that the country has in the meantime lost £6 million—£2 million a day, which is the cost of the coal strike. And £2 million a day, every day, is quite a lot of money—even ignoring all the hardships and all the difficulties which stem from the Government's inaction and unwillingness to do what most of those who spoke in that debate are asking for; namely, to encourage a compromise, a movement from both sides or a movement from all three sides.
I look at this figure of £50 million and ask why, for example, one quarter of it could not be allocated to a particular mineral whose exploration and, indeed, development, should be going on at the moment but is not doing so because of lack of funds, because of the lack of a small amount of money. A quarter of this figure allocated to that purpose would produce sufficient to pay the miners an additional 11 per cent. as compared with last year and with what they are being offered at the moment, which is an additional 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. Such an allocation would mean an additional 11 per cent.—and that would mean that the miners would be getting an increase of exactly the same percentage as the average increase in wages for the whole year in the private sector. The figures published on Monday showed that the average settlement throughout the private sector during the year amounted to 11 per cent. Eleven per cent. for the
1026
miners would give them an increase in their standard of living of 1 per cent., of one penny in the pound. This could hardly be called very inflationary, especially as we know that their increased productivity is of the order of 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. They would be getting one-third to one-quarter of their increased productivity and we should, in my view, be breaking the deadlock; because it is the Government's attitude, actions, statements and arm-twisting which is resulting in the Coal Board's being unable to offer more than they have offered hitherto.
Therefore I do not think I am taking up your Lordships' time unnecessarily, when we are dealing with a Bill to provide £50 million for one small group of owners, to have regard to the interests of nearly 300,000 men who are engaged in exploring and exploiting one of our most important minerals. I hope that the noble Earl will do what he can, either to say what is the present situation or the present posture of the Government or, if he is unable to do that, to take the most serious account of what I am pressing upon him.
6.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, like the noble Lords opposite, I welcome this Bill in general terms; it seems obviously sensible to try to develop such resources as we have. But, like him, I am exercised about the effect it is likely to have on the countryside; because by and large the minerals which are going to be looked for are those which are found in the most ancient rocks which make up places like Cornwall, Wales, the North of England and Scotland, the more spectacularly beautiful parts of our country and parts of our country which, more-over, tend to have animals and plants or assemblages of animals and plants which are of the greatest interest to biologists. It is with those that I am more closely concerned, because I am a member of the Nature Conservancy which administers a number of nature reserves and has designated a considerable number of sites of special scientific interest on all of which there grow, or live, animals or plants; or where there are geological exposures which are of the greatest interest. These could be destroyed, not only by the exploitation which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said almost inevitably will

1027
follow a successful exploration, but also they could be destroyed by those very explorations to which the noble Earl referred, and the scars of which he said might disappear completely if properly managed and no exploitation took place. That is true of the scars of exploitation which could disappear quickly. We no longer see the ridge and furrow exploitation of ironstone in the Midlands or of opencast coal mining and the like. In both those cases the top soil is replaced and agricultural and forestry may flourish as they did before, and little harm may be done.
The things in which I am particularly interested, these assemblies of animals and plants which have grown up over thousands of years, may be utterly destroyed by exploration and exploitation and nothing that is done can restore what was there before. In general, the sites where that sort of damage may be done are small. Probably it is true to say that on most of the larger nature reserves some form of exploration, and even exploitation, could take place; and although the amenities in the way of aesthetic beauty might be destroyed the scientific importance could be maintained if those sites of the greatest importance were avoided. The S.S.S.I., by their very definition, are places at great risk and obviously they demand special care. No amount of planning can provide for it because as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, a considerable amount of exploration may slip through the planning net, in that you can go into a place for 28 days without having to ask for planning permission and during that period a great deal of damage may be done. What is essential is that before any licence is given for exploration the Minister should consult the Nature Conservancy which knows all these sites of scientific importance, and through N.E.R.C., could be told what damage may occur; and sites could be specified which otherwise no one may recognise. but which ought to be avoided at all costs.
This point was raised during the Committee stage in another place. An Amendment was moved and withdrawn, unwillingly, after the Minister had given an undertaking which did not satisfy the mover of the Amendment and which, I think, will not satisfy your Lordships. It
1028
certainly does not satisfy me. The Minister said that the Nature Conservancy which administers these reserves and knows about these sites would be consulted in advance about any work which might qualify for grant, and which would be detrimental to a nature reserve or to a site of special scientific interest. That means nothing at all because the only body which knows what sites are of importance is the Nature Conservancy. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give an assurance that in every case the Conservancy will be consulted before a licence is granted. No delay would be involved because those who know could answer practically off the cuff, and the dangers to which I, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, have referred would be avoided so far as scientific sites are concerned.
6.35 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, may take some comfort from the realisation that the big mining companies are very much aware of the need to conserve the countryside. I hear that Lord Zuckerman's Committee was in Cornwall this week, and is going to Scotland next week to report on the steps taken by mineral developers; so the matter is being taken very seriously. This Island, my Lords, is, considering its size, one of the most highly mineralised areas on earth. It is the source of our prosperity and it is our duty to ensure its maximum development by every inducement and incentive. I and my colleagues in the mining industry consider this Bill to be a risible attempt to atone for the abolition of investment grants. If the Government want to encourage investment in mining as they will be forced to do in the not too distant future, they must reintroduce something to replace the investment grant to provide at least an equal incentive, otherwise the present spate of exploration by major companies will die down.
The viability of mining ill this country will not be restored by dogmatic affirmation of the view that investment grants are a waste of money, or by a back-door, halfway house of advances for exploration only. The comparison must be international and the present mouse of a

1029
Bill does not put the United Kingdom back to where it was in the international league when investment grants were on offer. I venture to say that the development of tin mining in Cornwall would not have started but for the encouragement offered by investment grants. Inadequate as the Bill is on the fiscal side, it completely fails to deal with the problem of the inadequate basis of mineral rights in the United Kingdom. There cannot be a prosperous future for mining in this country unless at a time when the company is prepared to commit funds for exploration it has pre-emptive rights to mineral tenures in the area it seeks to explore. The Government started out by saying that they were examining this problem. But they have abandoned this issue entirely, and I presume that they cannot afford to upset the landowners. It is their doctrinaire view on this point which prevents any attempt to solve this basic problem. Until it is solved it is no use offering incentives. This Bill is an attempt to put the cart before the horse.
When the Government decided to abolish investment grants and replace them by accelerated depreciation the effect of the change on certain industries in terms of comparative values was catastrophic. There was no comparison between the old and the new. One of the industries adversely affected was the mining industry. The C.B.I., commenting on the proposed changes, advocated the retention of investment grants for the mining industry in particular. I do not think that the Government can ignore the advice of the C.B.I. The effects of the withdrawal of the investment grant is described in detail in an article published in the Financial Times of February 15, 1971, nearly a year ago. It was written by Mr. Alun G. Davies, an executive director of R.T.Z. who was also President of the Overseas Mining Association and Chairman of the Taxation Committee of the C.B.I. I will quote two passages from that article. The first is:
"Mining men have often deplored the indifference of the British fiscal system to the development of mining in the U.K. It is true that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have been on the whole allergic to any preferential treatment for mining. What is also true is that the availability of investment grants in the development areas put the U.K. at one step among the leadership
1030
of the world league in fiscal stimulus for mining enterprises. By the abandonment of the grant last October (1970), how are the mighty fallen! The derisory benefits of the new so-called investment incentives will undoubtedly lead to the exit of the exploration teams from this country in pursuit of minerals elsewhere."
That which was forecast by Mr. Alun Davies in February of last year was too serious to be ignored, and in my opinion, in order to stem the retreat of the mining companies and to make the mining companies continue, the Bill that we are now discussing was thought up. I now quote another passage from this pungent article by Mr. Alun Davies:
"The finding and mining of natural resources creates wealth inside a country in a way that no other industry can. Industrial societies have a desperate and increasing demand for raw materials as a feed for industrial plants. Without them any country, and this country in particular, would be unable to survive industrially. Unless we are prepared to pass into the stage of a semi-pastoral Utopia we will have to continue to import minerals on a vast scale. We should not lightly pass by a rare opportunity at little budgetary cost to re-create a mineral industry of very large proportions in these islands."
This reference to "very large proportions" is the first that I have heard from a director of a company of this size. The article continues:
"But a quick movement on the fiscal levers is urgently necessary."
My Lords, the whole article from which I have quoted extracts should be studied very carefully by the Treasury and the other Departments involved; and I think it fair to give notice that later on this year, unless there is evidence of rethinking, I shall table a Motion asking for specific reasons why the Government persist in this attitude. For reasons which are still not clear to me, the last Labour Government missed an opportunity, by not taking earlier action, to give the mining industry the incentive which my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place outlined in a speech as far back as June 20, 1961 (cols. 1513 to 1526 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT), when he moved a new clause in the Finance Bill to provide a "tax holiday" of three years after a mine was first brought into commercial operation. In his speech he referred to the proposal as one put forward by the very important Committee set up by my

1031
noble friend Lord Shinwell. My right honourable friend said:
"That Committee produced one of the most important Reports produced in the immediate post war years."
He was referring to the Mineral Development Committee. This Committee was composed of geologists, industrialists, the then Director of the Royal School of Mines, economists, mining engineers and members of both Parties. There are two noble Lords in your Lordships' House, Lord Thorneycroft and Lord Balogh, who sat on the Committee, and I wish they were here this evening. I, too, had the honour of being a member. The recommendations we made are far more viable today than they were 25 years ago. I beg the Government to have another look at that Report.
I am going to refer to still another article, written by Mr. Nigel Hawkes in the Daily Telegraph Magazine of December 3, 1971. It is evidently the result of deep research into the position of world mineral reserves, which I would recommend as an additional study in assessing the need for a complete change of attitude on the part of the Government. It is headed "Living Beyond our Resources", and one of the features is an assessment of world mineral reserves and the estimated life according to the known reserves. Oil is exhausted in the year 2001; the present reserves of coal will last indefinitely, as I implied in my speech during the debate on Monday on the coal industry; copper is exhausted in the year 2010; lead in 1988; Zinc in 1988; nickel in 2030; uranium in 1988 —but breeder reactors can greatly prolong the reserve lifetime; mercury in 1984; tin in 1995; and iron ore will last at least 250 years. These calculations are on the basis of present known reserves and present rates of consumption. They ignore future new discoveries—that is what we are talking about today—and also the expected growth of population, which can upset everything.
My Lords, I have been in this fight for recognition of the need to develop our mineral resources since 1937. It was the subject of my presidential address to the Institute of Cornish Mining Engineers 35 years ago. Old colleagues of mine, especially Mr. J. H. Trounson, another ex-President of the same rare vintage as myself, are still in the fight
1032
Goodness knows how many Lords and Knights of the Treasury have been and gone during those 35 years, but it is certain that not one of them has earned the respect of the mining industry.
It would be apt on this occasion to ask, in view of the great and growing importance of developing our own mineral resources in this country, how many mining engineers there are on the Treasury staff. There is an ample number of economists and statisticians among the senior ranks, but I cannot recognise one mining engineer. There may be one down the list, but it is unlikely that he would be of any rank to carry sufficient influence on the deeply entrenched attitudes of Treasury academics. Is it fear of being unorthodox which breeds this attitude? If so, I should like to point out that they are alone in this world. Every country where there is a base metal mining industry provides substantial incentives. There is no need to go further than Ireland to prove this, North as well as Eire.
The Labour Government had to unravel the interests in the minerals industry shared by no fewer than seven Departments, apart from the direct over-riding interest of the Treasury. It was not until this was done and the number reduced to two that the task of mineral by mineral analysis was begun at the Ministry of Technology, with the honourable Member for Swansea West in another place in charge. The conclusion of the two years' analysis unhappily coincided with a change of Government; but the results are there in the archives, and I hope that they will be used and not be smothered by the dead hand of the Treasury. A study of the debate on this Bill in another place on November 10 reveals quite a lot of important information when one considers the doubtful value of this Bill, particularly the contribution of the honourable Member for Swansea West, to whom I have just referred. My first speech on this subject in your Lordships' House was on an Unstarred Question, which ran:
"What steps the Government are taking to provide for the situation that will arise as a result of the rapid depletion of the world resources of tin?"
That was several years ago. Since then I have made several speeches on the need

1033
to provide incentives for the mining industry. One might regard it as a waste of time and cease to fight, but in fact I intend fighting a damn sight harder.
By comparison with the investment grants which put us fourth in the world in terms of attractiveness for mineral investment, where are we now? I know it is unfair to ask the noble Earl to answer such a question without prior notice, but it is one which has to be answered in order to assess our present attractiveness to international mining companies. There is another question that I should like to ask—I do not require an answer but I want to register the question—what steps are being taken to safeguard against the fantastic escalation of terms that a mineral landlord can demand once it is established that his land contains minerals of value? The Member for Falmouth and Camborne who sits in another place, during the debate on this Bill on November 10, gave an example within his knowledge of an application to lease the rights to mine china clay over 40 acres. This was a poor agricultural holding—really no more than a smallholding—and its value shot up from £35,000 to £150,000 after it was known that it contained china clay.
In the absence of adequate protection of the mineral rights legislation which was in the pipeline of the Labour Government and until recently in the Conservative Government's programme, this Bill will be considered as a mineral landlord's answer to prayer. It may perhaps slow down the decline in exploration, but in terms of the cost of setting up new mines the contribution, in terms of encouragement, is risible, as I mentioned earlier, and the mining industry regards it as a half-baked attempt to atone for the abolition of investment grants. Let the Government invite the opinion of the big international mining groups: it is their money we are after.
During the debate on Monday, my noble friend Lord Diamond suggested splitting this £25 million between the miners and the mineral explorers. I suggest that in view of what has occurred in the coalmining industry since this Bill was drafted the whole amount be handed to the N.C.B. to get the miners back. That is now our first priority. Let us tackle the problem of mineral rights afterwards. I suggest meanwhile a drastic
1034
overhaul of the Institute of Geological Science. What do we pay these geologists to do? Can they not be organised and equipped to carry out the function on which it is proposed to spend £25 million? They should have amassed enough data over the last 25 years to give them a flying start. Here is another question to answer: has this Institute become a lush home for academics, a record office, or could it not function, in combination with the N.C.B., as a spearhead to reduce the £360 million a year we now spend on importing just copper, lead and tin? I would remind your Lordships that the country's total mineral imports were over £2,000 million in 1969. During Monday's debate several speakers, myself included, asked the Government to frame a fuel policy. I suggest that we also need a minerals policy. Time is running out. One last question: Do the Government propose to wait for some hoped-for dramatic results from this Bill before they can reconsider the harm they have done to the development of the minerals industry?
6.56 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, I have been closely connected with and am still very much interested in the work of the Nature Conservancy. The noble Earl raised a point on which it seems to me your Lordships are entitled to much more definite assurances than we have yet had from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. If I may say so, I think he is wrong in assuring us that the planning machinery and the planning authorities look after the problem to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, have both referred. It may be that so far as the amenities of the countryside go, the planning authorities can do a very great deal to control adverse developments. But that I will leave to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to deal with, since he is much more closely concerned with that aspect of affairs than I am.
As regards the effect upon the natural life of these areas—many of them very ancient and little interfered with hitherto by man—I think it is a great mistake to say that even exploration can do no harm. Perhaps no one but a naturalist or scientist realises what the effects can be of a mere disturbance of the soil over a small area. I believe that the public

1035
at large are beginning to think more and more about what may happen if water is diverted and streams put through lead or copper-bearing areas, even by very slight alterations. I would feel content if the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill could give us an assurance that even before exploration on a small scale, and certainly any interference on a bigger scale, is approved, the Nature Conservancy or NERC, or the Secretary of State for the Environment are brought into consultation. Those decisions ought not to be left to the Minister who is directly responsible for the development of the industries which are seeking his approval.
It seems to me that there is a particular obligation upon the Government, in working out any machinery of consultation in these matters, to take into account the situation to which President Kennedy drew attention some years ago when he assumed office. He found competing Departments backing competing interests in the United States and he said that he was not going to tolerate any longer one Department or one interest spending its time and the taxpayers' money on frustrating the policy and undoing the efforts of another.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that as a rule very little harm will be done to scientific interests and the wild life of the country by explorations designed to find out what minerals are there. Indeed, that process will have some compensating advantages. But one does not know, and the decision ought to rest with people who are acquainted with all the circumstances attending the environment and its possible alteration or deterioration. If, therefore, the noble Earl gives an assurance—because, as my noble friend Lord Diamond pointed out, there are gaps in the planning machinery—that the scientific people who have the knowledge, and are responsible to Parliament for the protection of the environment, will be consulted before work is allowed to proceed, then we might be content. That assurance, I hope, will not be hedged about. It should apply to any nature reserve, whether the land is owned by the Conservancy, leased by them or protected under agreements, and whether or not they have full national status, or are merely designated under the statutory machinery of sites of
1036
scientific importance. I hope, therefore, that we shall get an assurance of that kind. If that assurance can be given, so far as I am concerned I have nothing to say about the general principles of the Bill.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, based on experience of opencast coal operations and the restoration of land which has followed those operations, I should imagine that our amenities, wherever they are, will be effectively safeguarded. That is my assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and also to my noble friend Lord Hurcomb. Conservation is a very important matter indeed. Nobody would suggest that we should be careless, despoil the land and interfere with amenities which ought to be properly safeguarded. As I have said, I have long experience of the opencast coal operations, and nobody could complain about the land restoration that followed those operations. That is all I want to say about that aspect, and I do not want to say very much more because no one would wish to detain your Lordships' House at this time. However, I am bound to make one observation. Yesterday, in a full House, we spent the whole day debating with considerable excitement destruction and devastation. Here we are in your Lordships' House in wide open spaces with hardly any attendance worth talking about—except for its quality.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt? I came in specially when I heard that the noble Lord was speaking.
LORD SHINWELL: That is very kind of my noble friend; but I repeat that we were discussing a grave issue which may have its repercussions for many years to come. I hope they will not be as tragic as recent events. Here we are discussing development, something constructive, yet hardly any interest is evoked.
My noble friend Lord Diamond, with his usual ingenuity, sought to relate this Bill to the position of the coal-mining industry and the present dispute. Of course if we had the choice of injecting into the coal mining industry such national finance as is available, in order to bring this dispute to its end, or using

1037
it for the purposes of exploring the possibility of producing more non-ferrous materials, the former would obviously be more gratifying. But that is not the issue before us. The issue is whether it is proper for the Government, even at this somewhat belated stage, to find the necessary finance to provide the essential incentive in order to put exploration on its feet for the first time for many years.
I had a long experience—a rather tense experience—of this subject as far back as the time of the first Labour Government in 1924, when I was Secretary for Mines. The matter came before me in a variety of ways, as did the whole subject of the production of by-products from coal. A great deal can be said about that. It was only the absence of finance that prevented us from proceeding as we should have wished to do. When it was my turn to become Minister of Fuel and Power in 1945, again the subject was revived. I regret to say that it was the inaction of the Treasury (the Treasury are more inclined to inaction than to action, when it comes to doling out funds) and their attitude that prevented us from proceeding with the schemes to which my noble friend Lord Arwyn has been referring.
This matter of exploration is of the highest importance. It is just possible—indeed, it is probable—that as a result of further exploration delving much deeper into the earth than we have done hitherto—and this would cost a great deal of money— we might assist the coal-mining industry, in addition to assisting the production of non-ferrous metals which are so essential in our industries. But the question is whether this Bill will do it. My noble friend Lord Diamond was right; the Government have produced this belated incentive because of the absence, on their own volition, of investment grants. If investment grants had been continued, they would have done the trick. There were many companies ready to enter into the exploration field if the investment grants had been available. In the absence of investment grants, this is the best alternative, in the circumstances, although it is subject to considerable criticism, not only as regards the change in Government policy but as regards the financial details.
1038
I am not going to enter into that matter: it is too late, and in any event it would not matter very much.
The question before us is: do we want to explore? In my opinion we should. It was my experience (and this was mentioned to some extent by my noble friend Lord Arwyn) that when we were faced with the cessation of development in the tin mining industry in Cornwall it was maintained by those associated with the industry that there was much of that material to be exploited, but the question was one of finance. The Government of the day would not furnish the necessary finance. There was not only tin; there were the lead mines of Scotland in the Ayrshire and Dumfries-shire districts which have never been properly exploited, although it is well-known to geologists that there are "parcels" (let me use that term) of lead, and indeed, other materials available if an attempt were made to exploit them. What about the possibility of silver, and even gold, in Wales? There was a time when gold was produced in Wales. The wedding ring of Queen Alexandra, the spouse of King Edward VII at the beginning of this century, was made out of gold found in Wales. I am sure there is still plenty of it there, if we dig deep enough and are prepared to provide the necessary finance.
In any event, without proceeding further along these what might be called romantic and fantastic lines, although I think there is a great deal of material in what I have ventured to put to your Lordships' House in these few words, I welcome this Bill. My noble friend Lord Diamond was correct in his criticism, wise in his criticism, as he usually is, even if I do not always agree with him—but that is by the way; let us set that aside. The Government are doing something that is necessary, and it is about time they did something that is necessary. Before very long they will have to change their minds and their policy to a remarkable degree, as they have done in this particular instance. So we welcome the Bill. Let us go ahead and, at the same time, let us preserve and conserve the amenities. But let us use our resources to the utmost in the interests of the nation, for the purpose of providing employment and the raw materials out of which our industries can prosper.
7.12 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, like all those who have previously spoken, I support the Bill which has been introduced. At the same time, I should like to echo what has been generally said about the importance of making sure that this encouragement of mining activity in this country does not unduly affect our environment. I am bound to say that I was unable to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: that because a good deal of excellent restoration has been done in the case of opencast coal, that was a reason for being complacent about the provisions in this Bill. There are at the present time some 150,000 acres of derelict land—those are the official figures produced by the Department of the Environment—and very slow progress is being made in restoring them. Admittedly it is being speeded up at the present time, and I welcome that, but no one who has been Member of Parliament for the High Peak and seen the devastation done there in those limestone areas can feel entirely happy about any Bill encouraging mining and quarrying which does not contain adequate protection for the environment. I was most grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, for what he said about the difficulties which amenity societies and others have in fighting proposals for development. It is immensely costly, and often those who are concerned with the exploitation dispose of sums of money ten or a hundred times larger than the money at the disposal of the voluntary bodies.
I am quite sure that the Government intend that their Bill as drafted now should contain adequate protection, but I am not quite sure whether it is entirely adequate. I would ask the noble Earl what exactly they contemplate in cases where, as the Bill says, planning permission is "deemed not to be necessary". There has been a good deal of exploration in a seismographic survey in Dorset where charges of explosive have been sunk into the ground and exploded and, as a result of the waves through the different strata of the earth, scientists are able to deduce what is underground. In this case it was deemed that planning permission was not required. I ask the Government whether it is not reasonable that in all cases where exploration is going to take place and where planning
1040
permission is deemed not to be necessary, they should at any rate consult the local planning authority in order that it may make representations to the Government that the effect of the exploration would be harmful to the environment. We must bear in mind that the Minister who is going to be responsible for administering this Bill is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and he is naturally and rightly chiefly concerned with economic development. We therefore must make sure that those who are primarily concerned with amenity and the preservation of the environment are in a position to put forward their point of view.
I have spoken about amenity and preservation of the countryside. I should like to lend my support to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in what he said about the importance of making sure that exploration does not do harm to areas of special scientific interest. It seems to me that it would be entirely appropriate in a Bill of this kind if the Government could give us their assurance that, before any grants are made in areas of that kind, the NERC should be consulted. After all, NERC is a Government body; it is financed by the Government; and one would think it was only appropriate that it should be consulted before public money is spent in doing what in some cases NERC might regard as harmful to the interests that it has been appointed to defend.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the views which they have expressed and I, for my part, have found it extraordinarily interesting. I thought the real nub of the whole matter lay in what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said. What he said was: Do we want to explore? This was really the whole basis behind it, and I found it exciting. He put forward the prospects that lay ahead of possible exploration. Of course, this is exactly what this Bill is about. But, having said, "Yes, we do want to explore", then of course we bump up against all the other interests which are affected by such exploration. Several noble Lords have referred to whether there is adequate protection for the countryside—and a very real point this is. The noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, referred to

1041
land owners who have prevented exploration. But, there again, their rights must be, if not equated with, at least taken into account just as much as the rights of those concerned with the environment or those who wish to explore, both for the advancement of their companies and for the advancement of the country.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I want it to be quite clear that I was referring to people who are not aware they have any minerals at all on their land. The minerals are discovered by somebody else and the value of the land goes up sky high. That is what I want to make clear.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I quite agree. The noble Lord will concede that when one comes to mineral rights one comes to a complicated subject, and I do not think we would want to get drawn down that particular course.
I was grateful for the way in which your Lordships welcomed this Bill. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, took the opportunity (I do not blame him for it at all) of saying that it was the Government's fault for having disposed of investment grants, and had they not done it this Bill would not have been necessary. This is a perfectly reasonable point of view which I expected the noble Lord to take, but I would just tell him this, if I may. Where the old investment grants operated in the development areas they were 40 per cent. and in the areas which were not designated as development areas they were 20 per cent. This Bill allows loans or grants of 35 per cent., so I think the noble Lord will concede that there is not quite the disparity here that might appear on the surface.
Of course, the noble Lord also took the opportunity of referring to the ships and other hired assets that come under Clause 2. The only reason for including this is in order to rectify something that obviously had never been intended as a result of the passing of the Investment and Building Grants Act, and I am quite certain that your Lordships will agree that what has been put in Clause 2 is entirely correct in order to ensure that those who do apply for investment grants, for instance, are not prevented from
1042
obtaining the grant (to which they were entitled because they had applied for it before the relevant date) simply by virtue of having assigned the benefit of their contracts to a bank.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, quite rightly asked whether we were upsetting the balance between the interests of the countryside and the prospector. Indeed, this was a point put forward by many noble Lords: whether planning permission is adequate and whether the planning authorities have sufficient powers. If one applies for planning permission to start a project or to explore, the inference is that, having explored and having found the minerals there, one will want to proceed with it. This is a very real point. It is of course difficult to say that you should apply for planning permission in order to develop a whole site, when possibly only one out of ten projects which will be stated will develop into a site, and when anyhow you do not know what the site will consist of or where it will be, or indeed how much of whatever it is you want to develop is going to be there. I think it is right that this should be taken one stage at a time and one should first get the planning permission for prospecting. When you have prospected and found out what it is that should be developed and everyone knows the size of it, then the second stage comes, which is the planning permission for the overall job.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I do not think he has sufficiently taken the point which has been made by four noble Lords from all sides of the House. If the one in ten original proposals which the noble Earl has referred to as being likely to be followed by development is going to be made in an area where, irrespective of the size or the place or the nature of the digging (I do not know sufficient about the technical details) and although you cannot define it you know that you are in a sensitive area from the point of view of all the problems of natural life, beauty and the environment which have been put before us, then I should have thought there ought to be some machinery to cause questions to be raised at the start.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct; had he

1043
restrained himself a little I was about to come to that because, as he rightly says, this was a point of view put forward by about four noble Lords. I think I can give him the assurance he requires, because the Government have always been conscious of the need to give special care and attention to the position of nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, which is what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to. These sites are administered by or in agreement with, the Nature Conservancy which is part of the Natural Environment Research Council.
The Department is in touch with this Council and has agreed to make arrangements whereby the NERC will be consulted before any application for assistance under Clause 1 of this Bill is approved. The National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty cover some 16 per cent. of England and Wales. In fact there are, I think, 154 nature reserves and 2,700 sites of scientific interest. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, will therefore, I hope, be glad to know that in all cases where an application is received, irrespective of whether it covers these particular areas, there will be consultation with the NERC because they are the people who know where the areas are and whether such a proposal is likely to affect any area in which they are interested.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again, but I did not notice it in the Bill and I should be grateful if he would draw my attention to the relevant clause.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is not in the Bill; it is an assurance that I have given the noble Lord as to what the Minister intends to do. The noble Lord also invited me to comment on the fact that we were spending £50 million here and asked whether it would not be a good idea if a quarter of this was given to the coal miners to help during the present strike. My Lords, I have always immensely admired the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. When he referred to this the other day during the debate, I wondered whether it might crop up again, but I could not really believe that it would. One of the joys of being in Opposition is to try to dig an elephant trap for some poor person to fall into.
1044
I can give the noble Lord the assurance that I do not wish to comment on the coal strike one iota in relation to this Bill, and indeed I am sure that he would agree that it really has nothing to do with it. I thought it was rather like saying, "I like Parliament Square very much, but on the whole I prefer Tuesday afternoon".
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, made a very interesting speech, and one acknowledges the depth of knowledge which the noble Lord has, and his interest in this matter. I do not wish to comment a great deal at this moment on what he said because he ranged fairly wide, but what he has said will certainly be taken into account. We realise, of course, the difficulties experienced by mining companies in gaining access to land and minerals, and the noble Lord will be glad to hear, I think, that at the moment we are considering the form which any amending legislation might take when the Parliamentary timetable permits it. As he knows, the subject is complex and we are anxious that any new legislation shall be as effective and as fair as it can be, not only to the developers but to everyone else who has an interest in it.
My Lords, this Bill is designed to provide an incentive to companies to explore and to prove the mineral resources. The noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, said that it was a "mouse" of a Bill. I thought this was a little unkind. Since the scheme was announced last July there have in fact been over one hundred applications from more than 20 companies, and of these 100 applications 50 have already been approved in principle.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I intervene only in a jocular way in reference to the noble Earl's comparing himself to an elephant just now. I do not think it is fair to him, and I will withdraw my description of a "mouse" if he will withdraw his description of himself as a "elephant".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I were to withdraw my own description as an elephant possibly noble Lords opposite might not agree. However, I hope that I have been able to give noble Lords the assurances which they have been concerned to get, and I accept that this is mostly the environmental one. I hope

1045
they will find that this Bill will not in fact make undue and unfair inroads into the environment, and that there are planning authorities capable of controlling these undertakings, should this come about. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS (COMPUTATION) REGULATIONS 1972
7.31 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE rose to move, That the Draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1972, laid before the House on January 18 last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Family Income Supplements Act 1970 provides for the payment of a benefit for families with small incomes where the breadwinner is in full-time work and there is at least one dependent child. The supplement is payable when the family's weekly resources fall below the amounts prescribed in Section 2(1) of the Act, as amended by regulations made under Section 2(2). The weekly rate of the benefit is one half of the amount by which the family's total income falls below the prescribed amount, subject to a maximum weekly payment determined by Section 3(1) of the Act, as amended by regulations made under Section 3(4).
The Bill fixed the prescribed amount at £15 a week for a one-child family, increasing by £2 a week for each additional child. The maximum weekly payment was set at £3. These amounts were increased before the scheme started by the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations, 1971, which the House approved in April. The prescribed amounts were raised by £3—that is, to £18 a week for the one-child family, still increasing by £2 steps for larger families —and the maximum payment by £1—that is, to £4 a week. The present Regulations increase the prescribed amounts by £2 for each family size. Thus the new prescribed amount for a one-child family will be £20 a week, for a 2-child family £22, and so on. This is achieved by Regulation 2. Regulation 3 increases the maximum weekly payment to £5. Regu-
1046
lation 4 revokes the 1971 Computation Regulations with effect from April 4 1972, which is the date on which the new regulations will take effect if they are approved by Parliament.
Since F.I.S. is half the difference between the gross family income and the appropriate prescribed amount, the effect of the Regulations will be to increase F.I.S. entitlement by £l a week for all families entitled to F.I.S. when the regulations take effect; and to bring into entitlement a number of other families who are at present excluded because their incomes are over the existing limits, or who will be excluded when their current awards expire. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1972, laid before the House on January 18 last, be approved.—(Lord Aberdare.)
7.35 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I have a few observations to make before these Regulations are approved. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has pointed out, the Regulations authorise increases in family income supplements. In so far as these help families on very low incomes, one cannot do other than welcome them. But the very fact that these Regulations are before the House is a recognition of the existence of a large number of families with very low incomes for whom we must express our concern. Moreover, the increases are some acknowledgement of the fall in money values. In considering the operation of this scheme there are just four short questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and of which I have given him notice.
The first is this. Are the Government satisfied with the take-up? According to my own calculations there is only about a 50 per cent. take-up; that is to say, 50 per cent. of the total who might be entitled under these provisions are taking advantage of the scheme. Such a situation is not entirely satisfactory. Secondly, I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that there are many anomalies. For example, it has been pointed out that where there has been a wage increase introduced by the employer to cover an increase in superannuation contributions by the employees,

1047
this may have the effect of reducing, and possibly eliminating altogether, the benefit of the family income supplement. It is felt that this is, to say the least, unfortunate. Thirdly, as the noble Lord is aware, there has been a good deal of discussion about the possible disincentive effect of F.I.S., but I should like to know what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in the attempt to overcome any disincentive effect.
The fourth question is this. Are the Government satisfied that those in need are not put off by the additional form-filling which this involves? I say "additional form-filling" because the families who come into this category are often under some other form of means test, and every means test involves some kind of filling up of forms. I have the claim form here. I would not suggest that this is the most complicated of forms; I have seen many worse. But for the kind of families who have to cope with this problem I think that any form-filling is difficult. I am not at all sure whether the majority would know exactly what "gross earnings" are. For example, where some of the payment by the employer is in kind, where it includes rent and fuel, is that taken into account in working out gross income? I should have thought there might well be some confusion in filling up these forms. Alternatively, it may be that some families are put off altogether by the fact that they have to fill up a form, and the increase in benefit will not overcome that because it is a problem which is part and parcel of the whole means-testing system.
I would conclude with this general observation. I do not really think that F.I.S. gets to the root of the problem. I think that if I were introducing this increase I should have to acknowledge that it is only a temporary expedient. I cannot to-night suggest alternatives. I should like to see a statutory minimum-earnings rule. As to our general policy of social security benefits, I believe that our aim should be not to extend means-testing but to find ways of avoiding it. There are a number of proposals, that we could put forward—as negative income tax, for example—though again we cannot discuss them to-night. But surely so long as there are these families on low incomes the aim should be to alleviate the hardship arising from low incomes and at the
1048
same time avoid, so far as possible, the embarrassment of means testing. The Government may say that it will take time. If so, I think the right attitude is to regard this as a temporary expedient. The impression I have from statements of the Government is that this is to be regarded as a permanent feature of our social legislation, and it is with that that I cannot agree. However, with those reservations, I believe, these Regulations should be approved.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful for the way this increase in family income supplement is received by noble Lords sitting on the Labour Benches. I take their silence to mean general approval. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is so gloomy about it all and I think he is quite wrongly gloomy. I think this scheme has made a very good start. I should like just to comment quickly on some of the things he said. He was talking about means testing. He thought that I might say that to get over means testing to some other system would take time. I think it would also take money, and the thing to get over is that the means testing system spends the limited amount of money in those areas where it is most needed. He said that it is a permanent part of our social system, but this is not necessarily so. We have always said all along that it is one of the ways in which we can start helping people who need this sort of help. It is not necessarily a permanent part of our social security system.
I should like to say a few words on the four points that the noble Lord raised. First of all, the take-up. There are 68,000 people at present enjoying the Family Incomes Supplement and a further 25,000 who are benefiting from Supplementary Benefit, because this affects the wage-stop provision. So these are quite a number of families, involving something over a quarter of a million children who are receiving help. Most of the help, something over three-quarters of the awards, are to those who are receiving £2 to £4 of Family Income Supplement, and these are the people who need it most. The cost is actually running at £6 million at the moment. Therefore, £6 million is going into the hands of families affecting over 250,000 children, which is surely some help.

1049
Secondly, the noble Lord asked me about wage increases. If somebody gets a wage increase they may well go out of the range of entitlement, but on the other hand this regulation that we are passing this evening will help in this respect because it changes the qualifying figure. So far as the disincentive effect is concerned, yes, of course, all these benefits involve a certain amount of disincentive effect, but the fact that this scheme works on a 50 per cent. award between the prescribed figure and the gross wage does mean that the disincentive effect is only 50 per cent. That was why this figure was put into the scheme.
So far as the forms are concerned, I can only think that we are all becoming extremely expert in filling up forms, because in fact there has been very little difficulty about it. The forms have been satisfactorily completed in most cases. Some of them have had to go back for further information, but the number of home visits, which is the last resort when trying to sort out the claim, have been less than 1 per cent. of the total claims. One must not forget—and it is an important part of the Scheme —that once a claim is awarded it gives a passport to other benefits: to free prescription charges, free welfare milk and foods, and free school meals, so that one form covers a number of other benefits. I hope, therefore, that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that this is not quite such a bad Scheme as he painted it.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask this question? He may have mentioned it, but I do not think he dealt with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about the anomaly which can arise when there is an increase in pay to cover an increased superannuation contribution.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords. I think I did deal with that. I said that when there was an increase in pay, for whatever reason, it might well take somebody out of the prescribed level. All I can say about it is that the Scheme, by raising the prescribed level by £2, helps to keep more people in. I am afraid that where there is a rise in gross wages, that naturally affects the entitlement.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, would the noble Lord not take note of the point that what is significant in such a case (I think this was the noble Lord's point) is that although there is an increase in gross pay, that increase is immediately absorbed by this additional superannuation contribution. Therefore, the net pay, leaving superannuation aside, is unchanged. I think that was the anomaly the noble Lord had in mind.
LORD WADE: Yes, my Lords, that is the point.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think I had got the point. The answer is that I will certainly look into it. It is a new point to me, but, so far as I know, the answer is that this is intended to be a simple scheme; the level is set at a certain point, and if a man goes beyond the point then he loses entitlement, although of course he gets the entitlement for six months.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REDUNDANCY FUND (ADVANCES OUT OF THE NATIONAL LOANS FUND) ORDER 1972
7.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1972, laid before the House on January 18 last, be approved. The effect of this Order is to enable the Secretary of State for Employment, with the agreement of the Treasury, to raise the limit on loans from the National Loans Fund to the Redundancy Fund from £8 million, to which it is restricted under Section 35 of the 1969 Act, to £20 million, for a period of two years beginning on February 28, 1972.
I do not think I need give the background to the Act, but I should just like to say that 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, and the Fund is therefore especially vulnerable in times when unemployment is rising. But expenditure is also affected by the ages, length of service and rates of pay at the time of redundancy of the workers

1051
who become redundant. Through a combination of these various factors a trend to deficit appeared in the later part of 1966. It proved necessary 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, decreased the rate of outgoings from the Fund by reducing the employer's rebate from 75 per cent. 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, and at the end of that year the Fund carried a surplus of £2¾million.
During 1971, however, the number of redundancy payments increased steeply. The number of payments from the Fund in that year—provisionally 369,000—was a third greater than in the previous year Moreover, the average payment in 1971 exceeded the 1970 figure by 15 per cent.; higher wage levels being an important contributory factor. As a result, the surplus in the Fund, which had been £31¼ million in the middle of April, began to disappear and by 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 continued to rise at the rate it has done in recent months it looks as if the £8 million limit on the amount which can he borrowed from the National Loans Fund would be reached in a month or so.
Experience throughout the life of the Fund has shown how difficult it is to forecast what its future position will be. I cannot therefore blame our predecessors for having increased the borrowing, limit three times in twelve months. I suggest, however, that we can and should profit by their experience. And so, given the difficulties in forecasting, we think that the right thing to do now is to increase the amount which the Fund can borrow to the maximum figure of £20 million for the next two years, not because we believe that it will in the event prove necessary to borrow up to this limit but because it will at least avoid our having to come back to Parliament within a short time to increase the limit.
1052
My Lords, perhaps I should just add something about the redundancy payments scheme itself. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been reviewing its working, and my honourable friend the Minister of State made the following announcement in another place on his behalf:
"The Government consider it desirable that before any decisions are reached as to what changes, if any, should be made in the scheme, 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; whether changes are now required either in these objectives or in the means by which they are secured."
Meantime the purpose of this Order is to ensure that there will be sufficient money in the Redundancy Fund to enable the statutory rebates and guarantee payments to be met from it, and I commend it to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1972, laid before the House on January 18 last, be approved. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.51 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has presented this Order to the House. We now have some six years' experience of the working of the Redundancy Payments Scheme, and we have heard with interest the reference which the noble Lord made at the end of his speech to the recent announcement on its possible future. I think it has been generally accepted as useful and as working well. But there are one or two questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord in connection with the Order. It would be valuable if we could be told when we may expect to have the accounts of the Redundancy Fund published. I think I am right in saying that the last accounts were published in November, 1970, and were in respect of the financial year 1969–70. This would have led one to expect that we should have a further set of accounts in the late autumn of last year. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether accounts in respect of the year 1970–71 are likely to be published fairly soon.

1053
I think your Lordships will recognise the unhappy circumstances which have necessitated this Order, which empowers the Secretary of State to obtain this temporary loan for the purposes of the Fund. This is obviously not the occasion to dwell at any length upon the unemployment situation, but against that background it would be useful to know what are the terms upon which the loan will be made available. Will any question of interest charges arise in connection with it; and, if so, what effect is that likely to have upon the future finances of the Redundancy Fund? It would also be useful if the noble Lord could give us a more precise indication of how long it appears likely that this additional sum will suffice. If I understood aright the figures which he gave us, the deficit in the Fund has been increasing at something like £1 million a month. Bearing in mind the present deficit, this suggests that the £20 million will not be likely to last much beyond the end of 1972. In other words, it might well be absorbed in a shorter period than the two years mentioned in the Order. I am not very clear whether, in the event of the £20 million proving to be insufficient, further legislation would be necessary in order for further loans to be procured, or whether the laying of a further Order raising the limit again would be sufficient. There will obviously be no disposition on our part to oppose this Order, the necessity for which we recognise, but it would be useful if the noble Lord could comment a little on those points.
7.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He asked, first, when the accounts will be published, and I should think that would be quite soon. Although the accounts were published last time on November 24, one set of accounts was previously published on January 27 and two were published in February. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord an exact date. He then asked me about interest
1054
charges. I understand that the rate of interest is the same as that for borrowing by the nationalised industries, but I am afraid that I cannot give him the exact figure. All I can tell the noble Lord is that the figure is the same as for the nationalised industries, and apparently this has been the practice all along. The noble Lord then asked for how long the sum is likely to suffice. I cannot fault his arithmetic, which seems to be about right, but of course this is not the only way in which the assets of the Fund can be increased. I understand that they can be increased by Order raising the contributions. But I think the noble Lord is right in implying that further legislation would be necessary to raise the limit of the loan beyond the £20 million. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Fifth Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  MR. DENNIS STEVENSON AND RESEARCH PROJECTS
  MR. DENNIS STEVENSON AND RESEARCH PROJECTS
  WASTE DISPOSAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  WASTE DISPOSAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  TREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED
  TREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED
  AMNIOCENTESIS RESEARCH
  AMNIOCENTESIS RESEARCH