Sitting of 3 December 1973

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

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on a matter arising out of Questions? The Secretary of State for Wales is the Minister responsible for local government and in that capacity he has been receiving deputations about the rate support grant in Wales, but today three Questions on this matter have been transferred to another Minister. I wonder whether you can guide me as to any avenue or remedy which may be open to my hon. Friends who have set down these Questions?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the arrangements for transferring Questions are not a matter for the Chair.

  WALES

    Heath Hospital
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations have been made to him by residents of the Heath area concerning the present access to the Heath Hospital.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I have received representations from two residents of Rhydhelig Avenue, Heath, one inviting me to receive a petition.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing resentment and hostility among the people living in the Heath area at the failure of the Welsh Office to provide adequate access to the Heath Hospital? Will
    884
    he give an assurance that he will undertake negotiations with the city authority to solve this problem?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My officials are in constant touch with the city authority on this matter, which I know is of considerable concern to residents in the area. I repeat that it is a matter for Cardiff City Council, as the responsible highway and planning authority, to decide what measures it should take to deal with the situation.
    Mr. George Thomas: Does not the Secretary of State agree that although Cardiff City Council has the responsibility for planning, he is responsible for the National Health Service and he should accept a joint responsibility with Cardiff City Council to ensure that this awful problem is soon resolved?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am anxious to do whatever I can, but I cannot get away from the fact that the appropriate authority in this matter is the city council, and not myself.

    Disabled Person's Vehicle
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales why the Morris 1000 car KUN 766F was not used by a disabled person from the period 11th April 1973 to 9th November 1973 ; if he was aware that this vehicle was in working order and was taken from a disabled person ; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The car in question was withdrawn because a change in the disabled person's family circumstances made her no longer eligible for such a vehicle. A three-wheeler, or a cash allowance if she bought her own car, was offered to her in lieu. The vehicle was then overhauled and held for issue in due course to a patient who qualified for such a car but who was unable to use a Mini. I shall write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) and I are most concerned about this matter, because we were assured in correspondence that this car was urgently required? The car was in perfectly good working order. Will the Minister of State say why the car was not

    885
    issued quickly when we were assured by the Department that someone was waiting for it? Is this an isolated case? Will the Minister of State investigate the allocation of cars in the Principality?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I shall look at the letter which the hon. Gentleman says was written to me in this respect. I can assure him that the Department has operated quite properly and that I have personally looked very carefully into the details. In my original answer I said that the reason we could not leave the car with the lady concerned was that her mother had died and this brought her into the National Health Service category in which she could have a three-wheeler. I shall write further to the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
    Mr. Ellis: Will the Minister of State say what he can do for my constituent, Miss Lily Maud Davies? Is he prepared to sell her the car?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The car has now been issued to another person. As I have already said, the £25 per quarter car allowance would be available to the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

    Kinmel Camp, Bodelwyddan
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the proposed closure of Kinmel Camp, Bodelwyddan ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have received representations from a number of sources. The camp will close at the end of the current term. Alternative uses for the site are being carefully considered.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this closure represents a hardship for the western end of the county similar in effect, although much smaller in scale, to that inflicted on the eastern end by the proposed rundown of steel making at Shotton? Will he give an assurance that he will devote as much energy and resources as he can to ensure that the 100 people who will find themselves redundant as a result of this governmental decision are able to find comparable employment without having to move from their present homes?
    Mr. Thomas: I accept that there are social consequences as a result of the closure. I assure my hon. Friend that full account was taken of this before a decision was reached, and that Departments will co-operate in making every effort to assist those who are made redundant.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the meeting he had with the Welsh Counties Association on the question of rate support grant.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I met a deputation from the Welsh Counties Committee on 16th November, when it expressed to me its concern about the possible effects on Welsh local authorities of the review of rate support grant for 1974–75. Subsequently it elaborated these views in a written submission which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are considering.
    Mr. Roderick: Will the Secretary of State explain why he bothered to meet the Counties Committee, and why he left it with the impression that Welsh ratepayers would have to find a further £11 million in rates whereas he left Welsh Members of Parliament with the impression that £8 million was an exaggeration? Does he not owe the House an explanaation for speaking with two voices on the same subject?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The reason why I bothered to meet the committee is that I am interested in all the arguments put forward about the new formula, which everyone agrees is necessary for the rate support grant. It is too early, as I told right hon. and hon. Gentlemen when I met them, to say what the precise effect of the new formula will be in different areas. The important thing is that we have already announced that we are considering measures to offset the effect on the domestic rate burden. We propose to put up the domestic rate element and also to have a greatly improved rate rebate scheme.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is it not the case that unless the new formula is amended every one of the new counties, except South Glamorgan, will be worse

    887
    off? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify the position and give us a straight answer on that simple point?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I wish it were as simple as that. It is meaningless to make any direct comparison of the actual amounts of rate support grant payable to Welsh authorities for 1973–74 and for 1974–75 because of the changes which will take effect next year as a result of local government reorganisation.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that in discussing the Local Government Bill we on the Labour benches were critical of many of its provisions but were assured in Committee, on 14th March 1972, that Welsh local authorities could still look forward to the same level of support from the resources grant? Now that we are obviously not going to have this, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that we in Wales must have either higher rates or reduced services?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is premature to say what the precise effect will be. All we can say is that there will be measures to offset the effects on the domestic rate burden.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State not aware that one effect of the new arrangements on counties like my own, the new county of Dyfed, which has large rural and industrial areas, will be to impose an additional rating burden upon the factories in the industrial areas? Is he not aware that the effect will be that these areas will suffer more than adjoining areas, such as West Glamorgan, which will not have to bear this increased burden?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot accept that in its entirety. There are no such things as "new arrangements", because the submissions and views put forward by the local authority associations when they met my right hon. Friends, myself and other Ministers last week are being considered. The Government propose, after consideration, to publish a White Paper this month setting out our decisions.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief executive officers of the new shadow authorities in
    888
    Wales are all grievously disturbed following the recent interviews which the representatives of the Welsh counties had with him? Will he explain why these executive officers are all under the impression that their authorities will be worse off? This doubt must be cleared up. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the counties are writing to us and they look to us to get a clear answer from him that we in Wales will not be worse off as a result of the rate support grant arrangement? When will it be forthcoming?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As I said earlier, it is meaningless, because of local government reorganisation, to try to compare the present situation with what the situation may be in future. It is clear that there has to be a new formula. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the rate support grant is not one of those functions given to the Welsh Office by the Labour Government's Transfer of Functions Order.
    Mr. Roderick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you allow the Secretary of State an opportunity to withdraw a remark he made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) when he said that there were no new arrangements? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to withdraw that remark, since the Minister of State is at present serving on a Bill which is advocating new arrangements?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about the formula which at the moment is still under discussion.

    Small Firms
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the future prospects of small business firms in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government have established special arrangements to deal with the small firms sector of the economy. I expect such firms to continue to benefit from the Government's economic policies.
    Mr. McBride: Will the Secretary of State say what advice he has tendered to the Cabinet about the effects on small

    889
    Welsh firms of a diminution in cash reserves and investment intentions as a result of the 18 per cent. overdraft rate and the effect upon such firms of the new rate proposals whereby the variable proportion of £60 million will have to be borne by them, thus acting as a deterrent to the attraction of industry and investment?
    Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular firm in mind I shall be grateful if he will get in touch with me, so that I can look into the matter.

    New Jobs
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs he estimates have been created in Wales since the passing of the Industry Act.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The information is not available in the form requested. I estimate that projects approved since March 1972, when regional development grants were introduced, and projects currently under consideration are likely to provide 27,000 jobs in manufacturing industries.
    Mr. Edwards: With this clear evidence of the success of these policies, will my right hon. and learned Friend resist any pressures to cut down on Industry Act incentives and instead take full advantage of the new EEC regional fund, when it becomes available, to reinforce the success so far achieved?
    Mr. Thomas: As my hon. Friend knows, the provisions in the Industry Act are to be made available until 1978. Industry had been looking forward to a continuation of this measure. I agree that we can hope to benefit from the EEC regional fund. As my hon. Friend knows, unemployment in Wales is now at a low level compared with earlier figures. The November figure is the lowest for any month since September 1966. Since March 1972 the number of unfilled vacancies has more than doubled and the current figure is the best total for 20 years.
    Mr. Alec Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about success. May I ask him how many jobs have been lost to Wales following the withdrawal by the Government of investment grants?
    Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will table a question on unemployment I shall be delighted to give him a straight answer, particularly at the present time.

    Rents (Lodger's Supplement)
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of council tenants in Wales who pay a lodger's supplement to their normal council rent.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: None, Sir. Since the introduction of the Housing Finance Act 1972, rents apply to dwellings and not to the occupants ; there is no longer such a thing as a lodger's supplement.
    Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that through sheer ministerial incompetence many council house tenants whose lodgers have left have continued to pay a lodger's supplement because the Minister has wrongly interpreted his own Act? Will he explain why it took him until 29th October to discover that the tenants could be relieved of this charge? Will he apologise to the House, particularly to my hon. Friends and myself, for the fact that he has consistently said in letters that the charge could not be removed? What apology, and, more importantly, compensation, does he offer to those council tenants who, for more than a year, have unnecessarily and often in hardship had to continue paying this charge?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is in a bit of a muddle. Under the Housing Act 1972, if, when the fair rent is determined for a particular dwelling, the tenant is found to be paying more than the fair rent, whether because a former lodger's supplement had been absorbed into the rent or for any other reason, the tenant is entitled to a refund of the excess.
    Mr. McBride: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the rent scrutiny boards, following receipt of information from the local authorities, should be instructed to rebate this legally made charge, which is a fault of the Tory Government and of incompetent Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: East is as bad as west, but this matter is well known by

    891
    the rent scrutiny boards, which are independent bodies.

    Library Authorities
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the designation of library authorities in Wales ; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Representations have been made to me by seven local authorities and a number of Members of Parliament. I am arranging to receive deputations jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Probert: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many district councils in Wales are alarmed at the prospect of losing local control of their libraries, particularly as they believe that the inevitable consequence will be a deterioration in the library services? Will he promise not to take responsibility for the library services away from the district councils, particularly as promises were given by the Minister of State when we were reviewing those services during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill? A promise was then given to the people of Wales that the district councils in Wales, in particular, would have responsibility for the libraries.
    Mr. Thomas: On the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, what the Minister of State said was clear. It was no more than a confirmation that there is nothing in Section 207 of the Act to prevent a district council in Wales from being designated as a library authority. I am aware that many district councils are anxious to retain their library functions. If the county council agrees, library powers can be delegated to a district council on an agency basis. We are anxious to achieve the maximum efficiency for the public library service, and, with my right hon. Friend who is constitutionally responsible for this matter, who is consulting me, I am anxious to go into the matter in some detail and to have the discussions which we have promised to have with hon. Members and local authorities.

    Commission on the Constitution
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales which
    892
    organisations in Wales are being consulted about the report of the Commission on the Constitution ; and what part he will take in these discussions.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall welcome views from any Welsh organisation or individual, and these will be fully considered by my colleagues and myself.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister rightly said that there should be a reasonable period for consultation and public discussion of the report? Will he consult, in particular, the Welsh Council and Welsh local authority organisations, in view of the implications of the report for them and possibly upon their functions?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that the Welsh Council has already begun a study of the report. I am sure that political and other bodies are also considering it, and I very much hope to receive their views in due course. Indeed, I would welcome their views at any time.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that my Welsh right hon. and hon. Friends are largely agreed on this matter and that we should be happy to facilitate the passage of a Bill giving effect to the major recommendation of the report?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am delighted to hear that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are agreed. I read in a newspaper a report of a speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), made, presumably, on behalf of the Labour Party in Wales. I found it very interesting. I did not detect much enthusiasm in it, but it was quite clear.
    Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State must learn to read with care. The Opposition are clear, unanimous and unequivocal on this question. We are united in our determination—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the time for questions, not for policy statements.
    Mr. George Thomas: No one holds you in higher regard than I do, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I am simply casting my bread upon the waters. Is the Secretary of State aware that on this matter the Opposition have declared their position quite clearly, which is for a directly

    893
    elected assembly in Wales? When may we look forward to the Secretary of State's clear observation on the question?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I was interested to find that the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time for a very long time, appeared to be speaking on behalf of all his colleagues in the speech which he made last Friday. I assure him that I shall study what he says with great care, and I welcome the views which he has expressed. The Government wish carefully to consider this large and complicated report before coming to a decision. We hope to receive, and, indeed, will welcome, views from all interested bodies in Wales, which in many cases will be very different from those of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, unlike right hon. and hon. Members opposite, many of us on the Government side of the House do not wish to bury this matter in a cloud of ambiguity and would welcome a forthright statement from my right hon. and learned Friend to the effect that the report is totally and utterly misguided and that with local government reorganisation, new authorities, and so on, the people of Wales have been pushed around quite enough? The Welsh people want to see the report decently buried as soon as possible.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My hon. Friend has expressed a view which I know exists. The Government intend to put forward their proposals as soon as they are in a position to do so. Those proposals will be put forward clearly and unequivocally, just as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) suggests his proposals were put forward. But we do not intend to put them forward until public opinion has had time to form.

    Area Health Authorities
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from medical bodies about the composition of area health authorities in Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: My right hon. and learned Friend has had a small number of representations, mainly about the appointment of local medically qualified
    894
    members to the Clwyd Area Health Authority.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Minister of State aware that many people believe that the major failings of the National Health Service can be traced to the over-representation of doctors, and particularly of consultants, in its administration? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in future greater emphasis on preventive medicine, based on the general practitioner service, allied to cottage hospitals and clinics, would be advantageous and that therefore any necessary medical representation on health boards should be preponderantly general practitioner representation?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: This is not an easy matter. I, personally, and many other people, went to great lengths to try to find the right answer. Every nomination was very carefully considered. Because the number of appointments which could be made was small, many who were admirably suited to membership could not be appointed. Of the 10 members appointed by the Secretary of State to the Clwyd Area Health Authority, three were doctors.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Company Law Reform
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further consultations he still intends to undertake regarding the proposed Company Law Reform Bill.
    The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I shall continue to undertake extensive consultations both before and during the passage of the Bill.
    Mr. Meacher: Will there not be further consultations, in view of the disastrous mishandling of investment banking by London and County Securities? Is it not clear that this company deliberately played upon public uncertainty—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a Private Notice Question later on this matter.
    Mr. Meacher: Does that mean that I am not entitled to raise this matter at all?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to, but he will probably lose any

    895
    chance of catching my eye on the Private Notice Question.
    Mr. Meacher: In view of the difficulty of catching your eye later, Mr. Speaker, I shall proceed. Did not this company take advantage of public uncertainty about its property valuations and other reserves to borrow extensively from other financial institutions to lend to unquoted companies about which it knew little or nothing? How does the White Paper erase this wart from the face of capitalism?
    Sir G. Howe: I make no comment on the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman on the company. In considering the preparation of the Bill we shall take account of whatever lessons are to be learned from whatever case may arise.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his present assessment of the amount of crude oil reserves in the North Sea.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): Recoverable reserves of the fields in the United Kingdom sector now considered to be commercial are estimated to be about 800 million tons. This figure will increase as further fields are discovered or existing fields proved commercial.
    Mr. Wainwright: What action are the Government taking to speed up the flow of oil to our shores? Will the Minister guarantee that the nation will receive the maximum profit from these oilfields, or will there be a repetition of the situation which has arisen with the National Coal Board, in that the Government have compelled the NCB to sell off its brick interests, which made a profit of £1½ million last year, at a time when the NCB is short of money to pay decent wages to the miners?
    Mr. Boardman: We are doing everything we can to help speed up development. We have asked companies to let us know of any matters that may be holding up their work so that we can take appropriate action to see that there is no delay in bringing the oil ashore. In reply to the second point, a review of licensing policy is being carried out, and
    896
    a statement will be made in due course by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of the probable deposits off the north-west of Scotland, including the Minches?
    Mr. Boardman: No, we have not been able to make an assessment there. We await the time when exploration goes there. It would be premature for me to express an opinion at this stage.
    Mr. Dell: Has the hon. Gentleman made an estimate of the price at which these deposits will be brought ashore?
    Mr. Boardman: Not yet, Sir.
    Mr. Skeet: As the Minister has given an indication of the substantial reserves in the North Sea although they are conservative, will he confirm that it is desirable to go ahead with exploitation as quickly as possible? Will he also indicate the probable reserves available in the North Sea on both the United Kingdom side and the Norwegian side?
    Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend is right. We are, as part of our policy, pushing ahead with exploration and exploitation as fast as possible, and the Tightness of that policy has been proved. On the reserves, I refer my hon. Friend to the report made to Parliament in May, which we will update as soon as we have results, and we shall then discuss the exploration work.
    Mr. Strang: Do the efforts which the Minister says the Government have put into speeding up the day when North Sea oil will come ashore mean that the level of participation by British industry in providing equipment and services is likely to be that much less than it would otherwise have been?
    Mr. Boardman: No, I did not say we were speeding it up. I said that we were doing whatever we could to avoid any delays arising and to make sure that there were no impediments to the oil companies bringing the oil ashore as soon as possible. I do not think that the question of participation arises from that answer.
    Mr. Benn: Will the Minister assure the House that we shall not be buying our

    897
    own North Sea oil at the inflated Middle Eastern prices? Is not that exactly the case for a much greater extension of public ownership in the North Sea?
    Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the price at which the oil will be brought ashore. I think that he will agree that the efforts being put in by privately financed companies show that they have been devoting their tremendous experience of technology and know-how to developing these fields as rapidly as possible.

    Oil Stocks
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days' worth of oil at the current rate of consumption is now held in reserve in the United Kingdom ; and how much is estimated to be in shipment.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: As previously pointed out, assessments of oil stocks and oil in transit can fluctuate considerably over a short period, for a variety of reasons, and figures quoted on a week-to-week basis could be misleading. Notwithstanding the heavy stocking undertaken by consumers, the indications are that there has been no significant change in total oil company stocks during the last week.
    Mr. Rost: Does not my hon. Friend agree that even a 10 per cent. cut-back to industry is already beginning to have a serious effect—which is likely to increase—on production and employment? Does not my hon. Friend believe that it is time for more immediate measures to cut back on less essential consumption of energy, by introducing immediate rationing to overcome the chaotic distribution position, by cutting back less essential lighting, such as street and motorway lighting, and cutting back TV transmissions to three hours a day? Would not these measures help to channel energy into the greater priority requirements of industry and to keep the economy afloat?
    Mr. Boardman: We are doing everything we can to see that industry suffers the minimum amount of damage from the disruption of supplies, and regulations have been made to reduce electricity consumption. The appeal made by my
    898
    right hon. Friends, myself and others for the maximum economy in the use of all types of fuel remains valid. If it is necessary to bring in more stringent measures to reduce demand, this will be done.
    Mr. Varley: In view of the admission by the CEGB that it is reducing voltages to conserve oil supplies, the delay in the turnround of tankers, the Road Haulage Association's demand for rationing of diesel oil, the chaos caused by motorists scrambling for petrol and the difficulty of local authorities in getting oil supplies to heat schools and old people's centres, when will the Government stop dithering and take positive action?
    Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman should know that the voltage reductions are due to a reduction in coal supplies and the threat to the production of coal. They are also due, in part, to the action being taken by the electrical power engineers. Those are all part of the pattern that made it necessary for the CEGB to reduce voltages. To the best of my knowledge, no tankers are lying offshore waiting to discharge, nor is there a shortage of ullage.
    Mr. Adley: As the oil supply situation is not just a short-term problem and as we are unlikely to be able to buy oil at the prices we have paid over the years, will my hon. Friend discuss with the Department of the Environment the indecent haste with which some years ago British Rail scrapped steam engines? Is he aware that in many countries the efficiency of the steam engine has been increased out of all proportion in the last few years, particularly in Czechoslovakia? Will he take this suggestion seriously and initiate discussions?
    Mr. Boardman: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman willing to comment on the current cost of imports of oil to this country? Will he comment on his discussions last week with Sheikh Yamani on the likely price if oil coming from OPEC countries to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Boardman: I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman any indication of

    899
    cost, except that it is a matter of considerable uncertainty and it will certainly be higher than it has been in the past. Beyond that it would be premature for me to express any opinion about the price level of the rises that may ultimately take place.

    Fair Trading Act 1973 (Company Liquidations)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will use his powers under Section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to direct the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate the practice of certain companies in advertising goods, accepting deposits from consumers and subsequently going into liquidation before the goods are delivered.
    Sir G. Howe: My powers under Section 12 do not enable me to direct the Director General to investigate particular practices, and, as I told the House on 19th November in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes), I intend in general to leave the Director General to evolve his own order of priorities.—[Vol. 864, c. 919–20.]
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread concern among many consumers and trading standards officers about this practice? Is he satisfied that it is always made, clear to consumers on such occasions that if they have paid a deposit on an item in stock, at the time of liquidation they may have a lien on it?
    Sir G. Howe: I appreciate that there is concern about this problem in general terms as stated by my hon. Friend, and I have given it some consideration. It is being considered, too, by the principal associations concerned with advertising and the publications in which the advertisements appear. I am hoping that an agreement can emerge on some more generally useful solution. I shall bear in mind the last point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alan Williams: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not give the direction for which his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally
    900
    Oppenheim) asked, may I request him to consider giving a direction to the Director General to investigate the sale of Christmas killer toys? Does the Minister realise that the situation outlined in the Sun cannot wait until the Home Office eventually stirs itself? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the regulations reportedly being considered by the Home Office are not sufficiently comprehensive?
    Sir G. Howe: I have seen examples of the kind of dangerous toys to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department has been considering the matter and I am sure that the Director General will have noted the situation. The need for safe toys is something to which attention should be given as urgently as we can manage it, but it ought not to be done in a way that is ill-directed or is not likely to work at the end of the day. That is why it would be wrong to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Director General is likely to be able to take swift action on the matter in time for Christmas. I hope that people will take account of the potential dangers lurking not only in toys but in other products on the market. I take account of the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

    Aviation Fuel (Conservation)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in order to conserve fuel supplies, he will prohibit all flying on Sundays until further notice.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will prohibit all night flying, including take-offs and landings, from Heathrow Airport on Sundays during the present emergency.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): We are discussing with airline operators ways in which services can be rationalised and operating procedures adjusted to save fuel, but it would not be practical to ban all Sunday flying.
    Mr. Bell: Is my hon. Friend aware that any economy that can be made in the use of aviation fuel by restricting aircraft

    901
    movements will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, and that it would seem proper that such users of fuel should suffer at least the same 10 per cent. cut as is being imposed on other users? I am not asking for a 50 m.p.h. speed limit on aeroplanes, but my hon. Friend will recognise that a reduction in movements at Heathrow is urgently necessary.
    Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for explaining that there is some limit to his desire to stop aircraft from flying. The airline industry is subject to the cuts that are applicable to the rest of industry.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my Question asks for a ban on Sunday flying from Heathrow? Will he consider that? Would not it be a good plan, during the whole of the emergency, to ban any further test flights by Concorde, thereby saving money and bringing nearer the day when the aircraft is brought to an end?
    Mr. Onslow: I had noticed the hon. Gentleman's Question, and I had even expected having to tell him that the last point he has raised is another matter. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's desire for economies, perhaps I may tell him that it does not secure any kind of economy to cram all the movements into the daytime period. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that would be most unacceptable, and damaging to the industry as a whole.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When my hon. Friend is considering the matter, will he bear in mind that British airlines, holiday tour operators, and so on, are in competition with foreign operators, and that it would be wrong to restrict our home-based activities to a greater extent than that to which foreign operators are subject?
    Mr. Onslow: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the importance of maintaining reciprocity between our airlines and foreign ones. I assure my hon. Friend, too, that we are aware of the commitments involved in many of the charter enterprises and the extent to which people's expectations of holidays are bound up with them. I can, however, give my hon. Friend some comfort by saying that we are in close touch with the industry to discuss the basis upon which,
    902
    within the overall allocation, priority should be assigned to individual types of activity.
    Mr. Mason: What overtures have the Government made to the British Airports Authority about the use and monitoring of executive jets and private company aircraft? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what advice the Government are prepared to tender to civil aviation companies about the use of scheduled and charter flights, and particularly holiday flights where forward planning is necessary?
    Mr. Onslow: I dealt with holiday flights in my answer to the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are aware of the problem and that we are in close consultation with the charter companies about the implications of the situation.
    On the question of the use of executive jets, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) on 26th of last month he will see that the matter was dealt with, and that people who are contemplating travelling by executive aircraft are asked to use scheduled flights wherever they are available.

    Offshore Oil (Drilling and Production)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will commission a study into how the requirements of the oil companies for offshore drilling and production platforms can best be met in the national interest.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The requirements of these platforms will vary according to the conditions at the sites where oil or gas is found. My Department keeps in touch with the operators and construction companies so that any constraints on platform production can be examined urgently, and specific studies are commissioned when particular problems are identified.
    Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in Scotland very much resent the fact that we seem to be

    903
    presented with the choice of building concrete platforms for deep waters at Drambuie or not building any in Scotland? Is the Minister aware that instead of submitting a memorandum to the public inquiry, largely outlining the obvious economic advantages of building these platforms in this country, his Department should carry out a thorough examination into the various designs of concrete platform so that we can come to a rational decision on where it would be best to build them?
    Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on a quasi-judicial inquiry that is going on. We are commissioning a wider-ranging exercise covering the United Kingdom as a whole for sites, and, in addition, internally, the new venture managers, brought in by the offshore supplies office, are urgently studying alternative platform designs, among other things.
    Mr. Lawson: The Minister will be aware that the British Steel Corporation has issued a design for a platform of steel and concrete which, it says, can be built in different parts of the country and assembled perhaps on the Clyde or the Forth. Will the Minister make sure that this scheme of things is given the closest and most sympathetic attention?
    Mr. Grant: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I give him that assurance.

    Steel Prices
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on steel price increases, and their effect on the economy.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: The increases made by the British Steel Corporation from 16th November still leave its prices substantially below those of its principal competitors abroad. In announcing them the corporation said that it had very much in mind the need to contribute to the fight against inflation. The independent United Kingdom steel producers have also exercised restraint. As my hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 12th November, an average increase of 1 per cent. in the price of steel might raise the retail price index by about one fiftieth of 1 per cent. It would probably add about 0·06 per cent. to industrial costs.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister is not telling the House the full story. Will he be honest and tell the House who is deciding the price increases? Is this the first of a number of price increases in order eventually to raise the price to that in the Common Market? Are we, in the United Kingdom, making our own decisions? Has the Minister any executive power or authority in a British steel industry? Finally, will the Minister inform the House how he expects the British steel industry to be competitive if, outside of market forces, for political reasons I suspect, or, for Common Market purposes, there is a unified, common price system?
    Mr. Boardman: The decision on prices was one for the corporation which, as I told the hon. Gentleman, took full account of the importance of the Government's counter-inflation policy. There is no obligation on the British Steel Corporation to align its prices with those of the European producers, which themselves vary. The British Steel Corporation, subject to the restraint about non-subsidisation and so on, has a freedom which I believe will enable it to operate efficiently for the purposes of the Community and to build up the industry that we want.
    Mr. Burden: Has not the situation arisen in which, because of the competitive price of British steel, we are exporting it and having to buy back in certain areas from abroad, which is certainly to the detriment of our economy and is causing difficulties in certain areas in this country, certainly in ship plate?
    Mr. Boardman: The corporation has considerably cut back its exports below the level which it had anticipated in order that it can give further production to the home market. I have had discussions with the industry, the CBI and a number of other people to see whether the system of allocation can be improved upon and to overcome some of the problems, which are world wide, with regard to the shortage of steel which is affecting parts of our own industry.

    Balance of Trade
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest balance of trade deficit for the current year.
    Sir G. Howe: In the first 10 months of this year the current account in goods, services and other transactions is estimated to have been in deficit by about £950 million.
    Mrs. Short: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that this is an absolutely disgraceful situation? Does he recall the political mileage made by his right hon. Friend just before the last General Election, when the deficit that month was £31 million? In October the deficit was almost 10 times that figure. Is it not time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman got a grip on the situation and urged his right hon. Friend to do the same, to control the import of unnecessary raw materials and semi-manufactured goods which we could produce ourselves and generally to put some back into promoting British exports?
    Sir G. Howe: The hon. Lady must appreciate that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, many others have been devoting a great deal of effort to the promotion of British exports. The volume of our exports has increased faster than the volume of our imports. They have been increasing at a record rate. To suggest, as the hon. Lady does, that it would be sensible to cut down on what she describes as the import of unnecessary raw materials would be to deprive British industry of the raw materials which it manifestly needs to expand its exports.
    Mrs. Short: Nonsense.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: While I am sure that we all hope and expect that the postion will improve, may I ask how much of the £950 million deficit was in respect of trade with the EEC?
    Sir G. Howe: The volume of our exports to the EEC has been expanding faster than the average of our exports—faster, indeed, than the volume of our exports to Western Europe as a whole. Imports from that area, as from others, have been increasing as well.
    Mr. Benn: In the light of the figures which the Minister has given and against the background of a more difficult economic situation, brought about partly by
    906
    the energy crisis, does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry still adhere to his view that 1974 will be a year of rapid, go-ahead economic expansion in this country?
    Sir G. Howe: The year 1974 should be a year in which there will need to be a continued emphasis on the expansion of our export trade. The prospects for such expansion should remain good, and they remain as important—indeed, more important—as when my right hon. Friend last spoke about them.

    Oil Rigs and Tenders
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in increasing Great Britain's share of orders for oil rigs and tenders.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: A specialist builder of mobile rigs was established at Clydebank last year and in the field of supply vessels there is encouraging evidence that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry is now taking greater advantage of the North Sea market.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is not that answer still disappointing? In view of the increasing importance of North Sea oil to us, will not my hon. Friend take the initiative again with engineering and shipbuilding firms in this matter?
    Mr. Grant: Certainly we want to do better but, far from being disappointing, the figures are very encouraging. For example, by comparison with the end of 1972, when we had eight supply vessels on order or under construction, the figure to date is 19.
    Mr. Douglas: May we have some indication of any company in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Marathon, capable of building semi-submersible drilling rigs? What is the Department's present facility for evaluating designs for production platforms and drilling rigs?
    Mr. Grant: As I indicated earlier, the offshore supplies office is setting up a study of designs. Regarding alternative companies for construction, the opportunities exist and the full range of our regional assistance for industry is available.

    Consett and Stanley
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new industries have been located in the Consett and Stanley areas of County Durham as a result of British membership of the Common Market.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: So far this year 28 firms have decided to locate projects in the Northern Region which are new to the region. Two of them have chosen sites in North-West Durham. It is not possible to say how far our membership of the EEC will have weighed in their decisions but it has probably been an important factor.
    Mr. Watkins: What efforts are the Government making to make the Council of Ministers aware of the requirements of special development areas, such as Consett and Stanley? As the straight answer to my original Question was obviously "None", why did the Minister not say so?
    Mr. Grant: On the contrary, our regional policy is constantly a matter for discussion. I cannot add further to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development has said on many occasions on this subject.

    North-Western Region
    Sir John Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where the 60 new jobs which have gone to the North-Western Region as a result of Common Market investment are situated : and whether any have gone to Merseyside.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: These jobs will be created by a few small projects in different parts of the region but not in Merseyside.
    Sir John Tilney: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that unemployment on Merseyside is higher than in many special development areas? What action is he taking to stimulate employment on Merseyside?
    Mr. Grant: Merseyside, nevertheless, has the full advantages of a development area. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development has explained, an operation called "Marketing Merseyside" has been set up, in conjunction
    908
    with local authorities, employers and trade unions, to improve the image of Merseyside. Although I recognise the difficulties of Merseyside, the plain fact is that the number of vacancies registered has increased and unemployment has dropped.
    Mr. Heffer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we still have over 40,000 workers unemployed on Merseyside? Is he aware that the rate of unemployment there is higher than in any special development area? Surely the time has come when Merseyside should become a special development area. Will the hon. Gentleman raise the matter again with his right hon. Friends in the Government so that more positive action is taken to help the people of Merseyside?
    Mr. Grant: I repeat that we are well aware of the difficulties of Merseyside. It was only the other day that my right hon. Friend had meetings with a deputation from Merseyside, during which this matter was discussed. The matter will be kept carefully under review.

    Air Services (Orkney and Shetland)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are being made to maintain supplies of fuel to air services to Orkney and Shetland.
    Mr. Onslow: The system of allocation to suppliers is intended to make all possible economies while maintaining an adequate service to the public. I am at present reviewing the question of establishing priorities within the overall allocation to the industry, and am well aware of the importance of maintaining essential communications to Orkney and Shetland as well as to other island communities.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that it is important not only to maintain communications to Orkney and Shetland but to provide for enormously expanded demand for oil to go to the oil rigs? At present the allocation appears to be based on a 10 per cent. reduction on last year's figures. This will be impossible to carry out if the expanded demand for oil and for the trade of Orkney and Shetland is to be met? Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter?
    Mr. Onslow: I am happy to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the servicing of oil rigs is already accepted as a priority case, as also are air ambulances, and this will, therefore, exempt them from the 10 per cent. cut-back.

  JURIES
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Attorney General why a directive was made pursuant to Section 32 of the Courts Act relating to juries on 25th July 1973.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The direction, the effect of which was to exclude the occupation of a juror from the published panel of jurors, was given because the interests of justice do not require this information to be included and it has sometimes been used in a manner which is inconsistent with those interests.
  Mr. Davis: Is it not demonstrably unfair that where a juror's occupation, which is no longer revealed to the defence, might permit him to pre-judge an issue which is before the court the defence is now debarred from ascertaining what is his occupation? In his rôle as defence counsel, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman never challenged a juror on that basis?
  The Attorney-General: This information is now denied to both prosecution and defence. What the hon. Gentleman says may equally affect the prosecution. But there have been illustrations recently—as I told the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) in reply to a Question three weeks ago—when, for instance, persons have been challenged in a fraud case, as to make it not really the random selection of a jury. That is not in the interests of justice generally.

LONDON AND COUNTY SECURITIES LIMITED
Mr. Benn Mr. Benn (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about London and County Securities.
The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): London and County Securities Limited and London
910
and County Investments Limited both render accounts at six-monthly intervals under the terms of the Protection of Depositors Act 1963. The last accounts submitted to my Department related to the period ended 31st March 1973 and revealed no grounds for action under the Act. The accounts for the period ended 30th September 1973 are not due until the end of this month. As at 31st March 1973 deposits totalling approximately £60 million were held by London and County Securities while deposits totalling approximately £7·5 million were held by London and County Investments Limited.
Following a dispute at the last annual general meeting about certain entries in the accounts concerning the treatment of the cost of acquiring control over a subsidiary company and loans to directors, my officials interviewed the secretary and obtained answers which appeared to be acceptable. Further information has very recently been brought to the attention of my Department and, as I have told the House on previous occasions, inquiries are still proceeding.
The present situation does not appear to have arisen from any matters in relation to which the Department's statutory powers could have been exercised. I understand that the position of the company is at present being urgently considered by substantial shareholders and I do not wish at this stage to say anything that might prejudice the outcome of these discussions.
Mr. Benn: Is it not clear that there should be a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry into this company, particularly because it looks as if a number of small depositors may suffer, once again becoming victims of City operations that are causing great anxiety elsewhere? Secondly, is it not also clear that some control system rather similar to that which a previous Conservative Government introduced in respect of insurance companies might have to be introduced to deal with problems of this kind? Finally, do the Government in any way yet connect in their minds this type of abuse of power in the City with the Government's appeal for wage restraint elsewhere and which makes the whole policy seem totally hypocritical?
Sir G. Howe: I repudiate absolutely the implications which the right hon.

911
Gentleman attempted to draw in the last part of his question. It is much too early to generalise from any of the matters happening in this case on the wider basis which the right hon. Gentleman attempted. Plainly any decisions about any changes in any system of control which might need to be considered are being considered all the time by hon. Members on both sides. Equally, it is much too soon to conclude that there is any case for an inquiry on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Thorpe: I am not certain whether it is necessary to declare an interest, but I certainly do so.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in this matter the interests of the small depositors are paramount, as the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) indicated? Is it within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge that in that regard normal business for members of the public has been taking place at all branches today?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a joint stock bank and a merchant bank which have independently assessed the affairs of the bank have both independently taken the view that its assets exceed its liabilities? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, further, that talks have been taking place during the weekend and are continuing at the moment to ensure the viability of the bank and the security of its deposits? Although it is perfectly understandable that the House of Commons should show concern, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is in the best interests that those discussions should continue, in the interests of the depositors, with the minimum of publicity, for the very simple reason that it is surely in the interests of the whole House that the outcome of those talks should be available—and that we shall not have to wait many hours before that outcome is known?
Sir G. Howe: Certainly the House must be concerned about the position of the small depositors. That is one of the reasons the Protection of Depositors Act 1963, was passed. I have told the House about the extent to which substantial shareholders are already taking part in urgent discussions about the future of
912
the company. I have made my own view clear that I would not wish at this stage to say anything likely to prejudice the outcome of those discussions.
Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although London and County is clearly rather a small concern, this is a matter which is potentially extremely important, since it inevitably raises a question mark over the secondary banking sector and will cause questions to be asked about a variety of operations within the City of a number of different kinds?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore accept that when the discussions to which the Leader of the Liberal Party referred have been concluded, it is of the utmost importance that the House should be kept fully informed of precisely what the obligations of London and County were and precisely who are the depositors? There is a fear that there might otherwise be a domino effect. That fear will be banished only if the House is kept fully informed about exactly who is involved and what liabilities the company has, and what its full circumstances are.
Sir G. Howe: I fully appreciate the entirely proper interest of the House, not only in the position of the depositors, particularly the small depositors, in this company, but also in the interests of the secondary banking sector. I also fully appreciate the extent to which the House will wish to be kept fully informed on these matters—at the right stage and at the right time. My concern at the moment is with the future of this company, in the light of the factors raised by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
Dr. Gilbert: Is it not very alarming that the Minister should say that his Department has no statutory responsibility in this respect? First, quite apart from the question of allegations of insider trading, there are allegations about the rôle of the auditors and also serious concern that trading continued in this stock while the chairman of the board was making statements which, with the benefit of hindsight, would appear to be misleading, to say the least. I remind the Minister, finally, that this is the fourth major scandal involving lending institutions of different types in recent

913
months. There was Wm. Brandt's, San Diego National and the Scottish Co-op. Is it not high time that the Minister's Department exercised a realistic control over the lending policy of these various types of financial institution?
Sir G. Howe: The particular suggestions of insider trading and of the continuation of transactions in circumstances that might be improper in this case are matters for consideration elsewhere. They can no doubt be considered in the formulation of the legislation which will be debated in the House later in this Session. I appreciate the extent that there must be concern about any failure of any trading, lending or borrowing concern, but there must be a limit to what can be achieved by any system of supervision, either under existing provisions or under any future legislation. The guiding principle of the Protection of Depositors Act was to require very full information, beyond the ordinary requirements, to be made available for people to take into account in deciding whether to invest with these organisations. The extent to which people are to be guided by the information which is made available is one of the important features which should never be overlooked.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two requisites here—first that, while not agreeing with the Leader of the Liberal Party in his observations about the minimum of publicity, nevertheless there should be a full opportunity for an effective result to accrue from the opposite operations being undertaken by the clearing bank and the merchant bank in the interests of depositors and that those operations should not be prejudiced by observations based on insufficient knowledge ; secondly, that when the information is known and wholly available it should be given full and urgent consideration by the Government to see that any necessary legislative or other steps are taken to ensure that in this, as in all other respects, we achieve a wholly acceptable face of capitalism?
Sir G. Howe: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that this matter must be looked at in two halves. I am concerned today, first, to see that a full opportunity is made available, as far as
914
I can achieve it and as far as the House can achieve it, for the conclusion of the discussions which are now taking place. I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that this is a matter in relation to which the House will need further information which will require full consideration with a view to seeing not only whether any practical steps ought to be taken, but whether any legislative lessons can be drawn. Those are two perfectly legitimate and acceptable questions.
Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that the business of banking consists primarily in lending on short term and borrowing on long term, and that if one has a panic situation there is probably no bank that can meet all its obligations, if all its depositors demand their money at once? Therefore, in circumstances such as these, are not such expressions as "major scandal" perhaps to be regretted, and is not the assurance which appears now to be given, that no deposits with this bank are in any peril at all and that the money is available for the depositors, one that should be emphasised?
Sir G. Howe: Clearly, any banking operation depends, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, upon the confidence of people who are dealing with the bank on both sides. That is why one should not jump to any general or more far-ranging conclusions in the present situation. The second point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one that is uppermost in the minds of those considering the future of the company.
Mr. Lamont: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fall in the company's share price from 200p to 40p in 10 days is a clear suggestion of some inside knowledge of the company's finances, despite the denial of the management? Secondly, is he aware that many people are of the opinion that the Stock Exchange should have suspended dealings in the shares earlier, and will he make representations to the Stock Exchange not only to make an investigation into the possibility of insider dealing but also, unlike previous inquiries, to make public the finding of that inquiry?
Sir G. Howe: I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's suggestions are brought to the notice of the Stock Exchange.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he could take appropriate action under the Companies Act 1948, if he wanted to accept the advice that I gave him on 22nd October, which could in some circumstances have resulted in a different situation from that which we are debating today? Is the Minister further aware that the Leader of the Liberal Party should be the last person to talk about worrying over small investors' money and safeguarding that money, when the Leader of the Liberal Party was opening banks in supermarkets as recently as October this year? Also, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is a criminal act to go touting for investors' money at a time when a company is sinking and is possibly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that those two statements are so near to one another that the hon. Member is transgressing the rules of order. He is not allowed to make any suggestion against the character or conduct of an hon. or right hon. Gentleman, except on a substantive motion.
Mr. Skinner: I am asking the Minister, who is well known in legal circles, whether he can tell me whether a company director touting for investors' money could be regarded in some circumstances as committing a criminal act. That is all I am asking. Is the Minister further aware that there is £1 million of the Post Office pension fund invested in London and County Securities—or it was a few weeks ago? What will happen to that money? Is not the answer to this question that we are now beginning to witness what community politics are all about, when the chairman of the 1922 Tory Committee is bailing out the Leader of the Liberal Party?
Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman has ranged widely, as is his custom. In discharging my statutory responsibilities under the 1948 Act, I shall give the hon. Gentleman's views such weight as I think appropriate.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Patrick Cormack.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On a point of order. Reference was made earlier to a highly respectable merchant bank, Wm. Brandt's, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of National and Grindleys Bank, and of which I am a director. A remark was made which suggested that that bank had been in financial difficulties. There is no truth whatsoever in that statement, and I believe that the hon. Member who made it should withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility for allegations made.
Dr. Gilbert: I am casting no aspersions whatever on the present financial stability of Wm. Brandt. I give the hon. Member that assurance. He is aware of the events to which I referred, which took place rather earlier than was my recollection. He will be aware of them.
Mr. Speaker: Anyhow, we cannot debate them now.

BILLS PRESENTED
  HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION
  Mr. Patrick Cormack presented a Bill to make further provision for the preservation of churches and other ecclesiastical buildings of historic and architectural importance and of the character of the area surrounding them : and the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1st February and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  PREVENTION OF DISEASES DUE TO SMOKING
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt, supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Dr. Miller, Mr. John Parker, Mr. David Steel, Dr. Tom Stuttaford and Dr. Gerard Vaughan, presented a Bill to provide against the risks to health due to smoking : and the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1st March and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (REPORTS)
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Edmund Dell: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament and of the Treasury Minute and Northern Ireland Memorandum on those Reports (Command Papers Nos. 5451 and 5470).
I should like to begin with two personal references, the first of which is to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who, as the House is aware, was unable to fulfil the function of Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the last Session of Parliament, and has now indicated that he will not continue as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. But we all welcome him back in the House, and I should like to express my pleasure at seeing him continue as a member of the parliamentary committee of the Labour Party. I am sure that my colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee would wish me to express to him our regret that he has felt it necessary to give up his responsibilities within that Committee.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the death during the Summer Recess of Martin Maddan, who was an able, vigorous and deeply respected member of the Public Accounts Committee and played a very active part in its proceedings. I want to say—again, on behalf of all members of the Public Accounts Committee—how deeply shocked we were at his sudden death. I should also like to express my thanks, and, I think, the thanks of the Committee, to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to his staff in the Exchequer and Audit Department—upon whose work that of the Public Accounts Committee is so largely based ; to the Treasury Officer of Accounts, Mr. McKean, who is always present at our meetings to give us his valuable advice ; and,
918
finally, to the Clerk of our Committee, Mr. Rose, who has organised our very heavy proceedings during the last Session of Parliament.
During the last Session the Public Accounts Committee has had a very heavy year ; in fact, I am advised, by those who know more of the history of the Public Accounts Committee than I do, that it has produced more work in the last year than at any time in its history. It is, of course, for the House and for others to judge the quality of that work, and that, no doubt, is what we shall be debating today. I think I can claim that our work during the last Session has included reports of major importance ; for example, those on North Sea oil and gas, on the Concorde aircraft and on defence purchasing.
The reasons why we have had so heavy a year are threefold. The first is that for the first time we have had responsibility for dealing with Northern Ireland affairs, and, indeed, two of the eight reports dealt with Northern Ireland affairs. The second reason was that we had in the previous Session of Parliament called in the question of North Sea oil and gas; we had begun an investigation but the great part of the work, and preparation of the report occurred in the 1972–73 Session. Thirdly, we decided that we should do a particularly thorough invesigation, first, of the Concorde aircraft and. secondly, of defence purchasing.
May I, as acting Chairman of the Committee during the last Session, express my gratitude to the other members of the Committee for their support in this very heavy burden of work which we discharged. I think it will be obvious to the House that the main subjects with which I must deal today are our reports on the Concorde aircraft project and on North Sea oil and gas, but there are one or two preliminary comments on other subjects which I should like first briefly to make.
First, I should like to comment on the subject of university financing, which was dealt with in the Eighth, and final, Report of the Public Accounts Committee last Session. Since 1st January 1968 the Comptroller and Auditor General has had access to the books and records of the universities and the University Grants Committee. At the time when there was discussion on whether the Comptroller

919
and Auditor General should have such access, grave anxieties were expressed about the effects of that access, particularly on academic freedom. However, during the last Session, at the expiry of five years from the date at which he was given that access, the Public Accounts Committee considered what the results had been and we took evidence on that subject.
We were told by the Department of Education and Science, by the University Grants Committee and by the Comptroller and Auditor General that all the arrangements were working well. We were assured by the Department and by the UGC that there had been no interference with academic freedom, and we were told by the Comptroller and Auditor General that he had discovered no serious shortcomings in financial management. I as sure the House will regard that as a welcome outcome to those first five years of access to the books of the universities and the UGC.
However, the Public Accounts Committee, as a result of the inquiries it made, thought that it would be right to bring at any rate this degree of pressure to bear upon the University Grants Committee, and in paragraph 43 of our report we express ourselves thus :
"We welcome the interest shown by the UGC in the maintenance of a high standard of financial management at unversities and trust that the UGC will encourage universities to seek ways of effecting improvements in their financial management practices."
It is known that we are here dealing with a very sensitive area in which considerable alarm is expressed from time to time, particularly on the subject of academic freedom. These remarks of ours, which the House might think were rather mild, evoked some anxiety in certain circles. The Times Higher Educational Supplement referred to it in an editorial, and even described myself as "mercilessly harrying" the accounting officer of the UGC. I am sure the House will realise that I was not acting in so untypical a way. What I was trying to do was to get from the UGC a clear statement of what it thought was its rôle in encouraging better financial management.
I place a very high value on academic freedom. I have been a senior member of two universities in this country. Nevertheless, it appeared to the Public
920
Accounts Committee that it was right to express that view in our report. I note that in the Treasury Minute there is no specific Government reaction to paragraph 43 of our Eighth Report. The Government note what we have said. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I welcome to the House as a member of the Public Accounts Committee—normally an absent member of the Public Accounts Committee by tradition—whether he can comment on what we said in paragraph 43.
In our Fourth Report we express some surprise that the Department of Trade and Industry never thought it worth while to examine the comparison of costs in building advance factories by the Industrial Estates Corporations with the costs of such construction by the New Towns Development Corporations, by certain Scottish local authorities and by certain private developers. The Department of Trade and Industry, as we said in paragraph 28 of the Fourth Report,
"had no ready answer to the Comptroller and Auditor General's inquries"
about the reason for this considerable discrepancy in costs. There has now been an inquiry, and we read in the Treasury Minute that the reply indicates the possibility of savings which will not handicap regional development. This, I think, is a small example of the useful work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
Also in our Fourth Report, particularly in paragraph 137, we express concern at the failure of certain Departments, which we had expected to conduct financial reviews of certain of their activities, to do this without considerable delay. I am glad to see that the Treasury Minute accepts this complaint and indicates that the Treasury will draw the attention of all Departments to the need for greater urgency in carrying out such financial reviews which can save taxpayers' money.
During the course of the Session we carried out inquiries into the operations of the Mint and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. These were inquiries in which we looked not so much at what had appeared to be particular defects in administration as at how far—in fact, the inquiry was rather dedicated to discovering

921
this—the administration of the Department was in itself likely to achieve the stated objects of the Department.
As we know, the Government have now adopted the procedure of having within Departments the system of programme analysis and review, in which Departments show how far their administration is likely to achieve the stated objects of the Departments. These programme analyses and reviews are not made public—we might debate on another occasion whether they should be made public—but they are an example of the way in which the Public Accounts Committee's work might develop if the Public Accounts Committee from time to time did not merely take particular examples of administration but said to Departments "What are your objects in this field of activity? Why do you expect that your administration will achieve those objects?" and discussed the matter with the Departments. I myself feel that that would be a valuable development of the Public Accounts Committee's functions. In a sense, what we did with the Mint and the Stationery Office were examples of that process, and what we did on the subject of North Sea oil and gas was certainly an example of it.
In moving the equivalent motion last year, I discussed how the functions of the PAC might be developed in the interests of parliamentary control of the executive. Perhaps in those two small inquiries to which I have just referred we see the activity of the Public Accounts Committee developing in that direction.
I come now to the first of the main subjects with which I must deal today. The Sixth and Seventh Reports of the Public Accounts Committee dealt with the Concorde project. Here, I have to speak with care. There is always a danger of being accused of "knocking" Concorde. I say at once, therefore, that it is no function of the PAC to knock Concorde. In our inquiries, we normally accept as given the stated policy of the Government, and we inquire into the administration of the policy. The Government have said that it is their policy, having reviewed all the facts, to continue with the Concorde project, and it was on that basis that we made our inquiries. Our function was to consider the administration of the project, to get at the facts
922
—to get at the facts even if they cannot be made public, a matter to which I shall refer later—and to say what we thought about those facts.
The first fact which our report brings out is the continuing uncertainty of the current estimates to completion. The latest figure is £1,065 million. The House should not exaggerate the degree of control which the Government, or any Government, can have over a project such as this. I refer hon. Members here to what was said in paragraph 18 of our report :
"The Department said that once a project like Concorde was started and massive changes were found necessary to meet the specification, as had been the case in 1966 and 1968, the choice was between going on or stopping. Once the engineers of both countries had agreed that a particular modification was essential, then, if the project were to continue, the modification must be introduced. The Department said that it could only consider whether the estimated cost, and any later increase in costs, were reasonable, and that control then became a matter of ensuring that only approved work was paid for."
That is a rather low level of Government control over the cost of this project. In effect, what it means is that, when the engineers say that some course of action is necessary to achieve the specification, that course of action has to be adopted if the project is to continue.
The second cause of continuing uncertainty about the final development cost to completion is that the end is always such a long way off. As we say in paragraph 16 of our report, regarding the date of certificate of airworthiness—I hope that the facts here have not changed—
"The redesign necessary"—
that is, the redesign of 1968—
"not only added greatly to the cost but also put back the expected date for the certificate of airworthiness, which in 1969 was forecast for 1973 but is not now expected until 1975."
In 1969 is was four years off. In 1973 it is two years off. As I say, I hope that that date has not now gone back.
The total development cost, as against actual expenditure, always seems to be rather a long way ahead. Thus, in May 1972 the total development cost was estimated at £970 million. The actual expenditure to December 1972, a slightly later date, had been £702 million. So there was £268 million yet to be spent The position in June 1973 was that the

923
estimated development cost had become £1,065 million. The actual expenditure to June 1973 was £730 million. In other words, there was another £335 million to be spent.
The £1,065 million is not the final figure, and it is not claimed to be the final figure. I refer the House here to Question No. 2043, in reply to which, when I was questioning him about the development cost and how reliable it could possibly be, Mr. Thornton said :
"We are talking about a period stretching to two years after entry into service ; that is, 1977 or 1978. Clearly, it is not possible to give a firm figure for that number of years ahead".
It is still not possible, even in the Government's view, to have fixed-price contracts for more than perhaps 50 per cent. of the project because of remaining technical uncertainties. Even the fixed-price contracts about which the Government are thinking are not fixed-price contracts in the ordinary sense of the term, because even in those fields there remain technical uncertainties, and it is inconceivable, apparently, that the manufacturing companies should be prepared to meet them. Certainly, it is difficult to imagine a final development cost to completion when one cannot even have fixed-price contracts for a significant proportion of the work to be done.
Incentives were introduced in the hope that development costs would be kept down. Unfortunately, these have not really worked, because of the impossibility of estimating the cost of particular elements in the project. We discuss this in paragraph 49 of our report, and we point out the defects which the incentives to economy turned out to have in practice.
The Treasury Minute on this subject says, in effect, that these incentive contracts were the best that one could have in the circumstances. On page 12 of its Minute, the Treasury says :
"The Treasury and the Departments consider that the degree of incentive which was introduced into the contracts in 1968 was the maximum practicable in the circumstances."
I do not think that the Committee denies that suggestion by any means. It is just that these incentive contracts were, in the words of the Department, rather mild incentives, and they have, in fact, proved to have little value. Perhaps they were better than nothing, but in practice they
924
had little value. In these circumstances, the House must appreciate that the figure of £1,065 million cannot be, and cannot be hoped to be, the final figure for development costs.
Another element of doubt raised in the course of our proceedings was whether the specification to British Airways and Air France requirements would, in fact, be met. The Department hoped that it would. It thought that there was every reason to think so, but it was not absolutely certain. There were observations on this matter in the answers to Questions Nos. 1943 and 1944. In the first of those answers, it was said that
"by the autumn"—
that is, the autumn of this year—
"we shall have a very reliable answer on the performance".
In Question No. 1944, to emphasise the point, I asked :
"But by the end of the year the position"
that is, the position in respect of performance—
"will be pretty well established?"—
and the answer was "Yes".
Perhaps the Financial Secretary, with the advantage of the presence of his colleague on his right, the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, will be able to tell us more on the question of the specification, because the date line indicated in the answers to us has already been passed.
I come to the production and pricing situation. This is covered in a number of comments which we make, although most of the information on this subject remains confidential. In paragraph 52 we say :
"We note that the risks run by the companies are limited while those run by the Government are unlimited once production has been authorised, and it appears to us that the companies could make a profit while the Government would still be at loss."
In paragraph 59 we indicate that these production losses could be large. We say :
"Unless further substantial orders are received for the aircraft we fear that, in addition to the failure to recover development costs, the Government will have to meet production losses, which could be large, on each aircraft produced."
In respect of the recovery of development expenditure we comment, as is well known, in paragraph 57 :
"It appears to us that, even on the most favourable forecasts of sales, the amount

925
recovered would be only a small proportion of development expenditure."
In recent months a further element of uncertainty has been introduced. The question arises of when the two Governments will decide on the further production programme. We were told that the decision would be made in the late autumn but it has not, as far as the House knows, been made. In fact, we understand that it has been postponed. When will it be made—next month, or in the early spring? This can only cause further anxiety.
I come now to what has perhaps proved to be, at any rate between the Government and the Committee, the most controversial element in the report. The Committee, having carefully considered the matter, said in paragraph 62 :
"Commercial confidentiality must not become an excuse for the concealment of facts material to the determination of the public interest. We therefore strongly urge that the Government should seriously consider whether the confidentiality they have demanded for so much of the information about this project is in fact in the public interest."
The Government have replied to that comment in the Treasury Minute. The Committee did not make the comment lightly, and perhaps I might emphasise, if it needs emphasising, that it is a nonpartisan comment in two senses. First, it was a unanimous comment of the Public Accounts Committee, which consists of members of both the main parties in the House. Secondly, the secrecy which we were criticising, or asking the Government to reconsider, has been adopted by successive Governments. Our comment was not directed specifically at the Government, therefore. It was made as the Government will appreciate, in the knowledge of a great deal of the information which the Government thought it necessary to keep confidential.
Judging from the relevant paragraph of the Treasury Minute, three arguments appear to be adduced by the Government to support their view that this confidentiality must continue. The PAC has not had time to consider it but I should like to comment on it. The first argument—if it is an argument—is that this confidentiality has always hitherto been accepted by the PAC. I do not deny that, although no previous PAC has been faced with the figures with which we
926
were faced, nor, I believe, has any previous PAC gone so deeply into the facts of the Concorde project.
The second argument, which is perhaps more substantial, is expressed thus by the Government :
"the Government's negotiating position with the firms and its control of expenditure could be seriously prejudiced by disclosures of its confidential estimates of the extent to which the firms may achieve targets and profit levels such as were supplied to the Committee in confidence."
Of course, the Committee considered that argument before making its comment. However, we have already seen—and I have already indicated—how little actual control the Government have over development costs. We have seen how badly the incentive contracts work. The Government are saying that they are weighing small savings from what inevitably is only a marginally better negotiating position against the advantages of greater public knowledge about a project now estimated to cost six times the original estimate. I do not believe that to be an adequate reply.
If the Government could show that as a result of this secrecy or confidentiality significant savings would be made on the project their argument could be taken more seriously. However, that is precisely what the Government cannot show. If the Government do not wish to reveal their own confidential estimates it would be an advance for them to reveal the actual arrangements. This is not, therefore, an argument which I feel disposed to accept.
The third argument which the Government advance relates to the selling price and to the basis of calculating that price. The Government say :
"Moreover, prospective purchasers will drive the hardest bargain they can, and disclosure of elements of the selling price such as the R&D levy could well weaken the manufacturers' ability to sell Concorde on terms which would achieve the most favourable financial return for the Government."
That is an extraordinary argument. The Government do not appear to have taken that attitude over the disclosure of the Atomic Energy Authority royalties, although the AEA operates in a directly competitive market in which there are other suppliers of nuclear power plant. The airlines cannot get Concorde from anyone else in the West. If it is so

927
desirable a purchase, either because of its own merits or because of the competitive pressure of the aircraft in the hands of British Airways and Air France when it once begins to fly the Atlantic, there is, or will be, a seller's market and no seller need be afraid of the research and development levy being known.
The regrettable truth, however, is that there is not a seller's market now, and I suspect that the Government fear that, in spite of the competitive pressure to which I referred, there will not be a seller's market in 1975 when the aircraft is due to come into service. It is difficult to imagine that in the situation faced by Concorde it will make much difference to the selling price whether anyone knows the size of the research and development levy or not, or knows it officially or not. The important things in selling this aircraft are its selling price, its operating costs and its performance—and the Government can hardly expect to keep these secret from the airlines to which it is being sold or to which attempts are being made to sell it.
The real question about Concorde is how to calculate the price of the aircraft, bearing in mind that at best there will be only a small return on the development cost and that, because of the uncertain sales level, the production costs could, according to the report of the PAC, exceed the selling price. How is the price calculated? The Committee has given BAC considerable assistance in holding up the selling price in the face of such pressure as the Government fear by what we say about production losses in paragraph 59. I do not see that this argument in favour of continuing to conceal the research and development levy has any force, particularly when compared with the arguments on the other side of the coin.
The Government must remember that we face £1,065 million of estimated development costs so far, and more to come, with the possibility of large additional production losses. In those circumstances I do not believe that, to quote the Treasury Minute, ordinary "well-established and strong arguments" can prevail. If there is an argument for confidentiality it must be much stronger than that which the Government have
928
been able to provide in the Treasury Minute.
Mr. John Mackie: My right hon. Friend intrigued me when he said earlier that it would be a bad way of spending public money to take the engineers' word about alterations and improvements that must be made. If their word is not to be taken, whose is?
Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend misunderstood my point. I was saying that the Government try to exercise control over the development costs of Concorde but when the engineers tell them that, in order to achieve the specification, such and such a change is necessary, either the Government have to say "Yes, make that change" or they have to cancel the project. I was saying that this is in practice a low level of control in the hands of the Government over the development costs of Concorde. It is not a point made by the Committee of Public Accounts, but one put to it by witnesses for the Department. It is self-evident.
The First Report from the Committee, on North Sea oil and gas, may have some connection with Concorde. I understand that one of the difficulties with Concorde, which was not investigated, is the consequences for its economy of the higher price of fuel and, indeed, its consequences in the consumption of fuel. The report on North Sea oil and gas is recognised as one of the most important ever made by the Committee. Given the present position, its importance grows greater daily. But the Government's reaction to the report has been slow, despite some impressions to the contrary. I saw the Finance Secretary's face covered with amazement as I made that remark. He may assume that I had in mind the reason for his expression.
The report makes four main points. First, it refers to the need to safeguard tax yield from the North Sea, which was threatened from two chief sources : first, artificial tax losses arising elsewhere in the world, and, second, the possible capital allowances claimed in respect of activities not related to North Sea exploitation.
A few days after the Committee reported, the Chancellor accepted what it said about preventing artificial tax losses arising elsewhere in the world

929
impacting on tax revenue to the Exchequer from North Sea oil. That acceptance is repeated in the Treasury Minute. We all look forward to the Finance Bill next year to see how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with the matter. We understand that he is consulting the oil companies about the practicalities.
But we also say that the situation requires segregation of the North Sea for tax purposes, and on that point the Government have no reply. Indeed, when I read the remarks of Lord Drumalbyn in a debate in another place recently, I was worried when he specifically focussed attention on the subject of artificial tax losses. I began to be concerned that the Government might have abandoned the other recommendation about segregating the North Sea against capital allowances that might arise through other activities. No reply has been given about that. There have been rumours of difficulty in implementing that recommendation.
The second main point was about the need for the Department of Trade and Industry to have access to licensees' costs. It is extraordinary that it should not have that access, that it should be left to make its own estimates. Companies have made selective releases of cost information in order to educate the public in the difficulties that they encounter in the North Sea. The Government should have the full picture available to them. That is what the Committee said. But on that matter we have no reply yet.
The third main point was that the Government should consider imposing a system of quantity taxation, for example a barrelage tax. The Committee, if not the Government, was aware of the possibilities. It was aware on the day the report was published, of the possibility of increases in the price of oil. The profits oil companies would make under the arrangements made by the Government before 1st March 1973 are now only too obvious.
What effect on the profitability of the oil companies will occur from the current oil price increases? Even if the current prices are temporary, perhaps the supply position will ease and the Nigerians will not be able to command the extraordinary prices about which we have read in the Press recently, what will be
930
the price of North Sea oil as landed and consumed in this country? What will be the profits of the oil companies following arrangements between them and the Government? Will something be done to tax those profits, additional to corporation tax?
That was the position of which the Committee was aware when preparing its report. Paragraph 8 on page 56 carries a simple statement of the facts. It says :
"For every £1.00 a ton increse in the world market price of oil HMG revenue would (where capital allowances have been exhausted)"—
that is an important conditional clause—
"increase by 56p and company profit by 44p."
That is the position. It appeared that corporation tax alone was probably not enough. We recommended that the Government should consider it.
It is extraordinary that licensing terms should be negotiated which do not appear to have considered the possibility of such increases. Let the Government take action or give reasons why they should not take action.
Today even the oil companies might more readily accept the need for some system of quantity taxation. But there has been no reaction from the Government.
The fourth point is that there had been major faults in licensing policy and that there should be a review. We referred to the financial terms, the length of time for which the licences had been issued and the lack of any sort of carried interest, in circumstances in which there was so much ignorance of the potentialities of the North Sea that it would have been sensible to have a carried interest so that the Government could intervene to protect the national interest if developments were unexpectedly favourable.
On these matters the Government have said that a review is taking place. The Committee was told that before it reported ; if we had not been told that, we should have regarded it as a matter for criticism. I am glad that it did not fall on me to recommend to my colleagues in the Committee that, in addition to all the other criticisms we had to make of Government policy in that area, we had to criticise them for not even reviewing that policy. We were told that they were, that they had the

931
review in progress. Nine months after the report, the results of that review are still not available. The Treasury has said, repeating what has been said by the Government, that
"As soon as the present review has been completed, the Government's conclusions will be announced to the House."
All we know is what was said in the Gracious Speech, that :
"Measures relating to the extraction of petroleum from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf will be laid before you."
No mention of the content of those measures was made in the debate on the Loyal Address. We do not know to what effect those measures will be. I suspect that the Government do not know. If they do not, it is indeed disappointing.
My summary so far is simple. I hope that the Financial Secretary will think that I have justified my first point, that there are large areas of the report which the Government have not yet accepted, rejected or in any meaningful way commented upon.
The Government have not bestirred themselves in the Treasury Minute or elsewhere to defend the errors of judgment revealed by the Committee. The Treasury Minute, speaking of what the Committee evidently considered errors of judgment, makes two points. The first is the incentive point, on which it says that regard must be had to
"the balance that must be struck between the interests of revenue and an adequate incentive to the licensee to explore and develop."
But the whole argument of the PAC Report is that the incentive was too great for the purpose the Government had in mind, certainly from the time of the discovery of oil in 1969–70. There were incentives enough without the incentive of an exceptional rate of net profit to the oil companies—incentives such as markets close at hand, a stable political situation and the threatened oil shortage. The incentive argument is important. The question is : were not the incentives grossly excessive in the circumstances?
The second argument the Government make in respect of the Committee's view that there were serious errors of judgment is put in one small sentence :
932
"The proper terms and conditions for the first four licensing rounds can only be a matter of judgment."
I agree, but I find it difficult to detect many people whose judgment is with the Government. Since the publication of the report I have met many people active in one aspect of the oil business or another, and again and again I have been told that in the fourth round the terms were too easy. The Department of Trade and Industry does not now deny that in the fourth round the terms should have been harder.
It has been said that the PAC's Report was written simply in the light of hindsight. That is not the case. Before preparing the draft of this very critical report, I satisfied myself that at no point was I depending for the criticisms on knowledge that was only subsequently available. The first essential point was the discovery of oil in 1969–70. The second was the recognised difference between the oil situation and the gas situation, where the gas had to be offered to the British Gas Corporation, thus resulting in at any rate some control over the prices, and the fact that the oil was entirely free, other than that it had to be landed in the United Kingdom.
The third essential point was the effect on the profitability of the oil companies of any rise in the price of oil. The fourth was the knowledge gained from the tender experiment, which was ignored, although the terms of discretionary licensing could still have been hardened. It is extraordinary that when the tenders were opened on 20th August 1971 no action was taken about the terms on offer for the discretionary licensing, which covered overwhelmingly the larger part of the areas allocated under the fourth round.
The fifth fact of which we took account was the lack of liaison at that point even with the Treasury. I shall never understand how it could happen that when on 20th August 1971 the tenders were opened, and the results were shown to Ministers, no action was taken and the Treasury was not even consulted. It must be understood that the tenders showed a total on offer of £135 million. The successful tenders were £37 million, money immediately available for 15 blocks, compared with nearly 300 blocks

933
for totally nominal rents, in any case discountable against the royalties when they accrued.
There was talk by the Department of breach of faith if the terms for discretionary allocation had at that point been hardened. There would have been no breach of faith. As far as I can make out, the oil companies would have considered a hardening of terms at that moment the merest common sense. However, Ministers evidently considered that there was no need for action then.
Serious errors have been made. I hope that the House does not have to wait much longer before hearing how the Government propose to correct them.
I have spoken long enough, but it was a heavy Session's work for the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that it will also prove to have been valuable.
4.38 p.m.
Sir Richard Thompson: I intend to intervene only briefly, mainly to comment on the Sixth and Seventh Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts, which relate to the problems confronting Concorde and the financial control of that exercise.
Parliamentary control of expenditure as we in the House understood it is at a total loss to grapple with international projects of that kind and on that scale. When Governments embark on joint enterprises of that sort, they give up their power, which this House gives up rather hard, effectively to control the cost of the project. I urge on the Government, because of the likelihood that there will be more such projects as time goes on, that we must make a more serious effort than any made so far to improve our techniques in these matters.
What happened has been well described by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). When something such as Concorde starts no reliable estimates can be made of the eventual outturn Effectively it is not the politicians but the scientists and technologists who then determine the pace and the cost of the project. It is their decision, and not a parliamentary decision following parliamentary scrutiny, which determines how much money will be spent and whether the project is to continue.
934
After a time the argument is put that so much money has been spent that we cannot think of going back. National prestige, the amount already spent, and the importance of retaining the confidence of the research workers and the people devoted to such technology are all arguments which are put forward. The project becomes a gigantic snowball which nobody can control and the ultimate size of which nobody knows.
We shall have further experience of such a situation because of our membership of various international organisations such as the EEC. High technology is so immensely costly that it must be foreseen that there will be many huge enterprises in the pipeline which will have to be undertaken with another Government or Governments. We shall run into the problem again. We must face the fact that international ventures in new technology are not subject to parliamentary control in any sense which we understand in this House.
There is no real competition in the awarding of contracts. With very high technology, the number of specialist firms which can supply the necessary equipment is so small that we must perforce rely on a small and restricted market. The committee was astonished to learn when cross-examining the witnesses that no serious estimate appeared to have been made of the size of the potential market for the aircraft which it was proposed to construct. We all know how the cost has escalated. The committee strove in vain to discover how many aircraft the originators of the scheme expected they could and would have to sell to make the project financially viable.
It can be said, I suppose, that if a thing is worth doing we can leave such considerations out of account. However, for a project which has escalated to £1,065 million at January 1973, it seems astonishing that no calculations seem to have been made as to how many aircraft must be sold before the project can tick.
It is important to remember that the taxpayers' interest does not stop with research and development and construction. Effectively the taxpayer will pay all the fares of the passengers. It is important that that should be understood. Nobody short of Mr. Onassis

935
will ever be able to travel in the Concorde for fun. Nobody will ever travel in Concorde and pay his own fare. All the passengers will be officials and representatives of Governments, or big business. Their fares and expenses will be borne either on the public account or charged against taxation. The taxpayer's interest is, therefore, much bigger than many think.
There is an added relevance to such considerations as we embark on the Channel Tunnel. The tunnel is a project which is international in character. Half of the cost is being borne by the French Government. The similarity between the two projects ends there, because the tunnel is not a project of high technology. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that in a few years the committee will be considering the cost of the tunnel. Unless in the meantime we have devised a more effective system of control of international contracts we shall find ourselves using the same arguments and wringing our hands about the escalation of cost. Unless we have more control we shall still come back to square one and admit that we have no effective means of controlling the cost.
As projects become larger and our resources to develop them on our own become more restrictive because of the size of the projects, it follows that there will be more and more projects for which we shall be unable to put up all the money ourselves but for which we shall want to see some effective curbs built into the financing of the projects.
I want nothing that I have said to be taken as a criticism of the Concorde concept. Despite many errors of judgment, despite many escalations of cost and many things which with hindsight we realise could have been done better, I still believe in the aircraft. I believe firmly that if we do not build it, the Russians will and the Americans will follow. Much of the unreadiness on the part of the Americans to buy it is because they are profoundly jealous of our having gone into the market first. When the British and French airlines begin operating a regular service to New York there will not be many Americans crossing the Atlantic who will travel in any other way. Nor shall we find them ready to see then-own technology being left behind by us.
Mr. R. T. Paget: If that be right and if Concorde takes the American market, can the hon. Gentleman see the Americans ending their sound rules and making special provisions to bring to themselves the competition which they did not want to meet?
Sir R. Thompson: I do not think so, and I believe that the further technological refinement of Concorde which is now in prospect will probably solve the problem. I agree that that is a difficulty which must be overcome.
The Treasury Minutes on the Sixth and Seventh Reports give us little cause for comfort or satisfaction for thinking that we have effectively grasped the problem of how to retain some national control of expenditure on a project such as Concorde, except at the price of certain get-out clauses which, if inserted, would probably mean that the project would never be started on an international basis. I do not have an answer, but as it is clear that the future lies more and more with high technology projects requiring more than one Government to finance them, I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to say something more effective than that which appears in the Treasury minutes about how the Government propose to protect the taxpayer in future. It is difficult to convince the British public that it is necessary to spend £350,000 in evolving a prototype seat for one aircraft.
Mr. Dick Douglas: It was difficult to convince the committee.
Sir R. Thompson: I was projecting the Committee's scepticism about this into a wider area. This is the sort of thing which anyone who followed our discussions in the committee came up against constantly—always the argument, "This is high technology. These people know what they are talking about. We are laymen and cannot interfere". All these arguments were introduced and some of the results were grotesque. That is why I say to my hon. Friend that the capacity of the public to absorb these shocks is not unlimited and that there will come a time when people will say. "We shall probably manage very well by buying someone else's". I hope that they will not come to that conclusion about Concorde, but those concerned must be more

937
convincing about the future control of this type of expenditure if they want our help.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee upon this series of reports. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) on his speech. I want to deal principally with the very important report on North Sea oil, but, as Concorde has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson), I may say that I am one of those who think that Concorde was a costly and ghastly mistake from the start.
I say that not only because I think it was wholly wrong that we should embark on this enterprise over which we have no control, but because it is wrong that public money from all the taxpayers should be spent on the development of a type of technology of no use to the poor of this country or, indeed, to the poor of the under-developed countries. The hon. Gentleman pointed out an important fact—that not only will the taxpayers have to support the enormous development costs of the aircraft, but they will have to pay for everyone who travels in it. The hon. Gentleman remains in favour of the project and it is now perhaps a theological matter. Concorde has, in effect, become a god, and one has to worship it or otherwise. I do not worship it.
Secondly, I was glad to see in the committee's reports the favourable remarks about the Open University, because this is one of the most important educational experiments made for a long time. I hope that funds will be made available to develop it further—for example, in areas where BBC 2 is not available and in forms by which it will attract more young students. At present, most of its students are mature, as they are called, but it has a vast part to play, in conjunction with the more orthodox universities, in the attraction of younger, more ordinary students.
In considering the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on universities, I think it wholly mistaken to suppose that he will restrict academic freedom. On that, I wholly agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The only slight danger I can see is that the Comptroller and Auditor General can
938
put the universities to some extra expense. It is obvious from his report that, although their system of financial control was effective, they are now increasing the number of controls and therefore the amount of staff and paper work they have to undertake. One of the dangers is that universities will become too immersed in administration and will become frightened of initiative in case they get into trouble. However, these are minor points and my principal subject today is the report on North Sea oil.
It is apparent from the report that not only have we mishandled the licensing system for the general development of the oil up to now, but that we are still not properly set up to deal with the matter. Let us get the perspective right. The latest estimate, given to me by the Government in answer to a Question, is that by 1980 we can expect between 70 million and 100 million tons of oil per annum from the North Sea. This compares with an estimate, made not long ago, of about 50 million tons a year—a considerable increase. One must see this against the estimated demand in Britain of 150 million tons, roughly speaking, by the same date. That is to say, on this latest Government estimate, we shall be getting on for providing two-thirds or so of the oil we are estimated to need.
But in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh has estimated on American figures that production in the North Sea will be about 200 million tons per annum—100 per cent. increase on the Government's estimate. There are two deductions from this—first, the enormous scale, on either estimate, of the discoveries and, secondly, the very wide divergency between what, apparently, the American oil companies estimate as possible and what the British Government estimate.
It has been said also that it is fairly foreseeable that about £100 million may have to be invested soon in Shetland alone to provide certain installations. Again, as has been mentioned already, for every extra £1 on the price of oil—we know how the price is rising—the additional profits to the oil companies run into literally hundreds of millions of pounds. We are, therefore, up against a development of quite supreme importance to the country, leaving alone its effect against the lack of energy, leaving

939
alone the trouble in the Middle East, leaving alone, indeed, the balance of payments.
As I have said, I do not think that even now we are set up to deal with the situation properly. My first question, arising from the report, is, who ought to be in charge? The first duty of the Government clearly was to stand for the public interest. Their duty was to ensure that the nation's resources were used to the best advantage for the nation. They had a duty to hold the balance between the differing interests—to balance our short-term interests against long-term interests.
It has been suggested that it could have been done by nationalisation. Of course the oil beneath the sea is already nationalised, and neither the Labour Government nor the Conservative Government felt that nationalisation could be carried any further. One can see why. To exploit this oil, one has to use the technology available to large international oil companies, and nationalisation perhaps appeared to be somewhat irrelevant to the problems which faced the two Governments. Further, the duty of the Government was to set the proper conditions not themselves to undertake work for which they are not equipped.
But participation in the development of our North Sea oil did not seem so difficult as outright nationalisation. It has been done by the Norwegians. They have reserved rights to take up certain shares in companies after successful development. Therefore, the argument that participation was not possible because it would have been too risky seems to me to be somewhat contradicted by the Norwegian experience.
Further, I feel that the Government had a duty to ensure not only that the companies were subject to the normal taxation of this country but that they actually paid tax. Of course they pay some tax, but it is made clear in the report that the amount they pay is less than one might first of all think, owing to the operation of their internal costings.
Further, I believe that the Government had a duty to ensure that the oil would provide some funds both for the development of the areas off which it was found and also for the purpose of putting
940
them back into decent order once the oil boom was over. The financial arrangements were of the greatest importance.
These matters obviously demanded the highest expertise. It is apparent from these reports that that expertise was lacking in the Government. Are the DTI and the Department of the Environment now too big? Do they attempt to deal with too much? Is there someone in the Government in charge of major oil strategy? The Minister in charge of oil is Lord Polwarth, a comparatively junior Minister. He did not speak in either of the two last House of Lords debates on this subject, so who exactly is answering for the Government on the major strategy?
I come now to the question of protecting the non-commercial interests—the environment and the areas which are likely to be affected, the people of the north of Scotland and their economies and social life. Here, apparently, the responsibility lies upon the Scottish Office, but it has no new powers. Its planning powers are the same as ever. This situation persists—although this is an entirely new situation and out of scale with any other planning the authorities in the north of Scotland have had to do, leaving aside rig building and the construction of oil tank farms and refineries.
There is no datum, no survey has been carried out—neither an ecological survey nor one to establish the most suitable places for landing or handling the oil or building rigs. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry), the local authorities and so on, have commissioned many consultants whose reports vary a great deal in quality. The report done for Shetland County Council by Livesey and Henderson is serious and important, but other reports seem not much above the level that one would expect of a second-year university student. The last report from the Scottish Council was a very thin affair containing many inaccuracies. It did not, of course, deal only with oil.
I do not believe that this matter should be left to a haphazard collection of reports, taking a "snapshot" view of the present situation relating to certain areas only and by people of differing capacities. The essential starting point was an overall look at the situation. More important,

941
a monitoring system should then have been set up.
Even on the fourth allocation, the Government charged too little ; they failed to learn even from the first three allocations. Again and again the same mistakes are being repeated, I am afraid, in the north of Scotland. The detail of the terms has been dealt with well by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. To a representative from the area most closely concerned with oil, it is incredible that no figures of costs, or even of the investment needed, were produced. One of the constant arguments of the oil companies is that the investment need is so huge that they must have gigantic profits. This is not justified in any of the evidence produced for the Committee.
Turning to the system of licensing, in the last round, the Government knew that they could get £37 million on the nod by tendering, and an offer of £135 million in total. We have again been told that, although we were promised that the taxation system would be altered, there has been no sign of this being done.
The local authorities are being put to great expense. I should have thought that some fund could have been levied upon the oil companies to assist these authorities, but no fund has been established; and no estimates are given, indeed, of how the balance will be struck between what the local authorities may gain out of the rates and what they are likely to have to pay to produce the infrastructure needed by the oil companies.
An immense infrastructure of housing, roads and services of all kinds is needed. If oil, as I am told, is to be flowing in 1975, it will not be ready unless something is done immediately. Already we are repeating many of the mistakes of the 19th century. It is true that, for instance in Shetland, the Government are giving some assistance to the import of houses from Norway and their erection. However, when driving from the north of Shetland the other day to Lerwick in the south, past one of the areas being developed for the service of oil, a man is reported to have said, pointing at the service area, "That does not look too bad, but why did they not take away that old hutted camp?" That camp was the new housing rushed up to deal with the demand. This is not the fault of the local authorities but of a lack
942
of continuous planning as this matter has developed.
Some Shetland roads will need to be entirely reconstructed, but under phase 3, one cannot get roadmen and there is a grave shortage of vital labour. Ports and off-shore installations have to be constructed, yet no extra planning powers exist and the existing ones do not run below low water-mark The amounts now needed are enormous. I can imagine the next reports of the PAC talking of enormous waste in this area associated with the oil. That will be the result of the present lack of preparation of the infrastructure.
These reports are immensely important to the House. I wish that this type of investigation had been done much earlier. The hon. Member for Croydon, South rightly referred to the difficulty of controlling huge enterprises, and this applies to national as well as to international enterprises. Of course, by the time that the PAC gets around to it, it is water over the dam—or oil through the pipeline. Either we must consider whether there could be more and earlier monitoring of this kind of immense expense—
Mr. Dell: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I would point out that, in the case of North Sea oil, we are perhaps a little luckier in that we have made this report before the oil has begun to come ashore.
Mr. Grimond: I agree, but many of the remedies now rightly suggested will be extremely difficult to implement because contracts have been entered into and so on.
I regard these reports as more important than Questions, but we must find some method of debating them more often and more quickly. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead is right to say that we have been lucky with the oil report, but even so it is eight months since it was made and it is now being debated with a whole lot of other matters, so that, in typical House of Commons fashion, the debate becomes a hodgepodge of all sorts of different matters.
We want to examine the Government with more consistency about what they are doing, or why they are not doing what they should do. If Parliament is to

943
reassert itself as a formidable weapon to criticise and examine the Government, this is the sort of way forward, but the difficulties are very great.
We must be grateful to those hon. Members who sat day after day on this Committee. I do not know how many more such committees we could have or how often they will be prepared to sit. The committee has no staff of its own. Compliments have rightly been paid to the assistance of the regular staff seconded to it, but we should consider whether it should not have staff of its own and whether our procedures may not have to be reorganised to give a more permanent position to this type of work and to allow it to be properly debated.
We are under considerable fire in the country for our failure to carry out our traditional work of controlling Government expenditure and also to demand a more positive part in forming policy. I think that the demand for the latter is possibly more suspect, though I appreciate that reason for it, but in both these regards it is this type of report which enables more pressure to be put on the Government. It is up to the House to give itself the means of making this pressure effective.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) put his finger on some important points. He particularly underlined the importance of these reports being considered much sooner by the House. We should have an opportunity to debate the reports when many of the facts relating to them are still fresh in our minds, following the study which we have made of witnesses, and not, as is the case today, long afterwards when so much oil has flowed, or not flowed, through our ports and the pipelines.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I question what is the right estimate of oil from the North Sea. I sat through long periods of the Public Accounts Committee hearing witnesses from the Department of Trade and Industry. I became more and more confused about what was the exact figure for the oil which would flow from the North Sea. As more and more reports come out I feel that some of the
944
estimates which were given to us were largely underestimated. I am sure that the figure is much nearer 200 million barrels rather than the 50 million to 70 million which we were given.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the Department of Trade and Industry is far too big to deal with North Sea oil. There should be far more urgency by the Government in dealing with the oil problem. We want a Beaverbrook, or some such person, to tackle this serious problem and put some energy into it. This is one of the most important factors affecting the country today, and there should, therefore, be a Minister in the Cabinet to deal with infrastructure, planning powers and other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman has so aptly referred since they affect his constituency.
I underline the importance of debating these matters as soon as possible, rather than putting them off and taking what at present appears to be a complacent attitude towards the most important matter facing the Government today.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) who presided over some of our Public Accounts Committee meetings before he fell gravely ill. I was very disappointed that he then had to leave the Committee. He had a cross-bench attitude to many problems and his departure from the Committee was a great loss. Nevertheless, we have been fortunate to have the services of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). He has worked extremely hard and assiduously in examining many important matters which were before the Committee. I listened with interest to his speech today. I am sorry that I could not be present at the beginning of his speech, but I was dealing with a problem—about oil—affecting my constituency.
I am at a loss to say whether I worship Concorde. I have a cross-bench opinion towards it. Ten years ago I was Under-Secretary of State for Air and I had to deal with the TSR2. Some of the reports which were placed before the Public Accounts Committee about Concorde made me think back 10 years to when I was listening to the same story about the TSR2. At that time I was able to

945
get reports of a more confidential nature, but even with such reports it was difficult to delve into some of the estimates that were being made. It is right to be disturbed about the certificate of airworthiness for Concorde, which we have been told was to be produced between 1969 and 1973 but which has now been delayed to 1975.
Reports and evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee confuse me. The scientists and boffins involved enter into their own world and it is difficult for us as laymen to deduce the facts. We need more technical staff to help examine what the scientists tell us. Some of the figures given to us ran into thousands of millions of pounds and we should ask whether we are getting value for money. The cost of Concorde is now six times the original estimate of £1,065 million and it is still going up. There are doubts about whether it would fly, in the same way as there were doubts about the TSR2. I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will be able to examine the Concorde project again at its next session.
Other hon. Members have referred to joint projects. I am disturbed about the lack of control over joint projects. It is becoming increasingly vital that the Public Accounts Committee should examine these projects as soon as possible instead of being two years behind. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead as head of the Public Accounts Committee will try to ensure that we will be able to examine the estimates for the Channel Tunnel fairly soon. I have grave doubts about some of these estimates. I also hope that it will be possible for the Committee to examine the Maplin estimates, over which I also have doubts. It is far more important to deal with these current problems than to deal with other problems like the Mint or the universities. They are important, but the big projects involve many thousands of millions of pounds.
How do we know what we are faced with over Concorde? Judging from earlier Treasury replies on Concorde and TSR2, the Public Accounts Committee should demand that the Channel Tunnel, Maplin and the estimates on North Sea oil be considered this Session. Unless these
946
matters are so examined, I shall have grave doubts about whether we are really getting the kind of value for money which we should have.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Gavin Strang: I agree with the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) that the Government are guilty of a fair degree of complacency in their handling of the North Sea oil issue. I am not a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I think it has done a first-class job. Like most hon. Members I have had occasion to explain to members of the public how Select Committees and Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee function. I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and I believe that it does a good job. But I have to admit that, whenever I explain to a member of the public what a Select Committee does, I always cite the example of the Public Accounts Committee and bring out the extent to which the international oil companies would be able, if nothing had been done, to use present taxation arrangements to prevent the United Kingdom from getting anything like the right return to assist its balance of payments and its Exchequer income.
The report on North Sea oil is a classic-example of how important the work of this Committee is in terms of scrutinising the actions of the executive. I do not want to concentrate on the main issue outlined in the report, namely, the question of licensing and taxation arrangements. Instead I want to refer particularly to the question of British participation in North Sea oil developments. The Public Accounts Committee's report devotes a number of paragraphs to this. There is no argument about the need to maximise the opportunities for British industry within the context of providing the goods and services required for the exploitation of North Sea oil.
I notice that the Committee was able to ask a few questions of the Department of Trade and Industry following the publication of the IMEG Report. A great deal of time has elapsed since the publication of these documents. I do not want to go over our criticisms of the complete inadequacy of the Government's response to the IMEG report and the fact

947
that they not only failed to set up an oil development board or oil development agency in Scotland, as we wanted, but even rejected the recommendation by the report for a petroleum supply industries development board.
There cannot be any dispute that the Offshore Supplies Office support, in terms of facilities and manpower, is totally inadequate to deal with the problem. It is intolerable that we should have a situation in which there are about four qualified people based in Scotland who fully admit that they are not able to check the extent of British participation. These people are not properly able to check whether the equipment supplied by British registered companies has been produced indigenously or has been imported.
The previous Labour Government and the present Government have been heavily criticised for their handling of North Sea oil, particularly with regard to the licensing arrangements. It is true that during much of the time the significance of North Sea oil had not been properly appreciated. There can be no excuse now for failing to realise the immense economic significance of North Sea oil to our energy supplies and to the balance of payments.
For the people of Scotland the most important aspect of North Sea oil is the opportunity which it provides for a much higher level of new investment and employment. The real test of the Government's handling of this resource is the extent to which there is indigenous participation and the extent to which the expenditure on public infrastructure matches the massive investment of the private companies. The Government will also be judged on the extent to which the oil is removed without damaging our environment.
I still believe that the Government have practically abdicated their responsibilities here. Far too many of the major decisions are being taken by the international oil companies and the big construction companies. We must have greater public participation and control and greater Government intervention to see that these objectives are met for the benefit of the Scottish economy.
948
I wish to illustrate the Government's abdication of responsibility by dealing with the current arguments on the question of building platforms. We are all aware of the basic facts. When we talk about the building of concrete platforms—and I refer here only to concrete platforms—we are talking of a structure costing about £20 million. If we require about 40 or 50 by 1980 we have in mind a figure of about £1,000 million. That is a great deal of money, involving heavy investment and new, indigenous technology.
What has happened? We had an announcement during the summer that the first new platforms were being built abroad. Three are now being built in Norway, two for British waters. The oil companies were not prepared to wait. Perhaps the Government will tell us to what extent they sought to persuade them to wait or whether they were happy about what happened. These decisions were taken before the real energy crisis blew up. Let us look at what is happening at Drumbuie. The case has been presented as if the choice was between building platforms in the deep water at Drumbuie or not building them in Scotland at all. This is not so. That is the case only if we go for the Condeep design, for which Mowlem has a licence and which the oil companies presently favour.
The real issue is to decide what design is in British interests and where it should be built. These two factors are interlocked. My criticism of the Government's handling of this issue is that there is an inquiry going on at Drumbuie yet we have had no real appraisal by the Government to decide what would be the best design and where would be the best place to build. The Scottish Office issued a list of suggested sites in May. That should have been pursued so that we would have had a clearcut British policy, with the Government deciding where the platforms would be built and what type of platforms they would be, in consultation with the oil companies.
It is intolerable that only this afternoon the Minister has announced there is to be some sort of more detailed survey into concrete platform design. I hope that he will provide us with some information. Does he mean that one or two people in the Offshore Supplies Office will be looking at this, or will we get a

949
comprehensive study and a start to the Government taking some major decisions in place of the present absurd situation?
The IMEG report quite rightly attached a great deal of importance 10 Government support for research and development and to the opportunities for developing not simply new jobs but new and indigenous technologies. I was interested to note, in reading the Public Accounts Committee's report, that there was some discussion between my right hon. Friend for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on the question of the discrepancy between the Department of Trade and Industry's memorandum estimate of the likely level of British participation and the IMEG estimate. This was because, when IMEG spoke about British firms, it had in mind companies based in Britain and that an international company using a British fabrication yard would be classified as British, but the DTI would not classify it as British.
Perhaps we should encourage firms to come here and provide jobs, but let us not make the mistake of subsidising their technology, just as in the computer industry we do not think of subsidising research and development for IBM. Indigenous technology must be provided by indigenous firms The knowledge which Chicago Bridge or other American companies obtain is knowledge which they will keep.
The Government's reaction to the IMEG report's recommendation's on research and development is an absolute disaster. I understand that in 1973 the Ship and Marine Technology Requirement Board will spend about £4½ million. About £1½ million will go on marine technology and about £1 million of that will be in respect of sea-bed engineering. That is derisory in the context of the great opportunity which exists. We may be appalled by the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds on research and development for Concorde and we may challenge whether Concorde is desirable, even if we can sell it. But what cannot be challenged is the immense benefit which will accrue to the British people, and particularly to the Scottish people, from a massive investment in North Sea oil.
950
We talk about building platforms, but it is accepted that sooner or later we shall require new techniques to cope with deeper water. We shall require sub-sea equipment. This is an area in which we should be getting in on the ground floor Here is an opportunity for a massive intervention by the Government. We shall have to explore deeper water for oil and there will be a need for new techniques. There is an opportunity to invest in research and development which will pay off and without taking the sort of gambles which we are taking with Concorde.
The Government might as well face the fact that it is not simply the Opposition who are criticising them for the intolerable way in which they are handling this development, particularly from the point of view of the Scottish people. They had better come to terms with the fact that there is a burning resentment in Scotland about the way in which this asset. North Sea oil, is being developed and about their almost total abdication from grappling with the opportunities afforded to the Scottish people by this resource.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. John Bitten: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has spoken about North Sea oil, which clearly is a subject particularly appropriate to Scottish interests but is of general United Kingdom interest. It features prominently in the reports which we are considering. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not comment in detail on his remarks because I wish to confine myself essentially to the Fifth and Sixth Reports which refer to the Concorde aircraft.
The thanks of the House are unquestionably due to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) for the reports and for the helpful and wide-ranging speech which he made in introducing them. Hon. Members will join him in the personal tributes which he paid to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and to the late Member for Hove, Mr. Martin Maddan. However, it is a great sadness that so excellent a committee as the Public Accounts Committee—the doyen of parliamentary committees—should have such a lethargic reception to its reports as is accorded by the sparse attendance in the Chamber so early in the

951
evening. If ever I wanted reinforcement of my deep and fierce prejudice in favour of the House as opposed to Select Committees as a way whereby the legislature might influence the executive over the course of events, occasions such as this provide it.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we did not have Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee, we could not possibly obtain from the House information of the sort which continuously emerges from them?
Mr. Biffen: I do not deny that there is a valuable information collecting rôle for the House to play which might well be executed in Committees of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The difference between us lies in the importance which I accord to the way in which the Committees influence the executive. However, the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is hardly an appropriate occasion on which to conduct a debate which is substantially about the procedures of the House and the way in which the legislature may more effectively control the executive. Perhaps a future occasion will be found when we can trade our respective and different views on this topic.
As I have said, I wish to concentrate on the extremely valuable reports on the continuing saga of the Concorde aircraft. We must set this matter against the hopes of the Treasury Bench which have been authoritatively stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Speaking on 14th September in Walsall, he commended a number of projects, including Concorde. Referring to the purpose of the projects, he said :
"This purpose is nothing to do with national prestige. I have never believed that it is right to spend money on projects just for the sake of having something to wave in the face of other countries. The reason why the Government believes these projects to be right is quite different. We judge them to be necessary in their different ways to maintain through the rest of this century the competitiveness of our economy, and thus the standard of living of the British people."
The assistance which the project renders to the competitiveness of the economy is without question a prosaic and businesslike basis on which to commend and endorse the Concorde programme.
952
It is right that we should scrutinise the project from time to time, and no time is more appropriate than a debate on the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, because there is without doubt a long and tangled history to do with Concorde which makes it one of the most frightening examples of a situation in which there is no effective public control over the financing of such schemes. This was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson), and it is precisely in those circumstances that it becomes a parody to talk of the aircraft as though it were a major aspect in sharpening the country's competitiveness.
The Public Accounts Committee has authenticated a number of occasions and areas where original calculations have been substantially falsified. I can do no better than quote from paragraph 16 of the Sixth Report which reflects on the previous experience of the Committee :
"Your Committee were informed that it had become clear during 1968 that Concorde would not meet the required performance of a 20,000 1b. payload from Paris to New York and this called for a major redesign which accounted for most of the £70 million estimated for additional development tasks."
The unhappy record of constant upward revisions of the total cost of Concorde has underlined the need for parliamentary vigilance, even though that vigilance has often had to proceed in an atmosphere of frustration. The Public Accounts Committee recognised this in paragraph 21 :
"We therefore recommend that the Department and the Treasury should further examine the procedures for preparing estimates of development costs in such projects, taking into account the factors leading to escalation of costs, so that better assessments can be made from time to time of the case not only for starting new projects but for continuing current projects."
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) is right to draw attention to the need for far more effective monitoring systems for Maplin and the Channel Tunnel than we have been able to construct for the Concorde project. He, representing the area that he does, knows only too well the tremendous social and economic upheavals that can come about with the development of a Maplin project that is not subject to effectice parliamentary scrutiny or to the kind of control that would at least enable those who are being disadvantaged—as many will be in Essex—to know that this

953
money, if not in their judgment well spent, is being spent under scrutiny. It would enable them to know that the situation has not careered out of control to become part of a gigantic uncontrollable aspect of public spending which brings into discredit not merely that project but the whole institution of government and public decision taking. I do not want to over-dramatise this, but one of the factors that helps to create a growing resentment between the governed and those in authority is that all too often there is no one—certainly not the House of Commons—who can be held to be accountable.
Whereas hitherto we have been largely concerned with the development cost of Concorde, we are now moving to a situation where the commercial production of the aircraft will be under increasing scrutiny. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, perfectly fairly, that often when Governments are confronted with technical advice concerning engine construction there is very little they can do except to learn to live with that technical advice. Once the original—and in my view contentious—decision had been taken to use the Olympus 593 design engine for the Concorde, a great deal of what followed since was inevitable, though there might have been incredulity about the £350,000 spent upon the pilot seat.
We are now moving to an area which should be substantially more quantifiable, namely, that of commercial operation of the aircraft. No longer can the high priests of technology hold the rest of us spellbound and merely credulous. Now we are faced with the kind of economic decision with which we are all to some extent reasonably familiar, namely, whether the aircraft can fly with a reasonable hope of paying its way.
We proceed to consider this next stage in the Concorde saga, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South remarked, against the background that at its inception we had no idea of the potential market size. It is now well over a decade since those hazy and halcyon days and we are in a far better position to assess the likely order situation for the aircraft. It is on these more prosaic points that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be anxious to reassure the House, and the House will
954
be delighted to receive his reassurance. I will ask him a few specific questions.
First, in the light of the evidence that has been placed before us by the Committee of Public Accounts, what in the Government's view is the most economical rate of production and in what locations? One of the difficulties of the scheme that involves two companies and two Governments has been the sharing between the French and the British. Past Committees of Public Accounts have always been anxious about the inherent conflict between cost-effectiveness and work-sharing. Never could that dilemma be more cruelly pointed than in circumstances in which we find a rate of ordering which suggests perhaps a revised rate of production. Therefore, we have to ask whether it is most economical to have two points of production rather than one.
Inevitably and inextricably linked with that is what is the most economical rate of production. We know about the most economical rate of aircraft orders, what I am concerned with is the most economical rate of production.
Secondly, what is the current state of research and development on the engine noise of the aircraft? My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 26th November asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry :
"if he will make a statement on the latest report on the future commercial development of the Concorde aircraft sent to him by the British Aircraft Corporation."
He might have added, though he did not, "a copy of which is now available to hon. Members, thanks to the courtesy of the Anti-Concorde League". My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping answered as follows :
"As I informed the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 19th November, studies on future possible improvements from the Anglo-French manufacturers have just been received, and are being examined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 2.]
I think that two points arise. First, the House would very much like to know what success has attended the work on the bucket and spade modifications to the Olympus 593 engine. What are the reduced landing noises as a result of the adaptation? Secondly, has the work that has been undertaken in any sense altered

955
the latest known development cost total figure of £1,062 million?
The whole question of engine noise is of considerable interest. I do not want to anticipate what may be part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but I dare say that he, like myself, is apprehensive about the commercial prospects of an aircraft which cannot have engine noise which is as quiet as the TriStar generation of subsonic jets. That is the dilemma. it is a question not of what is good enough today but of what will be good enough four or five years hence when strong environmental forces at work in North America and elsewhere will require lower noise levels than those that are currently accepted and acceptable.
My third question concerns the impact of rising fuel costs on the sales prospects for this aircraft. A Question was put to the Department of Trade and Industry about fuel consumption and the expected impact on the sales of Concorde, to which the Under-Secretary of State replied :
"Concorde's estimated fuel consumption per seat-mile is 0·45 1b. compared with 0·15—0·25 1b. for current subsonic civil jet aircraft. The manufacturers do not consder that the recent fuel price increases will have any material effect on Concorde sales."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 14th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 166.]
I regard that as a somewhat optimistic holding reply, for what is reality? The reality is that per passenger seat-mile Concorde consumes between two and three times as much fuel as a subsonic jet, and I cannot believe that this alteration in the balance of operating economics of supersonic aircraft will leave prospects untouched, above all in the light of the prospective increases in fuel oil which are generally assumed by aircraft manufacturers and aircraft operators the world over.
It is therefore essential that we should know what are the considered consequences of this change in fuel supplies and in fuel prices. Indeed, the Treasury Minute has to some extent conditioned us to think in these terms, since doubtless with weary experience over the years, it assumes that the promotion of Concorde is no easy task because it says that
"it will nevertheless be competing for the limited capital resources of airlines who, in the context of their overall route network, will be evaluating the comparative costs of supersonic
956
and subsonic aircraft to meet their requirements."
Who can doubt that in the latest, most modern evaluation there has emerged the major effect of steeply rising fuel costs and indeed, for some airline operators, a degree of hazard about the availability of such fuel supply?
The observation is made that much more pertinent by virtue of the fact that, although time has elaped since a letter of intent, as it were, was received from Iranian Airlines for its two Concordes, no firm orders have resulted from it.
Mr. Paget: Or from the Chinese.
Mr. Biffen: Or, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton says, from the Chinese. The reason why I view the Iranian situation with such anxiety is that the airline has made a reservation for two Boeing 747 SPs, which will be a long-range wide-bodied subsonic jet, which it is argued will be doing the routes which might otherwise have been considered available for the Concorde. I regard the non-confirmation of the letter of intent by Iranian Airways as a noteworthy matter and one which fully merits some further observation by my hon. Friend.
We then come to the question of the firm orders, all of them to tied purchasers, namely, the flag carriers known to be purchasing Concorde—Air France and British Airways. What routes does my hon. Friend expect will be flown by British Airways with the five Concordes that it has ordered? In particular, can my hon. Friend confirm that British Airways has permission to use Lagos Airport? It is important to know whether there is firm permission to use that airport, because I understand that there may be some operational difficulty for Concorde in the use of a high-altitude airport such as that at Nairobi.
One's anxieties—and they are anxieties—are bound to be expressed upon this venture not merely because of its history but also because of the solid and sombre realities that have been concluded by the PAC itself. Reference has been made to paragraph 59, and I shall repeat it. It says :
"It appears to Your Committee that the absence of any clear indications of sales prospects and the level of production costs if sales are low leave the project as speculative as it

957
ever was. Unless further substantial orders are received for the aircraft we fear that in addition to the failure to recover development costs, the Government will have to meet production losses, which could be large, on each aircraft produced."
All the anxieties that are therein contained must be reinforced when we read that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said at the Western European Union Assembly :
"The direction in which aviation will move in the future is by no means as clear as it seemed until recently. For example, without wishing to overdramatise the situation, we have seen a change in the energy situation which could have significant implications for the aerospace sector …. What is clear, however, is that the days when one could confidently rely on ever-rising forecasts of traffic growth and demand for aircraft may be past."
That is a sober and timely reminder. It is a reminder to the House and an endorsement of the findings of the Committee that this aircraft is not above question. It will be a sad day when some items of public spending, even if they are on collaborative projects with allies and neighbours, become so sacrosanct that they cannot be questioned and, if found wanting, terminated.
I do not believe that true national pride lies in the production of aircraft for which there is no commercial demand. It is an illusion and a very false sense of technological patriotism. The House has an obligation to inquire whether new environmental and new commercial factors render supersonic air transport as both unlikely and unacceptable. It is easy enough to ask the question. It is much more harsh to live with some of the underlying realities implicit in the answers. But I think that I speak not entirely for myself when I say that for me, at any rate, technical spendour is not enough.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Although the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has raised some highly pertinent and important questions about Concorde I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow up his remarks. I wish to return to the other central point in this series of reports, namely, North Sea oil and gas.
Although the Government have shown themselves to be highly disturbed by the more extraordinary revelations of the Committee on this subject, on which the
958
Committee and its Chairman and acting Chairman are to be warmly congratulated, we have not yet had anything remotely like a satisfactory response on several points. Perhaps it is less surprising when one considers that the central implication of the first report is not so much the fantastic tax throw-aways which the Committee unearthed—although they are serious enough—but the exposure of the highly ambiguous not to say sinister relationship between the oil industry and the Department. It is this murky link which alone, surely, can explain the series of Government blunders.
The fact that these blunders were deliberate is shown by the obviously misleading cover-ups of the Department. How, otherwise, even on a most generous interpretation, can the Government explain why they imposed no tougher terms in the fourth round of licensing at the end of 1971, after the exploration initially had shown unexpected successes which enormously diminished the risks involved, when it was only the magnitude of the risks in the first place which, in the Department's view, justified the generous incentives to the companies? How else can the Government explain why, after the small experiment with the auction in the fourth round which produced as much as £37 million from the sale of 15 blocks, they still went ahead with the sale of 267 blocks which, as a result of the usual licence fee, brought in only a paltry £3 million? How else can the Government explain why, after it had become clear that there were in this area very rich oilfields which, on the latest estimates, are likely to produce up to £200 million-tons by 1980, at that stage they could issue licences for 46 years, with no provision for variation or for renegotiation of financial terms?
The second area in which the Government owe the taxpayer an explanation is their studied pursuit of their misleading statements about tax loopholes, about which, as the report makes clear, they knew all along. The Department has consistently tried to make out that corporation tax on North Sea profits would put Britain's take on a par with that of other producing countries at about 60 per cent., or more. How could the Government justify maintaining this fiction when they knew perfectly well that the

959
more the OPEC artificially raised the posted price of Middle East oil the more the British taxpayer was held to ransom by the system of double taxation and other reliefs which permit an offset of Middle East losses against tax on North Sea profits? The damage is well known. It has been cited in the debate. It is piling up, with no less than £470 million by the beginning of this year. The oil companies could offset almost all of their profits against tax losses for the foreseeable future.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget that these huge accumulated losses of £1,500 million would be prevented from being offset against North Sea profits, but even here the Government have not blocked the tax loophole at all fully. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) rightly made the point that there has been no mention of the capital allowances. Yet why should the cost of a tanker in the Gulf be offset against profits in the North Sea?
Secondly, and more importantly, the Chancellor has objected only to that part of the tax offsets which arises from the posted price. He has not objected to that part which arises from the fact that tax rates can be as high as 80 per cent. and under double taxation arrangements any payments over 50 per cent., the United Kingdom corporation tax rate can be offset against United Kingdom profits. So although the Government have been found out once, they still seem implicitly to be trying to play the same kind of game.
The same kind of misleading impression has been given over the question of supplies to and personnel of the oil companies. We know that after the Department originally estimated these, at least the former, at over 50 per cent., the IMEG produced a much more realistic report of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. It transpires that the Department counted foreign subsidiaries as "British", without disclosing the import content of their services and supplies, which is at a very much higher level than it would be in the case of a truly British firm. As the Committee's report rightly says, it is amazing that a thorough examination of the opportunities for British industry and employment was not undertaken before
960
1972 when the IMEG report was commissioned.
What all this means is that the Department's claims that it is safeguarding the interests of the country and that the North Sea would relieve this country of £500 million worth of imports have been shown, ruthlessly and extremely efficiently, to be entirely empty. Much of the gross savings in visible oil imports will be offset by profits of foreign countries and salaries transferred abroad, as well as by the imported supplies of the oil companies. Indeed, what else can the Minister have expected when the foreign participation in exploration and exploitation is no less than 68 per cent., by area licensed, and when over 70 per cent. of the equipment comes from either foreign countries or foreign companies with a British subsidiary in this country?
Against this background, which needs an explanation without conspiratorial theory being invoked, of missed opportunities, whether involuntary, or in some senses intended, it is surely remarkable that the Government have taken no less than eight months and have still not made up their minds whether to adopt the Committee's recommendation of the excellent Norwegian system of variable royalties and the variable carried interest participation, in the sense of an option to buy into a concession if it turns out to be successful.
The Government should declare their hand, and do so quickly. They have not made clear how far they propose actually to segregate profits made from the Continental Shelf from the results of exploration and exploitation elsewhere. We have had no real answer on that point. Neither have the Government made a decision about the proposal which my right hon. Friend mentioned of a variable barrelage, which is surely the only proper way to skim off excessive profits in some companies without at the same time discouraging the exploration of poorer deposits.
Perhaps the most serious implications in the report are not the economic ones so much as the political and administrative ones. Surely, almost every sentence of the report indicates that the mammoth Departments that we have in Government today cannot be properly controlled by their political heads. The report also argues strongly that the decision to allow

961
policy matters to be settled intradepart-mentally should be reviewed urgently. It has for far too long been regarded as part of the conventional wisdom that the decision to abolish the interdepartmental committee was a wise one. The evidence of the report suggests that actually it was a very unwise one.
The most serious point of all about the report is the evidence it provides of the growing osmosis between industry and Government, surely to the detriment to the rest of the community. Where Ministers leave decision making to sponsoring Departments, the evidence of the report is very strong that the sponsor can easily and quickly become the representative of the sponsored industry and not what it is meant to be—the agency of a particular sector of the economy in the interests of the wider community.
It is clear from the report that consultations take place almost daily between industry and the Department. Perhaps most worryingly of all, the Department is clearly highly dependent upon the industry for information. The report for this reason implicitly raises the question of how far this approach is compatible with the giving of impartial advice to Ministers, and what steps are taken, as one wanders from page after page of the report, to obtain impartial outside advice on these matters, especially when negotiations are about to take place with the industry itself.
I believe, therefore, that the real message of the report, about which, as I have indicated, I do not think that the Government have yet given at all satisfactory answers, is much less the question, though this is serious enough, of how to avoid a substantial further haemorrhage from this country, which is less than it has a right to expect, but the even more important question perhaps, of the need for another report on the rôle of sponsoring Departments in the formulation of fuel policy, and, indeed, the whole question of the machinery for interdepartmental consultation.
I hope that the Government will accept those remarks in a positive sense, because I believe that this is an area that now needs very serious review. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will be able to give some indication of the Government's intentions to produce
962
changes which stop this extraordinary story from recurring in other areas.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: I had not intended to participate in the debate. I suppose that I should start by declaring not so much an interest as a gross inadequacy, because I should make the confession that I have not read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee. The only reason why I am on my feet this evening is that I have been fascinated by the debate so far. I am on my feet because, clearly, those hon. Members who have read the eight reports of the Public Accounts Committee are evidently not in the Chamber and I am not seeking to take their place or seeking to usurp their knowledge, which must obviously be much greater than mine.
I shall return at a subsequent point to what might be described as a political if not a philosophical reflection on the fact that I happen to have been busy reading, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) implied, the manifold reports and papers of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and obviously one Member cannot, unless he has more time than the average and more energy and dilligence, command and master the papers of more than one Select Committee at any one time.
None the less, I believe that some very important points have been raised. I want to start with a subject which was covered by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) ; namely, the relationship between the Government and industry in general and between the Government and the oil industry in particular. There has been in the debate some implied criticism of the situation in which the United Kingdom oil industry will now find itself in relation to the North Sea.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very comprehensive survey of the finances and world pattern of operation of the oil industry in the context of 1972, which is about as recent as statistics make possible and which was conducted by the Energy Department of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Had I thought that I should have an opportunity to raise this subject this afternoon, I should have been

963
sufficiently wise as to have brought the report with me. But I recall the principal conclusions, which I think are very interesting.
The Chase Manhattan report surveyed the activities of about 70 per cent. of the world oil industry. The figures, which I recall very clearly, were that in 1972 the gross revenue of the industry was about 106 billion dollars. Of that 106 billion dollars about 3 billion, and 3 billion only, finally went out in the form of dividends to investors in that industry. The clear message throughout the Chase Manhattan Bank survey—it is very relevant to the relationship which Government establish between themselves and the North Sea oil exploration pattern—was that the world oil industry is not being permitted to accumulate and aggregate the necessary investment reserves to develop on the scale which it conceives to be necessary and which, indeed, the energy crisis has made the whole world realise is necessary.
As I recall the analysis in the Chase Manhattan document, one of the principal reasons for this is that about 37 billion dollars of the total take of 106 billion dollars went out in taxation of one form or another. So if the hon. Member for Oldham, West is arguing that the world oil industry is not contributing its fair share to all the ambitious social and economic policies of Governments, I think that he must look at the figures again. Or, if the hon. Gentleman maintains this case, as many others do, he will have to say where the capital reserves are to be found for the exploration which is now to be required if our civilisation is not to run headlong into a very much more serious and major energy crisis than that which appears on the horizon at present due to artificial factors.
Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman would find all that answered if he would only read the report of the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman has caught me on a most vulnerable point which I admitted earlier. The Chase Manhattan document made a very strong case for allowing the oil industry as a whole on a global scale to derive or to keep a larger proportion of
964
its total reserves. If a return of 3 per cent. is considered by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to be excessive, I am sure that he will say so immediately.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West went on to talk about the undesirability of what he described in a rather intriguing analysis as the osmosis between industry and Government which he thought would take place to the detriment of the community. I should have thought that this was contrary to an aim and objective which was common to both sides of the House and has been for a very long time. In general, we deplore the gap between industry and Government, and we advocate and support virtually every kind of policy which can increase the communication, the understanding and the general level of confidence which prevails between industry and Government.
I should not have thought that what is happening in the North Sea generally speaking can be criticised on the ground that this osmosis is to the detriment of the community, because clearly the very production of this report and all the involvement both of Government and of the industry in its production suggests that this is continuing.
I should now like to turn very briefly to the subject of Concorde. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is in his place, because it was his comments on this subject which prompted me to intervene in this debate. I accept all that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) have said about the great inherent speculation in high technology. I do not think one can really argue that this great inherent speculation in high technology is something which we can ever completely dismiss, however perfect or improved our control systems, whether over the rate or scale of expenditure or over the inherent risk decision which we take when we decide to build a supersonic aircraft, a large scale or more powerful computer, or devices which very few hon. Members of this House understand anything about, except possibly the way a nut goes on a bolt, which is probably the one feature common to all of them.
But it is worth recollecting that, if we were in this House 30 years ago and were being asked—as we were not, because the

965
funds were supplied by private industry and not by the Government at that stage—to approve what was the relatively modest expenditure asked for by Group Captain Whittle to develop the gas turbine, it would have been possible at that stage to argue that the gas turbine had very little to do with the public weal and was unlikely to be of any ascertainable or foreseeable benefit to mankind in any sense whatever. One could have made almost the same criticism when we were asked—as I think we probably were—round about the late 'forties to produce capital for the development of the Comet aircraft. We could probably have said "Here is a highly specialised, exotic form of aircraft which, apparently, will carry only a very few people at speeds so far inconceivable from one point on the earth's surface to another." Yet the interesting speculation which follows from that is that from that aircraft developed the subsonic jets which, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be the first to agree, has made possible for millions of people something known as the" package tour" holiday, which has had the widest social and economic effects.
Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am much interested in his argument. Of course, if Concorde is to be used for package tours, that alters the position, but that has not been seriously suggested so far. The curious point about Mr. Whittle's jet engine is that he raised his money in the market. My father-in-law and his former hon. Friend Mr. Williams, who was the Member for Exeter, raised the money in the market. If the money for Concorde were raised in the market, I should be delighted, but I do not think it would be.
Mr. Lloyd: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point and I go so far as virtually to agree with him. I should be the first to concede that, if the sponsors of Concorde had sought the money in the form of risk capital from the private sector of the Western capital market, their chances of raising it would be very small indeed. I do not want to enter into a much more profound debate as to whether, with technology making its present scale of demands, this type of appeal to the private sector market is entirely possible or
966
practicable, even if it may be philosophically desirable. This is a very much bigger question, but I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
In conclusion, I should like to turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry on the emptiness of the House. I wondered whether the explanation for that lay elsewhere. Is it not possible that our debates have, in a sense, assumed a somewhat academic nature? One would have thought, when the House of Commons was supplied with such a mine of information as it has been supplied with on this occasion, that the benches would have been crowded and that there would have been an intensely interesting and informed debate. It is worth asking why that is not so ; why, when the reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology are debated, if ever they are to be debated, the situation will probably be the same. The green benches will be empty, there will be a few interested persons here, and that is all.
The conclusion which I have reached, perhaps erroneously, is that Members of Parliament bear, to the decision-making processes and authority and centre of power in this country, much the same relationship as shareholders at the annual general meeting of a large and rather moribund company. We have a great deal in common with them. The meetings are poorly attended, they are generally badly informed, the shareholders are encouraged to have other preoccupations than the activities and interests of the company—and for very good reasons—questions are not generally encouraged by the board, and the annual report is usually a glossy and somewhat meaningless document. Only on the last point would I say that the analogy is not true this evening, because I should like to pay a very generous and genuine tribute to the reports which have been produced.
But if this is the position it raises rather more profound questions. If we are, through media such as the Public Accounts Committee, to return to an effective control of the expenditure of this nation—a point to which I referred the other day—then I come back to this simple point, which I am sure hon. Members will have no difficulty in accepting. If we ask, in contexts other than this, what is the most significant feature of control,

967
I think the reply is "Who signs the cheque?" The answer which we ourselves give, if we are asked who signs the cheque for Concorde, who signs the cheque for Maplin, who signs the cheque for £900 million for British Railways, who signs the cheque for almost any of these mammoth undertakings is "We do not sign the cheque." If we could, not literally but symbolically, reach the situation where on every occasion when the nation was asked to spend a sum in excess of £500 million the cheque had on it the signatures of 20 Members of Parliament, what a vast change there would be in the situation, and in the relationship of this House to those who take the decisions and spend the money!
Of course, I am not suggesting this as a serious solution to our problems ; I am suggesting it in the sense of a symbolic solution. But until the country feels that the situation has been restored to where a symbolic £500 million of the nation's money is not spent without 20 Members of Parliament once again symbolically signing the cheque, then I do not think we shall have reached the point which we want to reach.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not my intention to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) in talking about reports which he admitted he has not read very fully. It is my intention to devote some time to the First Report of the Public Accounts Committee which I have read reasonably fully. We have already had expressions of thanks from these benches to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in offering condolences on the death of the then Member for Hove. Martin Maddan was an excellent member of the Committee and he and I were on the Select Committee which dealt with the Maplin Development Bill. He was an excellent colleague and a highly respected Member of this House.
It is my intention to deal with the report on North Sea oil, and I am happy to see the Scottish Under-Secretary of
968
State for Health and Education in his place, because I want the Government to apprise themselves of the sense of unfairness which is felt in Scotland in relation to this issue. First, there is a sense of unfairness in relation to the method of administering the licence terms and the speed of exploration and exploitation ; secondly, there is a sense of unfairness in relation to the ownership of the oil once it has been discovered ; thirdly, there is a sense of unfairness in relation to the processing of the oil ; fourthly, there is a sense of unfairness in relation to the royalties and the tax levies ; and, fifthly, there is a sense of unfairness in relation to the treatment of United Kingdom industry, particularly Scottish industry.
I recognise immediately that these points are intermingled. But first I want to deal with the sense of unfairness relating to the licensing terms. We know that the administration here, up to the fourth round, was discretionary, and after the fourth round it was on a mixed discretionary and auction basis. The royalties were based on a uniform consideration of 12½ per cent., with a fee given for blocks of roughly 100 square miles. Half a block could be surrendered in six years but the other half was available for 46 years without a break.
The view of the Department of Trade and Industry given to the Public Accounts Committee was that there had to be a balance of advantage to induce the companies to move into this area, and, secondly, the Department wanted to produce a situation in which the OPEC countries would not push up the price. We saw the situation of the OPEC countries developing throughout the 1960s, and anyone who thought, when they were administering the third and fourth round—and the fourth round in particular—that we were producing a situation for which the OPEC countries would have any regard must have been living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
We know what price the OPEC countries are demanding for oil which is imported into the United Kingdom. The cost of our imports has risen in a period of 18 months from £900 million to £1,800 million, and this is at a posted price of just about five dollars a barrel. The going price of marginal oil is now in the region of 18 dollars a barrel. This reflects the price that is going to be given for North Sea oil.

969
The Government have evaded the issue. What is going to be the well head price for North Sea oil? How is it going to be administered? Unless we are clear about this, the sense of unfairness about this issue in Scotland will not be diminished. We have to be clear what regime we are going to create in order to determine the administered price for oil. The companies' own assessment, that it is fair to go at a cost of £1,000 per barrel, and therefore, the cost of the Forties field will be about £400 million plus, is reasonably well known, but we ought to be probing—and the Government ought to be more forthcoming than they have been—the price structure of this valuable resource. Are they going to operate a system which gives us a cheap form of energy? Is that compatible with the rules of the European Economic Community? These are questions which people in Scotland in particular want answered.
Without any disrespect to an hon. Lady who has not yet made her maiden speech or to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), may I say that I am surprised to look at the benches and see that they are absent.
Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friend is referring all the time to Scotland, but, in fact, this is a matter for Great Britain. I hope he will keep that fact very much in mind.
Mr. Douglas: I agree that this issue affects the United Kingdom as a whole. Knowing my hon. Friend's desire not to miss out the European Economic Community, I shall refer to that later.
As I have said, the OPEC countries are pushing up the price of oil. Last week at a Press conference Sheikh Yamani, who is a moderate in relation to the OPEC countries, said that from his point of view oil in the ground would be much more valuable than taking currencies and rates of interest in the present international monetary situation. That is a point which we have got to appreciate.
I now wish to consider the question of the ownership of oil as opposed to the cost. The régime which we operate in licence terms is that we demand that the oil must be landed in the United Kingdom. There is nothing in the licence terms to suggest that it should be processed
970
in the United Kingdom. I want to know, on behalf of the House, why we cannot have such a condition in the licence terms. Why is it impossible for us to say to the companies "Not only will you land the oil in the United Kingdom but you will process that oil in the United Kingdom unless good reasons are shown why this cannot be done"?
I note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), but it is rather difficult to overcome the fact that the oil companies possess the expertise unless we duplicate the administrative mechanism of the oil companies. I plead for openness of information. In a situation where the oil companies, rightly or wrongly, are not disclosing their cost structure, this is harmful to the nation. We must not merely ask the oil companies to go through their accounts and invoices every three months ; we want a clear openness of purpose on their part and an openness of information about their profits.
I go along with my hon. Friends who have argued for variable royalties. I also go along, of course, with the Public Accounts Committee's argument for a barrelage tax, variable if possible, in relation to the flows coming from the fields. These are important considerations. While not going all along the line with some of my hon. Friends in relation to public ownership, I argue forcibly for public participation. There ought to be in any new round of licences opportunities for carried interest agreements. It is absurd not to write in terms similar to those which Norway has.
I come now to the position of the United Kingdom industry. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on the concrete production platforms. We cannot afford to lose another order for a production platform, not only because of the importance of getting the order and making a breakthrough in technology but because it becomes much more difficult for the other companies which supply the ancillary equipment for these platforms to obtain these orders if the orders for the platforms are placed elsewhere.
I am aware of the environmental problems. There is a public inquiry going on now in Drumbuie, but the Government ought to be able to get the oil companies

971
together with the construction companies and ask those companies operating in the British sector of the Continental Shelf "What type of production platforms do you think are necessary for the next five to 10 years?" That is a simple thing to ask. Then they should see where these production platforms can best be built. It may be that some of them can only be built in deep water. But there are other production platforms of a composite nature, like the Redpath Dorman Long design or the Brown Root composite design, which could be considered. There may be others which can be built without dislocating the environment. Unless the Government come clean, there may be misgivings.
Quite apart from the view which would develop among hundreds of thousands of people, some of these areas—one thinks of Drambuie in particular—are symbolic. This is what the Government do not seem to understand. The feeling among people in the Highlands goes back to the clearances, to the time when whole areas were destroyed, and they are extremely worried lest other areas should now be destroyed and left derelict, with no restitution and no profit for the community.
As I say, I am not an expert in terms of design. The way I put it is to ask the Government to allay the fears now entertained by giving, so far as is humanly possible, their objective for the type of production platform which can be built in certain areas.
What is more, although we are concerned about the production platforms it must be emphasised—I referred to this earlier today—that there are 57 semi-submersible drilling rigs being built in the world today, and not one is being built in the United Kingdom. If we are critical regarding the production platforms, we should be crying to high heaven about the backwardness of United Kingdom industry in getting into this work.
I realise that there is a problem in relation to the shipbuilding industry, which has relatively full order books today, but there is no excuse for the Government to sit back and say that this is something which the industry itself should solve. I repeat that there
972
are 57 semi-submersible drilling rigs being built in the world and not one in the United Kingdom. I do not comment on the jack-up type of rig which is at present being built by the Marathon yard. There are opportunities also for the United Kingdom to build liquefied natural gas carriers, and we have heard nothing about that.
On this whole question of the industry and its development, we in Scotland demand—we are not asking, and I have in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson)—that there be set up in Scotland a centre for drilling technology. This is a "must". We shall consider it a failure on the part of the Conservatives, and an abject failure on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland, if that centre is not established. It is important for the population of Scotland, and it is important for the United Kingdom, too, that we deepen and broaden our petroleum technology base.
All this is related to the need for an integrated energy policy. However we may evaluate the facts, we must not look upon our North Sea resources in isolation.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. I note the various points which he makes, and I understand the strength of his feeling on the subject. I am, however, in some difficulty in relating what he says directly to the report before us.
Mr. Douglas: A considerable part of the report deals with the United Kingdom industry, and I am referring in this context to the IMEG Report. In the IMEG Report there is considerable documentation dealing with education, and the report of the Department of Employment dealing with education for offshore technology springs from the IMEG Report. I hope that I have indicated a clear connection between the PAC Report, the IMEG Report and what I have been saying about the need for a centre for drilling technology.
Mr. Higgins: I was in no sense being critical of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as I sought to show in my opening comment. All I sought to do was to ask him

973
to relate his remarks to specific paragraphs so that my task in reply would be a little easier. I now understand what he says with reference to the 1MEG Report. I thought that various paragraphs might be relevant, and I had some problem at first.
Mr. Douglas: I take it that I have made the position clear now.
We ought not to exaggerate the facts regarding the overall impact of the North Sea resources. The present proven discoveries will be sufficient for the world for only two years. I hope that there will be many more finds. We must not think of this important resource in isolation. We must not think in Scotland or in the United Kingdom that, because we have made the discoveries, we can adopt a "go it alone" approach.
We must recognise the need for an integrated fuel policy, and this involves reconciling the claims of the miners, recognising that they must have a balanced labour force, and recognising also that this will not be achieved within the confines of stage 3. There should be a Minister of Cabinet rank, with clear duties set forth, who would have a national energy commission, with a relevant sub-commission, and a petroleum supply industries board based, if possible, in Scotland.
All the revenues which stem from these finds should be clearly accounted for. I realise the difficulties in assigning revenues, but the people of the United Kingdom will want to see a clear accounting formula, and, what is more, from my party's point of view we shall want to see the oil revenues used to redress the regional imbalance of the past 100 years or so.
In view of the present difficulties on the international oil scene, we ought to be thinking about using North Sea oil as a lever to obtain a European energy policy, and then a world energy policy, a policy reconciling the competing needs of the producers and the consuming nations. I have here a report sent to me by my good friend Lawrence Daly, who argues the case that
"The mineworkers' free trade unions want to invite the European institutions and the national Governments to increase their efforts towards a common energy policy because it will depend upon this common energy policy whether the national economies of the European Community have sufficient energy available
974
further to develop their economic activities."
I not only endorse those remarks for Europe but I endorse them for the world as well.
6.46 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: The power and effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee lies in its nonpartisan nature, and I have no wish to depart from that non-partisan spirit. We are here criticising not merely the present Government but a series of Governments. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), at the end of it I was reminded of a former Member of the House who, following Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, leaped to his feet and said "All I can say is ' Ditto, ditto ' to the hon. Gentleman".
Although the Public Accounts Committee is non-partisan, and we are here considering one of its non-partisan reports, we have before us a scarifying indictment of a series of Governments the like of which, I suspect, has seldom, if ever, been presented to the House. In these circumstances it seems extraordinary that the Government benches should be almost empty and that ours should be but poorly attended, for, in substance and effect, the report says that Governments have lost, mislaid or let go astray public funds certainly to the tune of over £1,000 million. It is a formidable challenge.
The subject of North Sea oil has been dealt with in detail by several of my hon. Friends, and I say only this about it. The fact which struck me during the evidence which we heard was the incompetence of public servants in dealing with the oil companies. However honourable, however skilful, however good at organisation within their own field, their incompetence was astonishing when they went to bargaining with the expert dealers of the oil companies. If I may say so, they were about up to the standard of the pre-war Gulf sheikhs ; certainly no better.
Indeed, my suggestion for dealing with this problem was that we should kill two birds with one stone. We should link the North Sea oil problem with the Malta problem. We should give Malta, say, 1 per cent. of our North Sea oil holding which would more than keep up with the demands coming from Malta, on the condition that Mr. Mintoff took over the

975
bargaining on our behalf. I believe that would have been an overwhelmingly beneficial proposition to both our islands. Even if we cannot obtain the inestimable services of Mr. Mintoff we should still have all the oil agreements renegotiated and we should get expert oil men to do the job for us. We are in a position to do that.
We can still correct the effect of these bad bargains by a barrelage tax which would provide the money which the contracts do not. However, a barrelage tax is a blunt, awkward and unfair method. We ought to draw different levels of participation from different fields, depending on the cost of development, production and transport. Separate contracts should be worked out in the light of the events and the technical problems as they develop. The contracts should be worked out by oil men who understand these developments, what the costs are and what we should have and what the companies should have. We have the weapon of a barrelage tax to enforce and impose a renegotiation and we should use it.
I turn now to Concorde. I do not disguise that I have been fundamentally opposed to the project from the start. Since it is an Anglo-French concept perhaps I might say in French that it was au-dessus de notre gare, which means "above our station". I have learned that the governing rule which should guide all directors is never to get involved with a customer or a contract that one cannot afford to lose. Anyone who does that loses his independence and his solvency. We and our aircraft industry are not of a size which permits us to commit resources on this scale to a single development. That is what killed Rolls-Royce. But for astonishing subsidies from the public purse Concorde would do the same to our aircraft industry.
Whenever and at whatever point we have written off this folly, its effect has been to throw our whole aircraft industry hopelessly out of gear. It was a concept which was wrong from the start and it became more obviously wrong as it proceeded. I remember having a long discussion with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford, (Mr. Roy Jenkins) when he was Minister of Aviation in which I urged on him the folly of continuing with this contract.
976
He told me that he was advised that his predecessor in office, now the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), had committed us to a contract which made it impossible to reconsider our position in the light of developing events without making ourselves liable to damages in the International Court. I pointed out a certain disagreement with that legal advice to the effect that I found it hard to see how damages for being prevented from going on with a contract which even at that point was plainly and demonstrably unprofitable could be quantified. Further, I argued that, even if I were wrong, any damages my right hon. Friend would have to pay would be trivial compared to the losses he would incur. That is certainly the way it has developed.
Small incidents best illustrate the degree to which costs on this contract got out of control. There was the need to design and provide three seats—one each for the pilot, the co-pilot and the flight engineer. One of those seats required to be able to traverse along a board of dials. They needed, for the comfort of the officers and the engineer, to be electrically adjustable. Seats of this sort are not new. The dental and medical professions have been designing such seats for some time and those for Concorde were not substantially different, although they may have had to be somewhat stronger. They may also have required some special features.
However, the kind of chair on which all the various adjustments can be made—where the back goes up and down and the feet come up and down—cost for surgical and dental purposes, according to my dentist, £600. I would, perhaps, agree that in these special circumstances the figure would go to double that. That would mean £3,600 for the three seats. I could perhaps have stomached that figure being multiplied by 10 to take account of development. That takes it to £36,000, but when I find that the people who were monitoring this contract on our behalf accept £360,000 for the three chairs I begin to realise just what has happened to control at this level.
We now move from development costs which are certainly and inevitably written off. The issue now is what do we do about production? Are we to go on producing these aircraft? I put the same

977
question to Mr. Thornton. It and the answer will be found on page 63 of the Sixth and Seventh Reports of the PAC, and the particular question I posed is No. 2095. I said :
"I feel that I am putting the assumptions as favourably as I can towards this aircraft. Supposing that you do get the orders in time to go ahead with 25 without a break, what I am saying is that even assuming that everything"—
I think this is an error. It should read, "that everything went right", for that is what was meant to be said—"
the cost per aeroplane would still be well over £23 million apiece?—I doubt that, but I would not be able to give you a firm answer."
The next question was :
"Certainly each aeroplane that we sell within that kind of limit, 25 or 30, is going to mean a substantial addition to our losses?"
The answer was : "Yes"—assuming that everything was in our favour and that orders were produced, assuming that we could have a straight run and reach 25 to 30 aeroplanes. Because there is a security problem I am not allowed to say anything about the British Airways price. I know what it is, and it is a great deal less than £23 million. So each plane that is produced will increase the losses. I doubt that this process will increase our aircraft prestige.
Having said that, I turn to the question of whether there is any prospect of orders from beyond the nine at present. The nine aircraft ordered are for captive customers. British Airways is owned by the Government and Air France is owned by the French Government. Have we any chance of selling Concorde to other countries? The prospect is exceedingly doubtful. We can probably take the Iraqi inquiry as being dead. For purely political reasons the Chinese may be a slightly better prospect. If that is so, we may have a chance to give the Chinese a present of perhaps a score of millions of pounds, for that is what would be involved if we delivered the planes to them.
Since the report, the opinion of the manufacturers has by some method fallen into the hands of the Observer. Summarised, that opinion is, first, that the existing model is unsaleable. That is clearly stated by the chairman. Secondly, it is that the modifications which might make some of the aircraft sell are in doubt because there is no agreement with
978
the French, and that those modifications which improved carrying capacity would increase noise level and those which decreased noise would decrease carrying capacity. All would be difficult and expensive. Indeed, the chairman said that there was not much that could be done for the present aircraft.
We are told that the attempt to control noise has been disappointing. I have no doubt that it is. We have had the optimistic talk about Houston ; somebody said Concorde was no noisier than the major subsonic jets. That is true, but American officials have said that they will no longer accept this level of noise for any future generation. Concorde is, of course, a future generation aircraft. It is admitted, and made clear by the statement, that there is not the smallest chance of Concorde complying with the United States regulations.
The only chance of flying the machine to America is if the Americans are prepared to alter or bend their rules for the benefit of Concorde. It was pointed out that the French considered the noise factor insoluble and a political problem. That political problem could not conceivably be solved unless aircraft were made available to the American companies at prices they were prepared to accept, and with the existing model there is no chance of that happening. So the idea that there will be a competitive effect when the nine existing planes take the cream off the American market will never happen. Concorde will not be allowed to land in America for that very reason. The Americans will not bend the rules in order to have the cream skimmed off their aviation market. That is not the American way of doing business. It never was.
Therefore we are faced with the decision that has been so long and so often postponed. At what stage are we to take our courage into our hands and say, "Enough is enough"? We have a new problem in the oil crisis. I have seen it quantified. The package holiday operators impose surcharges at the airports because of the increased cost of oil. That surcharge, transferred to the Concorde, would amount to £1,750 for each transatlantic crossing. But it is not a question only of additional charges. There is the problem of conserving oil. At this point we have passed from a period of

979
glut in our fossil fuels. In Concorde we have an enormously costly instrument filling no obvious want and consuming fuel at a level never previously conceived. When will somebody have the courage to end this folly?
7.8 p.m.
Dr. David Owen: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) spoke of the sparse attendance and the general lack of interest in the debate as an indictment of the Select Committee procedure. When challenged from the Opposition benches, he qualified that remark by saying that he did not doubt the need for Select Committees, but seemed to stand by his original opinion that their value was to be assessed by what went on in this Chamber.
Although the hon. Gentleman's criticisms are real enough, the fault is in the mechanism that we employ in the Chamber. We have a valuable asset in any Select Committee's report, in that it is usually unanimous, formed across party allegiances, and of a bipartisan nature. The reports can have value only if a Select Committee, using its bipartisan nature, puts a motion before the House when there is a contentious issue, as there is in some reports, and is given the power to call a debate, at the end of which there may be a vote.
There is an issue that the House will have to face. If it does not face it soon, its influences and prestige will evaporate even further. Back-bench Members of Parliament are no longer prepared to be herded in to vote according to the party line, which is what they largely do as at present except on private Members' issues or ethical issues. They will not spend hours and days dealing with the detail of the public scrutiny of Government Departments, often not in controversial areas but nevertheless dealing with large sums of money, if they are to be deprived of the right to force the Government to justify their posture.
The exercise of that right requires our being prepared to vote on bipartisan lines a great deal more often than we have done. We must go right back to the past, in fact. Back-bench Members' influence will start to be judged on the extent to which they are prepared to use the vote again the executive.
980
The party structures will continue on the major issues of the day. No one doubts that that should happen, but until we regain our former power and strength, in addition to our new-found strength, in the scrutiny of Select Committees, and bring the debate to the Floor of the House, we shall never have the control of the executive that the House must rediscover.
An example is the debate on North Sea oil, a matter of major national interest. We have waited months for the Government to reply. It should be within the bounds of possibility for the Public Accounts Committee to put a motion to the House, which the Government would have to answer. If the members of the Committee were not satisfied, and felt they should push the matter to a vote, they would do so.
Having been in Government, I am certain that that would concentrate the minds of Ministers to a degree that we do not see when they wind up a long, rambling debate, in this case covering many different areas. Two issues of major importance are involved here—Concorde and North Sea oil. Very few Ministers remember what it was like when they were in Opposition. Very few say the same in Government as they did in Opposition. An hon. Member may laugh, but many of us have said the same in Government as we did in Opposition, and will continue to do so. We shall continue to argue for Select Committees and be prepared to accept what they say, even though that may make one when in Government slightly uncomfortable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned the degree of involvement of the Government machine with industry, particularly in the context of the oil decision. One could equally mention the officials dealing with the Concorde project. My hon. Friend expressed reluctance about that degree of intermingling. I think that it is inevitable. The area of highly complex technology, with Government investment, Government support for research and development, and even Government support for production, makes the interface between Government and industry extremely complex. There will be interchanges. That situation is here to stay and will grow.

981
I shall refer to defence, which is causing me some concern. I do not necessarily say that the situation is avoidable. Probably much of that growth of interchange is unavoidable, and at times it may be beneficial. But it puts a responsibility on the House to develop its scrutiny procedures and effective control over the executive even more than before. Every time we fudge that interface and allow the former separation between Government and industry to change more into a close working partnership, there is a growth in the possibility of corruption, of wrong decisions being made which can later prove to be extremely expensive. In particular the almost inevitable difficulty of not making brutal cut-off decisions grows ever more, because the officials who make the initial decisions to commit money to Concorde, the officials who decide the system of leases for the oil exploitation, remain. Often the Ministers remain ; often it is the same Government. The defence mechanism of government is such as at least publicly to defend the decisions. To some extent that, too, is inevitable.
On a bipartisan basis, back benchers will have to challenge the executive. The fusion of the executive and the legislature in the British parliamentary system may have been tolerable 40 years ago, but the extent to which it occurs in the present system is intolerable. If we wish to regain strength and effectiveness as back benchers we shall have to start to separate them, although not to go to the extent, as in the United States, of a total separation of powers. A greater measure of independence of back benchers is one of the essential ingredients of restoring democratic control. It is high time it occurred. The extent to which we are now dominated by bureaucratic and centralised government is intolerable ; it must be balanced by a greater independence within this Chamber.
That is the lesson for the hon. Member for Oswestry. If we are to exert our influence, we must do so by the vote on the Floor of the House, and question the estimates and expenditure on even small items so as to bring Government and Ministers to account.
I believe that that is the central issue of this debate. It is all very well producing reports. Some hon. Members
982
read them, but some who have spoken in the debate admit that they have not. The central issue is how we are to get the Government to account for themselves.
I should like to deal with the defence industry, which the report has touched on in the question of contracts, particularly Ministry of Defence contracts. It is often said that the military-industrial complex in the United States is immensely powerful. It was President Eisenhower, in his last message as President to the American people, who warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex. It is sometimes assumed that in this country no such complex exists, but I believe that is not so. There is growing evidence that the concentration of defence contract awards within the hands of a very small number of contractors is more prevalent even than in the United States.
In the year ending 31st March 1972, 4,400 firms entered into defence contracts with the Government of a value more than £5,000. During this year the Government spent £767 million in the procurement of equipment, including weapons systems, for the military. Of that total, £605 million, or 80 per cent., went to the 14 largest defence contractors. In the following year the record was very similar. Of the 4,500 firms involved in defence contracting, the 14 largest received £708 million of the £964 million spent by the procurement executive on equipment, or 72 per cent. of the total.
The problem is that the percentage of competitive bidding for defence contracts, though higher than in the United States, is only slightly higher. In 1972 in the United States it went down to 10 per cent., a 20-year low. In this country, in 1970 defence contracts awarded on a competitive basis by value came to only 23 per cent. In 1971 the figure was 28 per cent. and in 1972 it was 21 per cent. Defence contracts awarded non-competitively on a price-to-be-agreed basis came to 54 per cent., 50 per cent. and 58 per cent. in each of those years.
In marked contrast, the percentage of all British Government contracts placed on a competitive basis, by value, came to 73 per cent. in 1970, 68 per cent. in 1971 and 77 per cent. in 1972. Government contracts awarded non-competitively overall on a price-to-be-agreed basis for those years came to 3 per cent., 4 per

983
cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. Those figures include defence contracts. Therefore, if defence contracts are excluded, the amount of general contracting going out on a non-competitive basis is seen to be a mere fraction. The Government, however, in contrast are giving practically all their major defence contracts on a noncompetitive basis.
It may be that that is inevitable, but surely it poses severe problems for this House in determining whether contracts are effectively drawn up, whether they are policed effectively, whether there is no corruption and whether the contracts represent value for money. In the old days when a high percentage of contracts were put out for tender, the House of Commons, the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee generally had the safeguard of a tendering system. That system has not virtually disappeared.
Another not necessarily alarming tendency but a trend which must be considered is the number of serving officers of senior rank involved with procuring contracts who leave the Ministry of Defence and go straight into industry. Between 1962 and 1972 there were 129 applications from senior military officers to take up appointments in industry that are on record as having been approved. Some of those officers were very senior—for example, major-generals, admirals and air marshals.
Similar figures for civil servants are rather unsatisfactory for we do not know which civil servants have been involved with defence contracts. However, there is a trend for a fairly large number of people leaving the Civil Service, from the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Trade and Industry, and within two years finding themselves working in the very industries to which they were awarding contracts, maybe only a few months ago.
I am not making allegations of corruption. I do not think that any Minister could work within a Government Department without paying tribute to the extraordinarily high standard maintained by the Civil Service when dealing with contracts. However, it is a harsh lesson for the House to know that there is such a trend and to find that in many ways we
984
are prepared to encourage it but not to control it. It seems that we are prepared to encourage the secondment of young civil servants to industry and their return to the Civil Service. We are also prepared to encourage young industrialists to work for a period in the Civil Service and then to return to industry. Such a trend, I believe, is good and should be encouraged, but it poses considerable problems for any form of control. It underlines the need for a strong and independent PAC and a strong and independent Expenditure Committee which are prepared to take their criticism of government to the Floor of the House and ask their colleagues to back their judgment against the Government.
That is what the issue is all about. A Minister, who may be extremely hard pressed, is briefed by his Department, by the very officials whom the PAC and the Expenditure Committee are criticising. His briefing will include all those matters which the Committees are criticising. But they will be put in a different light from the investigation by hon. Members. The Minister who will reply will be dealing often with subjects with which his Department is not involved. He will be given a brief which he knows will contain matters about which he knows nothing. I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), because he is a hard-working Minister. However, he knows nothing about the Sea Wolf contracts. Some hon. Members have examined officials for a whole day about the contracts. Hon. Members on the Expenditure Committee have been considering the Sea Wolf from other aspects—namely, its operational requirements. Those requirements have been challenged too. The whole nature of that contract has been the subject of much criticism in this House, and perhaps more criticism than almost any other contract. The criticism of the PAC is of the incentive contract which works out to be a disincentive rather than an incentive. If the Minister looked at that contract I am sure he would not wish to defend the decision which was taken. If he considers the whole Sea Wolf problem I think he will be even more concerned.
On an all-party basis, if it is felt that the criticism which we make must be taken further than just making it in a

985
report, we shall have to put down—perhaps on the Navy Vote—a motion to the effect that the Sea Wolf project shall not be proceeded with. Only then shall we get a deep investigation inside a Government Department. Only then will the Minister look hard at his brief. He will do so only when he knows that he has to defend a certain situation. It may well be that half way through his investigation he will find that the situation is not defensible.
Parliament must achieve such victories on small detail. It does not matter if the Government lose. They need not resign as a result. If a Minister lost his case it might mean that he would have to consider his position seriously. That would be no bad thing. That is the central issue. Parliament should take control of some of these decisions.
How can Parliament make sensible decisions about Concorde until some of the asterisks are removed from the report and we are told how much the planes will cost to build, plus research and development costs, and for how much they will be sold? There is a lot of discussion about cancelling Concorde. As I understand the position, there is no question of cancelling Concorde. We are to build a fairly substantial number of Concordes. The question is whether we should continue building them. Are we building them at a loss? If so, how many millions of pounds or thousands of pounds are we losing? I suspect it may be millions rather than thousands which we shall lose per copy if we decide to continue. Even if we are given the information Parliament might decide to back the Government's judgment and go ahead. Without the information we cannot possibly make a decision. For how much longer are such decisions to be made by Ministers who subsequently plead confidentiality?
We all know that there is a case for confidentiality in some areas. However, we are long past the decisions of secrecy which were taken during the early development stages. It is lunatic to continue to plead confidentiality. It is being used solely to protect the Government's decision-making process. Ministers must realise that confidentiality does not protect that process if in the end the facts come out, as invariably they do. All that happens each time is that not just the
986
Government but any Government are damaged by the immediate revelation, for people begin to wonder whether Parliament and the whole system have any control.
The Concorde project is of great importance. A lot of expenditure cuts on projects such as Maplin or the Channel Tunnel have little impact on the short term, but Concorde as an expenditure item has a major impact on the short term and must be a central consideration in any major decisions on Government expenditure for the next two or three years. I do not believe that it is possible to justify the degree of secrecy the Government have vested in it.
Two other small points emerge from the report. Nevertheless they are extremely important. The first relates to the fraud in naval catering. That was a tragic case. I am extremely pleased that the PAC considered it. At one time it seemed that major misallocation of Government money would go unlooked at by Parliament despite the fact that the Donaldson Committee was set up to consider it. The recommendation of the committee was as follows :
"We welcome the improvements that have been introduced to reduce the risk of fraud and suggest that the effective working of the victualling and messing system might be improved by a closer interest on the part of officers of the executive branch of the Royal Navy."
I hope that we shall see that. That such an extensive fraud could have continued for many years without anyone in the senior branches of the Navy knowing anything about it is a severe indictment of the system of control and reporting which we have been led to believe is sound and efficient.
Another matter of detail relates to the large computer centre at Ensleigh, Bath. The Eighth Report says :
These proposals were for a large computer at Ensleigh, Bath, to hold centralised records for provisioning, procurement, stock control … linked to medium-sized computers at the four home dockyards, each of which would process local receipts and issues and maintain store accounts."
It is clear that that project has not been designed and carried out with all the skill that we have reason to expect. The Committee asks some penetrating questions. It is a pity that it did not challenge the concept of centralising in Bath so

987
much of the Ministry of Defence. With four major industrial establishments in the four main dockyards, it is becoming increasingly ludicrous to concentrate a central headquarters miles away from the yard where so much of the day-to-day management of the dockyards takes place.
There is growing concern in the dockyards at the large and ever-increasing number of white-collar workers and their ever-increasing proportion to that of blue-collar workers. There is a feeling of remoteness from the central headquarters. The Government have decided to hold up, and maybe postpone indefinitely, a new office block at Bath as part of their recent expenditure survey. I hope that they will take this opportunity to reassess the whole position of Bath in our naval organisation, going beyond the question of the dockyards. Of the need for some headquarters at Bath I have no doubt, but the size, complexity and extent of the Bath naval presence must be seriously questioned and, indeed, has been looked at by many committees at various times.
It is a great sadness that a discussion on two aspects of major policy, oil and Concorde, making severe criticisms, but also, and perhaps more important, forward-looking proposals as to what should be done, should be debated in the way it has been debated today. This really cannot go on. The Government must seriously consider the position. I wonder how much longer reasonably able people will be prepared to come to this place and serve as back benchers, not necessarily with the hope of joining the Government—that should not necessarily be the only reason to come here—unless they feel that their presence here has some effect.
There is far too much pompous humbug and nonsense talked about Members of Parliament. The real need is for greater facilities for looking into the minutiae and detail of Government actions, but even with research assistance, secretaries and so on, this cannot be done effectively by someone pushing off to the City during the day or spending his time in court. These matters have to be the subject of painstaking inquiries by committees sitting in the mornings and the afternoons. It will not be done unless they have some effective power and unless the Government, instead of feeling that they must
988
always defend their Departments and decisions, are prepared to concede that the criticisms made by their colleagues have some value and virtue and that they should think again. The Government should not feel that they must defend Departments to the extent that they now do.
I believe that a greater separation of Members of Parliament from the executive is extremely important if Parliament is to regain some of its former strength, which I fear is all too frequently slipping away from it. As it slips away from us, people outside become more and more impatient with us because they do not believe that their individual Members of Parliament have enough power or are able to influence events sufficiently. The result is that people spend their time bewailing the party system and never see the true value of an independent Member of Parliament.
7.34 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) has said. If anything, the debate has shown how important it is that we should bring up to date our parliamentary procedures to deal with these situations. The whole machinery for discussing the contents of the very detailed work of the Public Accounts Committee and other Select Committees is, to say the least, inadequate and the Government and the whole House should turn their attention to improving it.
I also agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who said that, after all, this was a nonpartisan debate. I think that the most effective words he used were that these reports were an indictment of all Governments. That is no reflection on the present Government, since these matters started before they took office, and it was they who decided that they should be dealt with in this way.
One of the most important facets of the future life in this country is North Sea oil and gas. We all realise that they are possibly our lifeline for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. The findings of the Public Accounts Committee are extraordinary. For example, had it not been for the Committee, the defects in the whole structure of evaluating the proper price to be paid for the right to develop these

989
deposits would never have been discovered, I suggest. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton was right to say—though he perhaps used somewhat flowery language—what he did about how the contracts were originally evaluated. The point at issue is that we must have some machinery other than the existing machinery for looking at this kind of factor before contracts are signed. We have to look carefully at the Committee's findings because here we are dealing with something which, particularly in the light of the recent oil crisis, is of paramount importance. Had it not been for the Committee, this situation might well have gone by unobserved, leading to great loss of revenue to the country.
I want to put two points to my hon. Friend about the question of North Sea oil and gas. First, will the present rules allow an operating company to write off its own losses against the profits from North Sea oil? Has this been provided for in the contracts which have been signed? This is an important point.
Secondly, what is the present estimate of how quickly we can expedite the bringing into use of North Sea oil and gas because of the fundamental change in this country's—and indeed the world's—oil situation? Has my hon. Friend any idea of what proportion of British equipment is to be used in the process? Is the drilling equipment available in this country, or shall we have to turn to other countries, such as the United States, for it?
We have to turn our attention also to the very important question of how we manage to ensure that some of the detailed decisions of the Civil Service are subjected far more to the scrutiny of this House. I add my tribute to the Civil Service, but we have here a classic instance of a fundamental business transaction. I think that we would have done well to have sought the assistance of industry in the negotiations in the first instance. I make no party point on this, but it emerges from the report. We must find a way of challenging what has always gone by without challenge in the past. We must challenge detailed points which are fundamental because the sums of money with which we are dealing are so great that they cannot
990
simply be passed without detailed scrutiny.
Such scrutiny must not only be conducted by Committees upstairs but must be the subject of debate on the Floor of the House. In the end the Government are responsible, but surely it would be very much better for the Government to use such machinery and thereby get the best possible bargain for our country, deciding in the end, and in the light of such scrutiny, which is the right course to adopt. It may not be the cheapest, but in their view it may be right, and they must make that decision.
I do not know whether it is fair to ask a detailed question on Concorde of a Treasury Minister, but, on the basis of the report, it is perfectly in order. How many more changes does the Minister think are necessary before the project is finalised? At what stage are the Government prepared to say "We cannot go on any longer improving ; we must now develop Concorde in its present state, because we have sufficient customers from China and elsewhere."?
I hope that, as a result of this debate, the House will be aware that many facets of individual expenditure can no longer be discussed only in Committee but should be scrutinised on the Floor of the House.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: I join all those who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and his colleagues on their excellent and far-reaching reports. I also warmly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said. If we are to re-establish credibility in the eyes of the electorate, hon. Members must have more opportunity to bring their talents into play in holding the executive to account. In the final analysis, this can be effectively done only in the more intimate, relaxed and yet more penetrating atmosphere of the Select Committee rather than the over simplified confrontational situation that occurs so frequently in the House.
Any serious politician who is concerned about the future of British democracy must appreciate that some of the disillusionment which obviously exists among the electorate, is partly a direct

991
consequence of the over-simplified form of political activity which they see reported and which is constantly revealed in the Chamber. With the complexity of modern government this cannot be overcome in the Chamber, but by emphasising the relevance of the work of Select Committees we have a great opportunity in this direction.
I would also endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said about the naval dockyards. I too represent a dockyard constituency. At a time when the Government are constantly moralising to both sides of industry about the rôle they should play in the economy, we should recognise that in the naval dockyards there are large bodies of industrial organisation directly under the influence of the Government—not indirectly, as in some other nationalised industries. It is high time that we tried to make them a model of production and employment rather than, as we do at the moment, letting them drag along decades behind industrial organisation outside the sphere of direct Government responsibility.
If we are to do that, it is absolutely essential that more power for direct management should be delegated as speedily as possible to the individual yards and that we break free of the stifling influence of Bath and, behind Bath, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and even No. 10 Downing Street. I therefore applaud what my hon. Friend said and I should like to encourage the Government to do everything possible to streamline and delegate.
I want to concentrate on what is said in one of the reports about the naval catering frauds. Following the Donaldson inquiry considerable steps have been taken to revise the catering system in the Royal Navy, but I am convinced that, precisely because of the distinguished record and reputation of the Royal Navy, we must ensure that a scandal of this order is not swept under the carpet with a cursory nod.
Considerable sums of public money have been involved. The interests of the taxpayer and of the Service men who suffered the consequences of the fraud in terms of deprivation mean that we must be satisfied that everything possible has
992
been done to put right what had evidently gone so seriously wrong. After carefully reading both the gentle—in this context—observations of the Public Accounts Committee and the findings of the Donaldson Report into Service catering, I think that four matters still leave a great deal of room for concern.
First, in the observations of the PAC there is still much uncertainty about the precise sum involved in the fraud. It may be £110,000, £400,000 or even more. Where something has gone so seriously awry directly concerned with public funds in the Services, this degree of uncertainty is unacceptable.
Second, there is the length of time during which those practices had been occurring. If one reads not only the findings of the Committee but also the evidence submitted to it, one sees no convincing answer to this point. The year 1966 appears to be as far back as the inquiries went in terms of retrospective action by the police, because this fitted into the nature of these particular inquiries. But there seems no convincing evidence that things had not gone wrong before 1966, and perhaps long before then.
The third point that still needs to be examined in more depth is the degree to which the practice described as the "drop" had become established in the Service beyond the immediate sphere of catering.
The fourth point concerns the wider dimensions of the whole sad story. The report establishes that 37 ships and 26 shore establishments are known to have been involved. That is a considerable area of naval activity. The nature of the charges and the number of men charged, perhaps inevitably to some extent, were rather arbitrary. We should not, however, underestimate the devastating effect on the careers and personal and family lives of the senior ratings and the middle level officers who were found to have been involved, particularly those who suffered the disgrace of dismissal from the Service, with far-reaching loss of pension rights. The degree of punishment was much more serious than any which was meted out to the civilians involved. I am not arguing against serious punishment for these men. It was appropriate because, where public funds as well as the reputation of a distinguished Service

993
are at stake, there is no room for pussyfooting. We must be firm in treating the situation as we see it.
The report points out that, in a catering branch with a total of less than 200 personnel, 64 were dismissed from the Service. Bearing this in mind, there is reason to believe that the practices which led to this crisis must have been more widely known than within the catering branch. What disturbs me most about the outcome of the trial, the Public Accounts Committee's report and the Donaldson Report is that in a rather uncanny way responsibility seems to have stopped at the level of senior ratings and of middle-level officers. I cannot believe that there is no responsibility in this story at a higher level. The report indicates a degree of complacency which is unacceptable.
It is right that the men who took such severe punishment should have expected such punishment when found guilty. But this serves to drive home more emphatically the extraordinary gap beyond their implication in the whole episode in the apparent absence of more senior responsibility. I am to some extent apologetic for dragging up the story again in the House of Commons, because I am second to none in my admiration for the Royal Navy and its record and reputation, but simply because of the standards of the Royal Navy we cannot sweep things like this under the carpet.
Whatever may have been said in the report of the Public Accounts Committee and in the Donaldson Report, we must hope that the ramifications of those reports have been far more reaching in the Service and have resulted in more people being shaken up in the Service than would appear on the surface to be the case.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan: I wish to deal specifically with the report on North Sea oil, but I first want to support a number of points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about the unsatisfactory way in which we deal with reports from the Public Accounts Committee and other Select Committees. These reports are debated on a Monday or a Thursday. There are no Whips on
994
either side and there is no vote. Therefore, there is an extremely sparse attendance, which is completely out of proportion to the importance of the issues being debated.
My hon. Friend's point that these reports to the House should be in the form of a motion is incontrovertible. This must be done if Select Committees are to have the impact which they should have. There is no reason why, for example, in the case of North Sea oil reports, the recommendations of the Committee should not be put in a form suitable to be presented as a substantive motion, to be voted on at the end of the day if there is no satisfactory answer or acceptance from the Government.
That should not damage the bipartisan nature of Select Committee proceedings. It would ensure that the Government take the reports as seriously as they deserve to be taken. I do not suggest that the report of every Select Committee should be dealt with in this way. There would have to be some selection, and the Committees could be allowed to decide which particular reports and motions they wished to put before the House. We must adopt that type of system if we are to get proper value from Select Committee reports.
I can give an illustration by mentioning Concorde. It is well known that the way in which successive Governments have handled the Concorde operation has been criticised by many Select Committees. At the end of the day, however, this has not made any difference to the way in which Governments have continued with the project. Governments may have gone through a limited period of embarrassment when a Select Committee's report has been published and has received attendant publicity. After the embarrassment has died down—and in many cases the reports have not been debated in the House—successive Governments have gone on gaily as before. The reports have not made a whit of difference.
The Sixth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts refers to the Estimates Committee's report of 1963 about Concorde. I served on the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee in 1963 which produced that report. It was the first report from the Select Committee about

995
Concorde. In paragraph 19 of the Sixth Report the Committee states :
"The Estimates Committee in 1963 questioned the wisdom of entering into the Agreement with an imprecise knowledge of the probable cost and with no provision for the possibility of the abandonment of the project by one or other of the signatories. This comment seems to us to go to the root of the matter."
I believed that in 1963 and I believe it now.
If the 1963 report had come before the House in the form of a motion, there was then sufficient feeling on both sides of the Committee, and on both sides of the House, to pass a motion criticising the Government for entering into the contract without an escape clause and asking them to renegotiate the agreement, or to do whatever was legally possible about the agreement.
If that had happened, the whole history of Concorde may have been entirely different. The project would have been abandoned many years ago, when abandonment would have been comparatively inexpensive and when the embarrassment which would now be caused by cancellation would have been avoided. But the 1963 report came and went, as other reports have come and gone, and it did not make the slightest difference to what successive Governments did regarding Concorde.
The suggestion of my hon. Friend is an important one and I hope that there will be the necessary change in procedure as a result. Such a change would lead to better government and better control, in particular over major projects like Concorde. It would considerably increase the powers of back benchers against the Government and the executive, and that is an objective well worth achieving.
I come now to the report on North Sea oil. It is an excellent report, one of the most impressive ever produced by the Public Accounts Committee. It is a pity that it has so far had such an inadequate reply from the Government, although it is an exceptional report in that it will make a difference to the situation, unlike most Select Committee reports.
The general criticism I have of the Government in their dealings with North Sea oil—and this criticism is shared by the Committee—is that all along, and particularly since it became clear that there were economic sources of oil to be
996
exploited in the North Sea, the Government have adopted a far too defensive attitude towards the oil companies. It was as if the companies were somehow doing a great favour to the Government and to Britain in getting themselves involved, with all the expenditure, in the North Sea when the real situation was that this was a major natural resource, already nationalised and in the hands of the Government, and therefore any exploitation was in a sense a privilege and only to be granted when it gave the maximum economic benefit to the country.
I am not sure, even now, whether that proposition is wholly accepted by the Government. It is certainly true that up to the time of the Public Accounts Committee's report the Government acted on the entirely different proposition that, unless they approached the oil companies very timidly and with all due respect, the companies might go away leaving the North Sea unexploited and that this would be disastrous for Britain. I do not believe that that was ever a tenable assessment of the situation and it became less tenable as soon as it became clear that there were exploitable resources of oil in the North Sea.
My second criticism is that the Government, and particularly the Department of Trade and Industry, have all along rejected any kind of criticism of their handling of the operation and tended to produce what have in the event been misleading assessments of the situation. In that context I was interested to see the criticism made by the PAC, in paragraph 63, of the Department of Trade and Industry figures about the revenue expected by the Government from taxation and the rest.
The points made by the Committee were made to the Government earlier. I remember that, together with some of my hon. Friends, I met Ministers and made some of the criticisms that were subsequently made by the Committee. I would not pretend that we made them with the same authority or the wealth of substantiating details which is produced in the Committee's report. That is the great virtue of the report. It produces a lot of evidence about areas in which many of us felt that the Government were going seriously wrong but where the precise information to prove it was not available to us.

997
All along, however, when those criticisms were made they were rejected by the Government, who refused to believe that there was any substance in them until the publication of the Committee's report. The most impressive criticism of the Government contained in the report—I admit that some of the criticisms at least apply also to the previous Labour Government—was that concerning licensing policy and particularly the complete failure of the Government to appreciate the total change of circumstances that took place between the third and fourth round of licences, when it became clear to even the most obscurantist civil servant or Minister that there were large quantities of oil in the North Sea and, therefore, the whole negotiating position of the Government ought to have been entirely different.
It is still incomprehensible, and we have not seen any defence of this, that at the time of the fourth round, when it was seen that putting licences out to tender produced substantial bids, the Government were simultaneously allowing other licences to be obtained on woefully inadequate licensing terms. It is incomprehensible that Ministers, who were apparently consulted at the time, should have allowed that to happen.
There is the question of the fifth round of licensing which will have to come sooner or later. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an indication of Government thinking on this, when it is likely to be, the extent of it and what the licensing terms are likely to be. Whatever happens on the fifth or subsequent rounds, it is essential that we do as much as we possibly can to recover something, financially and in other ways, from the disasters of the past. I do not believe that in this kind of situation we can simply say that we will do better in future. The sums of money are so enormous that we must do everything possible to recover the mistakes that have been made. As an essential precondition of that, we need far more information than the Government now have about the costs of existing licensees.
Again it seems incredible that the PAC should have to make this kind of basic criticism of Government policy. One would have thought that it was one of the simplest and most fundamental requirements of the Government that they
998
at least had information about the costs of licensees on which to base their future negotiations. We also require a good deal more information than we have so far had about how the Government propose to tackle the recommendations of the Select Committee on the taxation aspects of North Sea oil. The Public Accounts Committee has done us a service, on the question of the tax losses, by bringing out so starkly the large sums of money involved and the completely indefensible tax position of the oil companies at present.
What happens with the oil companies is only a part of what happens with other multinational concerns. I hope very much, although I am not sure whether this is within the Committee's terms of reference, that in some future investigation it will look at similar problems, and at other domestic problems such as the question of the taxation provisions relating to property development companies, for example.
This is a relevant point in the public expenditure context because there are certain parts of industry in this country and certain multinational concerns paying far less tax than can possibly be justified in terms of their enormous wealth and importance. It is a severe criticism of successive Governments that the situation with the oil companies would never have been brought to light in all the detail we now have if it had not been for the Public Accounts Committee's report. Nothing would have been done.
As regards the segregation of North Sea oil operations from the rest of the oil companies' operations, we have had, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said, no response from the Government. We must know tonight what the Government intend to do. If we cannot know in detail, we must know that they intend to do something and will not allow this situation to continue. Potentially it represents a considerable loss of revenue to the Exchequer and is only part of the general problem of the treatment in group accounts for taxation purposes of losses by one part of a group being set against profits by another part. This is another area in which a look at our taxation provisions could yield substantial revenue improvement. It ought to be done and it is a suggestion which I hand out if it

999
is within the purview of the Committee. It seems that, since the Government have done nothing about this, there is a chance that the Public Accounts Committee might do something.
The other point about increasing revenues raised by the Public Accounts Committee and which, I hope, will be followed up concerns the possibility of introducing a quantity or barrelage tax. If we cannot obtain the revenue which is justified in any other way—if we cannot get it by changing the taxation provisions or by varying existing licences—the most obvious way of obtaining it is by imposing a barrelage tax. Perhaps we should do it in that way whatever happens on the taxation side. I hope that we shall hear from the Government on that proposition.
I go further than the Public Accounts Committee. I realise why the Committee was not able to go into detail on some of the more controversial areas, but its trenchant criticisms of the way in which the Government have handled the situation are justification for public participation in all future licences for North Sea oil. A good deal of the argument for or against nationalisation is beside the point, because the oil is already nationalised, and it is not a practical operation simply to say that no oil will be licensed or exploited in the North Sea in future, much less in the past, unless it is done by a nationalised corporation.
I favour the building up of a nationalised corporation in this area, but it is unrealistic to expect it to take over immediately all the operations in the North Sea. But, through a nationalised corporation, we should provide in all future licences, and as far as possible in past licences, for public participation so that the nation shares directly in the tremendous benefits which inevitably will result from North Sea oil.
Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend should not be afraid that he is going beyond what the Public Accounts Committee said. In paragraph 89 and in paragraph 97(15) of the summary of our main conclusions we unanimously called for a degree of Government participation.
Mr. Millan: I thought I had read that paragraph, and I had read the conclusions, but I still believe that what I have said goes a little beyond what the Committee said. However, I am very grateful for support from any quarter, particularly if it comes from a member of the Committee. This is not, politically speaking, a tremendously radical proposal. It is what other countries are doing, particularly Norway, but Holland and others have been similarly involved. It is the absolute minimum that we should be doing if we are to ensure for the Government and people of this country the benefits of North Sea oil.
I do not suggest that we should adopt the nationalistic policies of the OPEC countries, particularly the Middle East countries, but the pussy-footing approach of the Government, so far as it has been based on the proposition that if anything more dramatic were attempted the OPEC countries would be offended, has, I hope, been completely exploded by what has happened in the Middle East and elsewhere in recent months. There is a desperate need to bring the maximum amount of public benefit to this country, and Government policy is a very long way from achieving that.
The matter becomes even more important when we consider recent international developments. The political aspect is much more important than the financial aspect, but even from the financial point of view it is clear, as was admitted by the Minister in answering questions today, that even if the taps are turned on again and supplies start coming to this country and to other Western European countries and the United States and Japan as if the crisis had not happened—and I do not believe that that will happen, at least not soon, because I think that we face a sustained period of difficulty—oil will cost us considerably more.
The oil countries generally have demonstrated to themselves and to the world that oil is a resource which we are much more desperate to buy from them than they are anxious to sell to us. That situation will continue for some time and it will have profound political implications. It has considerable financial implications, too. That adds emphasis to my point about obtaining an adequate return from North Sea oil, because there

1001
will be a financial bonanza for the oil companies from North Sea oil exploitation. It would be scandalous if that were allowed to continue.
Dr. Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if the oil taps were turned on again tomorrow, it is not a question of our needs this year or next year but is a fact that we shall be short of energy in five or 10 years without recourse to North Sea oil? It is up to us to make sure that it is developed because it is our lifeline. We shall probably have to supply Europe with it.
Mr. Millan: I agree.
Since the publication of the report, the basis of the argument has been changed in a vital way. I am not sure that that is recognised by the Government, or indeed by others, because some of the political and other implications of what has happened in the last few weeks are so profound that it will be some time before we can adequately assess the consequences. We do not expect the Government to be able to give easy answers to some of these profoundly difficult problems, but we wish to have some sense that they appreciate them and are dealing firmly with them.
It happens more by good luck than by judgment that Government policy—it was also the policy of the Labour Government—in achieving the maximum exploitation of North Sea oil as quickly as possible is plainly the right policy in the present situation. I repudiate the suggestion made in some quarters in Scotland that we should slow down the rate of exploitation of North Sea oil, not in the interests of Britain or of Europe, but simply in the interests of Scotland or perhaps an independent Scotland. Even if Scotland were to become completely independent, that would not be a moral stance for Scotland to take. But just as the Middle East oil crisis has political implications for the world, the exploitation of North Sea oil has immense political implications for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that the Government have fully appreciated that.
I hope that we shall have an opportunity fairly soon to discuss the Kilbran-don Report on the question of devolution. There is no doubt in my mind that the passages in that report dealing with the
1002
question of economic independence for Scotland have been falsified because they do not take sufficient account of the importance, economically and otherwise, of North Sea oil.
I shall not say, because it would be out of order to do so, what follows in political terms and in terms of the Kilbrandon Report from that proposition, but I state as a fact that the way in which developments have occurred in the last few months gives North Sea oil a political importance in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole which it did not have when the Public Accounts Committee's report was published. The sooner we recognise that, however we approach the problems of devolution and so on, the better it will be for all of us. At the very least, without going into the wider political questions, it will become increasingly intolerable to opinion in Scotland and the United Kingdom if some of the incidental advantages of North Sea oil in the supply of equipment, services and employment are not adequately garnered for Scotland and the United Kingdom by Government action.
The way in which the Government have handled the question of concrete construction platforms—which has been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), gives us no cause for confidence that we shall get those extra economic benefits for Scotland from the development of North Sea oil. It is becoming increasingly urgent for us to pursue the recommendations of the IMEG report and of other bodies that have looked at this question specifically in the Scottish context to ensure that, in addition to the financial benefits, we shall get the considerable economic benefits from the oil which are there to be taken if the Government have sufficient self-confidence and display sufficient toughness in their dealings with the oil companies. As the Public Accounts Committee has brought out, those qualities of self-confidence, competence and toughness have been conspicuously lacking, and the House and the nation owe the Committee a considerable debt of gratitude.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As the cause of the Seventh Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, I should like to say a word about it, and about

1003
the Sixth Report. The Committee was about to print its Sixth Report when the Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which is printed on page VI of the Seventh Report revealed that the estimates of the total cost of Concorde had risen to more than £1,000 million. The Committee, therefore, decided to add the Seventh Report. The long answer given by the Minister, which showed that the estimate had increased from £970 million, as was stated in the Sixth Report, to £1,065 million, as stated in the Seventh Report, served to underline the criticisms the Committee had so effectively made in its Sixth Report.
Paragraph 59 of the Sixth Report contains one of those criticisms :
"It appears to Your Committee that the absence of any clear indications of sales prospects and the level of production costs it sales are low leave the project as speculative as it ever was. Unless further substantial orders are received for the aircraft we fear that, in addition to the failure to recover development costs, the Government will have to meet production losses, which could be large, on each aircraft produced."
Even those of us who have been critical of Concorde from the beginning never envisaged the development of that fear. When I first came into the House in 1964 I said of Concorde that I thought it would go straight from the drawing board into mothballs. It never occurred to me at that stage that the aircraft would ever be built. It seemed obvious to me that the Labour Government would get out of the contract. My confidence was not entirely misplaced, because the Labour Government decided to go to the French Government and tell them that the project was nonsense and that we must get out of it. But the French did not want to do that. The Labour Government were advised by the then Attorney-General that if they tried to get out they could be sued at international law. I doubt the validity of that piece of legal advice. It is unlikely that the French would have sued us in the International Court with any degree of success. In any case, it would have been worth while to try it.
The decision was taken that the contract, which had no escape clause, could not be changed and that we should go ahead at least with the production of the aircraft, which was estimated at only
1004
£150 million, not £1,000 million. I thought it rash at that time to go ahead on the basis of an estimate of £150 million. The Government can be excused for not then foreseeing a ten-fold increase in cost within 10 years.
There was another point when a break could have been made. It is noteworthy that the Sixth and Seventh Reports endorse what other Committees have said. Every time the Concorde project has been examined by any Committee serious doubts have been expressed about it. There are one or two lessons that can be drawn from what happened. Although pre-production aircraft have actually been built, it is unlikely that they will ever go into service. I exaggerated, perhaps, when I said the aircraft would go straight from the drawing board into mothballs, but it is certainly likely to go straight from production into a museum without any intervening period of operational service—as has happened with the first aircraft. That is regrettable, but if we learn our lessons from it the £1,000 million will not have been entirely wasted.
One lesson we might learn is that we should not get into the situation foreseen by the Committee of an operational subsidy. A subsidy for research and development is one thing—something which Governments must embark upon in these days of high technology. A subsidy for manufacture is much more questionable, but it is a thing which, more and more, Government are doing. But a subsidy for the object of the manufacture to be run so that throughout the whole operation the Government are not only paying for the object to be created but paying for the cost of it to be developed, for the cost of it to be manufactured and, finally, for the cost of its being operated, is too much.
If we are to develop along those lines, public money of such magnitude cannot continue to go into an industry which, theoretically at any rate, continues to be privately owned. If public money is to be spent at such a level the industry into which that money goes ought to be publicly owned, and then we should have at least some degree of control over it.
The difficulty facing successive Governments has been that none of the sanctions has operated. We have created sanctions to keep public enterprises under control. Some sanctions exist for

1005
keeping private companies under control. But if a private company is operating with public money of this nature, then neither the private nor the public sanctions are effective. Examination by Committee, which we have from time to time substituted for control, has been found to be an effective means of exploring the errors that are being made, but not of correcting those errors. That is the problem facing us, and that is why we are pressing the Government upon the issue this evening. Successive Committees have brought this criticism to bear upon Concorde, but at no stage have the Government acted upon those criticisms. That is the flaw which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), who chaired the Committee which produced this admirable report, indicated in his remarks.
We need to look again at the whole situation in which there is a mixture of public and private enterprise, and Concorde is an example of how not to operate in this sphere. If we ever again conclude an agreement with another country in which there is no escape clause, or if we ever embark on a high level technological enterprise and put most of our eggs into that highly speculative basket, we shall deserve great condemnation.
The real condemnation of Concorde is not so much the project itself, but the fact that much of the great expertise and ability resident in the British aircraft industry has been wrongly diverted into this area for the last 10 years. If that had not been done, the British aircraft industry could by now have produced a silent aircraft which could sweep the world and be highly beneficial to our balance of payments position.
We have been going up a blind alley, and the PAC in its Sixth and Seventh Reports has, in my submission, pointed clearly to the fact that we have been building an aircraft which is a remarkable achievement from a technological point of view but which, from the point of view of making a return to our country in any economic and beneficial way, is as far as it ever was from being realised.
It seems to me that the title of a Penguin special written by Mr. Andrew Wilson entitled "The Concorde Fiasco"
1006
and published today is not very far from the truth. What Mr. Wilson says in his book about the financial disasters of Concorde are underlined in the Sixth and Seventh Reports of the PAC.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I have listened off and on to various parts of the debate, and I seek to intervene now because nobody else, apart from the Minister, appears to wish to take part in the debate. The back benches of the Tory Party, the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party are completely bereft. Thank goodness our proceedings tonight are not being televised, otherwise there would be a blank screen, and yet we are debating matters which involve not hundreds of millions but thousands of millions of pounds of public money.
I do not pretend to have read all the Public Accounts Committee's Reports—I doubt very much whether any Member of the House can lay claim to that—but I have read some of them.
Mr. Dell: I think that I can make that claim.
Mr. Hamilton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) if he has read all the reports. He helped to write many of them. I pay tribute to him and to the Committee for the enormous volume of work that has been done. I have long taken the view that it is just as important to influence public opinion as it is to influence the opinion of hon. Members. This is the national forum—although we do not have the makings of a football team in the Chamber at present.
Reading such parts of the reports as I have had time to read, they remind me very much of the stories in the newspapers recently about the young fellow who can bend forks and keys by stroking them. Even without touching them he can make them change their shape. It seems that Ministers can be manipulated in the same kind of way by oil companies or aircraft companies, which do not even have to stroke the Ministers but by remote control can convince Ministers that Maplin is essential, that Concorde is vital, that the Channel Tunnel is absolutely imperative, and even that the Erskine Bridge is necessary as an essential Clyde crossing. It is an

1007
extremely disturbing indictment of the complete lack of control exerted by the House or, indeed, by Ministers over public expenditure, whether the project be small or large.
I shall say very little about North Sea oil. That subject has been dealt with extensively by the experts, by my right hon. Friend who produced the report and by various Scottish Members. We have had a majority of Scottish Labour Members speaking in the debate. Not one Scottish Tory Member has been present, apart from the junior Minister, who has attended more or less as I have.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): More.
Mr. Hamilton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have given advice to the Financial Secretary about the Erskine Bridge fiasco. This is purely a non-party matter, because it was handled by the Labour Government—God forgive them—no less than by Conservative hon. Members. But the story is one of great absurdity. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) was at the Scottish Office at the relevant time.
Mr. Millan: It had nothing to do with me.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is too able an accountant to have allowed this kind of nonsense to occur. But, having been a Member of the House at the time, I should bear as much back-bench responsibility as I deserve.
The decision to build this white elephant across the Clyde was taken in 1965. It was expected that the bridge would be completed by 1970. However, like all projects of this kind, it fell behind schedule and was not completed until July 1970. There was to be a trunk road, and a toll bridge for 20 years. The scale of tolls was fixed at a sufficiently high level, it was thought, to provide enough cash to reimburse with interest the capital cost, to cover operating costs, maintenance and so on. The estimate of capital costs made in 1965 was about £6 million for the approach roads. The traffic flow estimate was 3 million vehicles per year by 1970, when it was thought that the bridge would be opened. It was
1008
thought that traffic would increase at an annual rate of 7 per cent. compound.
By 1970 it was apparent that gross miscalculations on every possible score had been made. It was clear that the annual rate of traffic growth would not be 7 per cent. but less than half that. Serious errors had been made in the estimates of population growth in the bridge catchment area. Meanwhile, the Department had completely forgotten that there was a Whiteinch tunnel and the Kingston bridge as well, which were free crossings of the Clyde. Any commercial organisation, especially a Scottish one, which sees a free crossing a few miles away from a toll bridge will use the free crossing, whether it is the Whiteinch crossing or the Kingston Bridge.
The result was that when the position was examined in 1970 the experts thought that no toll rate would be enough to pay off the total costs of the bridge. Even with tolls of 15p for a car and 50p for a heavy vehicle the debt would rise from £7·1 million to £19·5 million. The 1973 figures given in the report show that the deficit would be about £35 million to £40 million and that, no matter what happens, the bridge will never be paid for.
So we have a marvellous story of experts, Ministers and civil servants making their calculations—all of them wildly wrong—and saying "What a great job we have done." Now we have a bridge which is a monument to Government and Civil Service comprehensive inefficiency.
The Public Accounts Committee says "We are sorry, but we believe that the bridge was built before the traffic flow justified it and that there should now be an effort to economise. We should do a little more painting, keep it in good nick and hope that better days are ahead."
This story makes the mind boggle. If such a botch can be made of a project costing less than £50 million, how much more likely are we to make a botch of Maplin, Concorde and the Channel Tunnel, which are to cost not hundreds of millions of pounds but perhaps thousands of millions of pounds?
The simple answer is to tell the experts to get out of the way and let a few sensible people like me have a look at the matter and say "If the traffic is

1009
there, let us build a bridge and forget altogether about tolls." I have always been against tolls on trunk roads, whether or not they go over a bridge spanning water and into and out of Fife. Fife is the only Scottish county where one pays to go in and one pays to come out. In fact, it is the only county in Britain where one does that. Fife is worth going into and coming out of, but it is not worth the tolls to do it, so tolls should be abolished. Let us get rid of this nonsense.
I hope that the Government will have another look at this problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton says, by the time the report was made the fuel crisis had radically changed the situation both as regards North Sea oil and, to a lesser extent, as regards tolls on this bridge. Heavy vehicles which make a six-mile or a 12-mile detour will spend much more on fuel than they would on the tolls. Therefore, it would probably pay the Government to get rid of the tolls and save the lorries from having to make the detour to avoid the toll charges.
I make that point to demonstrate how quickly a report such as this report of the Public Accounts Committee can be outdated by events. We have not yet heard the last word about the escalating cost of fuel. As fuel costs increase, so the abolition of tolls on the Erskine Bridge and other bridges becomes increasingly relevant to the fuel factor.
The Minister has a difficult job on hand but he will have very little barracking. His closing speech will be one of the easiest that he has had to make in this House, and he will have no problems at all. He is playing to an empty House, and he probably deserves that.
8.45 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): Last year I had the privilege of speaking for the first time on this subject, and on that occasion I referred to the absence of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). We all greatly regret his absence from our current debate, as we did then ; we are very sorry indeed that that absence has continued. Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), I should like to express our appreciation of the work which was done under the chairmanship of the right hon.
1010
Member for Cheetham in 1971 and 1972. We are indeed glad to see him up and about again, and we hope that his recovery will continue and will be rapid.
Secondly, I should like to join the right hon. Member for Birkenhead in his tribute to Mr. Martin Maddan, the late Member for Hove, whose expertise was greatly appreciated on the Committee. He was very much a House of Commons man, and he served the Public Accounts Committee well. Thirdly, I should like to say a word or two about the right hon. Member for Birkenhead himself, who has acted as chairman in the past year, 1972–73, and to join with many other hon. Members who have congratulated him on the remarkable work which the Committee has done under his chairmanship during the past year.
Perhaps I may also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the publication of a book which, I understand, is entitled "Political Responsibility and Industry". Hon. Members will notice that the colour of the cover can best be described as shocking pink, although the colour of the report which the Public Accounts Committee has produced is a suitable Conservative blue, which underlines the nonpartisan aspect of the work which the right hon. Member has done. I understand that his book is concerned with industrial policy, which he says is casework in the public interest. That expression probably applies not only to industrial policy but to the work which the Public Accounts Committee does.
When I spoke for the first time in the debate last year, I did so a few days before my first appearance in the Public Accounts Committee. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, I have been conspicuous by my absence, but, as he has kindly pointed out, that is a traditional conspicuous absence and only in more extreme circumstances would the Committee suggest that I should attend for any prolonged time. In fact, it was difficult to avoid the impression at the only meeting which I attended during the last year that members of the Committee hoped I would depart fairly rapidly. I would not wish to over-stay my welcome on any future occasion.
There has been quite a lot of reference to defending this and defending that, and there is one point which I should like to mention. As regards the work of the

1011
Public Accounts Committee, we all tend to be gamekeepers turned gamekeepers. It is a question of appraising the work in a way which is impartial and which brings out the facts of the case. Certainly, the work which has been done in the last year is massive, as witness the eight reports which have been published. If the Treasury Minute appears sparse by comparison, I want to emphasise that that in no way reflects the care with which the Committee's reports are studied in detail both by the Treasury and by the Departments concerned. It is true that the wording of the Committee's reports is very often subtle. I always look with special interest when the Public Accounts Committee expresses surprise about this or that, because that surprise usually relates to matters to which it wishes to direct the most attention.
Many hon. Members have raised points of substance about the work of the Committee, and it might be appropriate if I said just a word or two about that. Hon. Members have commented on the sparsity of the numbers attending the debate. I think I am right in saying that there are appreciably more in the debate this year than there were last year, because last year the debate took place immediately after an all-night sitting and that somewhat reduced the overall numbers.
I think it would be appropriate for a moment or two to consider the history of the Public Accounts Committee, because it is relevant to the point which was made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about the way in which the work of the Public Accounts Committee should come before the House. In the nineteenth century the Public Accounts Committee was concerned mainly with accounting regularity and ensuring that money was spent for the purpose for which Parliament intended it. As a result, serious failures in this respect are rare nowadays. More recently the Public Accounts Committee's field of interest has extended to the prevention of waste and extravagance, the encouragement of sound practices and, in simple terms, ensuring value for money. This has enabled the Public Accounts Committee to take a constructive rather than a critical rôle, although it is not sparing in its criticism. The way in which the Public Accounts Committee appraises the different cases in order to bring out the
1012
lessons of those cases as a guide to handling matters in the future has in a real sense been the essence of its work. Therefore, it has been concerned with administration rather than with policy.
Expressing a purely personal view to the hon. Member for Sutton and others who have spoken on the lines on which he spoke—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) was another—I think it may well be that on this or that policy issue there is a case for a substantive motion, and this is a matter which the House normally debates, but one would not appraise correctly the full value of the work which the PAC does if one thought that it ought to pursue matters in that sort of way. On any policy there are mechanisms for pursuing such matters. But the work which the PAC does, for the reason that it is greatly studied in the Departments, leads to many improvements on a great range of subjects, some of them very detailed, and many which have not been mentioned at all today but which none the less lead to improvements.
I should like to take up one or two of the points which have been made, because I believe that the system as it is now constituted has very real advantages indeed. I turn, first of all, to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I make no comment on his closing remarks. He said that he had been here on and off all day. I think that is so, although I think that for most of the time he has been off, unlike my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, not forgetting my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has been here for a great part of the debate.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West, it has been the policy of successive Governments since 1955 to impose tolls on major new estuarial crossings which confer exceptional benefit in terms of time, distance travelled and so on. As a general policy, tolls are fixed at a level which will enable the capital cost of the crossing, with interest, to be recovered over a period of years. In the case of the Erskine bridge, revenue from tolls is not likely to achieve the level which would be required for these purposes within the 20-year period normally specified, partly because interest rates are higher than originally expected,

1013
and for other reasons. There is no case for making the bridge toll free. The net revenue after covering the cost of toll collection is still substantial and will justify a continued levying of tolls.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the Government proposed to do about it. The need to operate the bridge economically is well recognised. To this end, a management committee has been set up within the Scottish Development Department which is keeping a watch on affairs, and, in addition, steps have been taken to update and revise forecasts of future traffic. These arrangements can be reflected in the toll structure, and adjustments can be made if necessary. As the hon. Gentleman intervened in the debate, though rather belatedly, I hope that that reply covers the points which he had in mind. I am not sure that I should have made that detailed study if the House had been full.
Mr. William Hamilton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not.
Mr. Higgins: I come now to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and for Sutton regarding the naval catering frauds. This comes much closer to the original function of the Public Accounts Committee to which I referred a few moments ago. Since the frauds took place, we have had the report of the Donaldson Committee, which inquired into the financial control of catering in the Services. As already announced, the Government have welcomed the report, and have accepted the main recommendation that food supplied for the Services should in future normally be obtained from Service or NAAFI sources. This recommendation is being put into effect as soon as possible.
The Donaldson Committee took the view that the Navy Department acted with commendable promptitude when the frauds came to light and that the remedial measures subsequently taken should go far to reduce the possibility of a recurrence. Implementation of the recommendations, coupled with the new audit procedures which have been introduced, should, so far as is practicable, make the messing systems proof against fraud. This also is an example of the work which the Public Accounts Committee does. The points were brought out and the Government
1014
responded to them, without necessarily bringing the matter to the Floor of the House for debate.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to the grant to universities and colleges, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The PAC noted that the University Grants Committee had no information about the extent to which universities had accepted and implemented its guidance of February 1970 on the principles for charging for services to external organisations. As a result, the UGC undertook inquiries of universities to obtain the relevant information.
With respect to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I do not think that any question of academic freedom or related matters arises in this context. An important point of principle, however, is embodied in the University Grants Committee's notes of guidance ; namely, that the full economic cost of all such work should always be assessed, even though it is up to the university to decide whether to charge less, or even more.
It is evident that virtually all universities with research contracts already follow the practice advocated by the UGC, and the remainder have agreed to bring their procedures into line with it. It is clear, however, from the UGC's inquiries that universities seldom charge a rate which covers overheads—as distinct from direct costs—in full. The UGC has, therefore, decided to explore with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals the case for encouraging universities to charge the full cost more often, without, however, discouraging the growing and fruitful collaboration between universities and industry.
I should, perhaps, add that the University Grants Committee will be raising with the Vice-Chancellors the question of the extent to which it would be desirable for some universities to adopt more formal procedures for ensuring that university authorities are notified when members of staff acting in a personal capacity require the use of university facilities. This again is a case in which the work of the Public Accounts Committee has brought out a point of concern, it has been pursued by the UGC and by the Government, and

1015
as a result we shall, I believe, find an improved situation.
Hon. Members referred to the question of the comparative costs of construction of advance factories. Here again, we have a traditional function in this context inasmuch as it touches on the question of efficiency, with which, naturally, both the Public Accounts Committee and the House are concerned. The study carried out by the Property Services Agency at the request of the DTI confirmed the indication arising from the Comptroller and Auditor General's own examination, that the cost of advance factories built by industrial estates corporations was substantially higher than those built by other agencies. But, as the Treasury Minute indicates, a principal reason for this difference lies in the greater degree of completion of the corporations' factories, and this enables the prospective purchaser or tenant to gain very early occupation, which has in the past been regarded as an important aspect of the rôle which advanced factories play within the Government's overall regional policies.
So within that context one of the questions now being reviewed is whether a less complete state of readiness is acceptable, in particular as regards the provision of ancillary services and so on. Design factors are being looked at. The Department has not completed its consideration of a revised system of financial relations with the corporations, and, again as recommended by the Committee, consideration is being given to how best to include in these arrangements a system for monitoring comparative costs. This is an area where the work of the Committee has brought a particular matter to the attention of the House and of the Government.
The two main points which have preoccupied the debate are Concorde and North Sea oil. Despite the non-partisan nature of the Committee's work, it is not suprising that right hon. and hon. Members have concentrated on these particular points which are of the greatest political interest in the widest sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson), in a cogent speech, brought out a great number of the difficulties which are likely to arise on projects
1016
like Concorde which involve high technology, and he pointed out that there are likely to be more of these in the future. He referred to a situation where it might be felt that the project could not be stopped or where the question of heavy "sunk" costs, employment factors and so on were involved.
However, this is an area where we are obviously very much concerned as a House of Commons and, as my hon. Friend pointed out in supporting the Concorde project, where there are very real technical problems. These were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). A number of separate points were raised, and I should like to take them in order and seek to answer as many as possible. I therefore apologise if my reply proves to be lengthy. As one hon. Member pointed out, this is not a debate where hon. Members tend to go in for party platitudes but one where they raise deep questions, and I should like to try to answer the various points raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry raised the question of the sharing of work and expenditure on Concorde by the United Kingdom and the French Governments by reference to the place in which particular aspects of the work were being carried out. The original 1962 treaty provides for equal sharing of work, costs and proceeds of sale. It was accepted at the formative stage of the project that the first stage in implementing this provision should be to ensure as far as practicable that work between the four main contractors should be shared on an equal basis between the two participating countries.
This practice has led to a broadly equitable share of the costs. For example, the most recent estimate of the total of what I understand are called extra-mural development costs, given to the House on 22nd June, shows that the total United Kingdom share is £525 million compared with £540 million of French expenditure. With the intra-mural expenditure the practice has been to assign tasks to the Government establishment which can best carry them out, and a direct comparison on the same accounting principles is not possible because of variations. On the information available, however, it appears

1017
that the costs on both sides of the Channel have been similar. Further discussions on arrangements for giving full effect to the principle of equal sharing embodied in the 1962 treaty will be held with the French Government. The Committee's views on the allocation of the cost imbalance, including intra-mural costs, will be taken into account.
I turn to the question of the estimates of development costs, another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South.
Mr. Biffen: Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of cost sharing, he will recollect that I specifically inquired about the financing of the production of Concorde as opposed to its research and development, and whether that was also to be the subject of manufacturing in broadly equal flows, both in French and in British locations of production. Can my hon. Friend say something about that and whether the treaty to which he referred covered only cost sharing for research and development of the aircraft?
Mr. Higgins: I cannot give an immediate answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry raised several other points, and I shall deal with those first.
I was dealing with the estimates of development costs and development expenditure at each stage. Estimates are based on the best forecast that can be made of the work that is necessary to complete the various tasks. It is in the nature of an advance project. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South appreciated that. It is difficult initially to form a sound assessment of that kind of work. That is the experience in all the major industrial countries.
Throughout the project an attempt has been made to do this assessment by bringing into play all the available experience of similar work, but the amount of work outstanding is obviously increased if unforeseen problems arise. As all hon. Members recognise, it has been a continual source of uncertainty. The more complex and integrated a programme is, the more likely is it that one will run into unforeseen costs.
While recognising the essential difficulty of the Committee, the Government share the view that the estimate should be as accurate and reliable as possible and
1018
that every effort should be made to achieve that.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead asked about cost control. It is important to distinguish between long-term estimates to the completion of a project presented to the Government and estimates necessary to control work in day-to-day management. The distinction is not always appreciated. In the case of the former, the further one goes ahead, the greater is the degree of uncertainty as the attempt is made to estimate into the future. But, for control purposes, the latter estimates have been tightly drawn to give line management a clear target for conducting work in hand. The Department's monitoring activity is concerned primarily with ensuring that the estimates are realistic and that they are checked against the progressive performance of the manufacturers. I should stress that that does not in any way inhibit estimates being as realistic as possible.
I turn to the question of incentives raised by a number of hon. Members. The Committee has commented that the contractual arrangements for the airframe and engine lacked effective incentives and did not place the contractors at risk. But it acknowledged the difficulties in constructing an effective scheme of incentives where there was firm distinction of work a contractor had to undertake. In those circumstances, it is difficult to make any reliable estimate of costs. That is a fundamental dilemma in a development programme of this kind, and particularly in the case of Concorde.
The situation is one to which there is no easy solution, but the incentives negotiated in 1968 contained the maximum degree of incentive practicable in the circumstances. The inclusion of the basic profit rate followed from the uncertainty in the estimating and cost programme, but by applying the profit rate to the target cost some incentive was introduced compared to a simple cost-plus target.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead and I have both been involved in this kind of problem in previous incarnations in industry. This is obviously a problem in which one can benefit from an exchange of views such as we have had with the Committee.
Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman appeared earlier to be making a distinction, relevant to Concorde, between long-term and short-term cost control, saying that in the long term cost control may be very difficult but that in the short term what one was doing was to fix targets for estimates which were realistic for the purposes of short-term cost control. Surely the whole point here is that the short-term figures have proved to be virtually as inaccurate as the long-term figures, and that for that reason the incentives did not work.
Mr. Higgins: It is difficult to establish a criterion of accuracy in this matter in the particular sense that the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed—namely, whether the figures are more or less accurate comparing one set of estimates with the other. My point was that there is a distinction, which the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates, between the short-run figures applicable in monitoring in operational conditions and the different type of problems associated with making a long-term forecast over a period of many years.
All I was seeking to do was to say that the problems were somewhat different in each case, and that therefore technically what is meant by accuracy in one case as against another is difficult to analyse. I gather from the expression on his face that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. I was merely saying that there were obviously two different concepts, which have sometimes become somewhat confused.
The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about commercial confidentiality. We fully appreciate that the Committee did not lightly come to its conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Committee had actual figures and had seen much of the information. That is obviously a matter of great seriousness. The Government have recognised the legitimate interests of the House and the public in obtaining the fullest information about Concorde.
However, there are two essential difficulties. First, the Government are in direct contractual relationship with the main manufacturers on both development and production. There are continuing negotiations on amendments or extensions to the targets as the programme evolves. It would seriously impair the
1020
effectiveness of the Government's negotiators to state publicly information which could undermine their position.
Secondly, because the Government are also putting up the finance for production, they have a direct stake in the number of sales and the terms under which they are achieved. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that Concorde is not in a seller's market. Certainly it does not have a monopoly, since it will be considered by potential customers as one of a variety of aircraft that they might buy to satisfy their requirements. The manufacturers, who are responsible for securing sales, are therefore bound to come under pressure to make concessions. The Government must accordingly weigh carefully the natural concern of the House to have the fullest details about such a controversial project against the financial losses which could result from such disclosure.
Without questioning in any way the understandable wish of the House for more information, the Government have come to the view that it would not be in the national interest to undermine the prospects of selling Concorde on the most favourable terms by giving further information. To take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry in an intervention a short time ago, I am advised that the costs of production and research are shared on a 50–50 basis.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to decisions on production, and other hon. Members asked how many aircraft are to be produced beyond the 16 currently under construction. A decision will be taken in the light of the joint review of the project which is currently being undertaken by the British and French Governments on the basis of the proposals from the manufacturers. These are highly technical matters with major potential implications for development and production costs. The review is not likely to be completed until next year. On all these matters the Government will take into account the various points which have been made by the Committee.
Mr. Paget: There is one important question which the Minister has not answered : when will we wind up this folly?
Mr. Higgins: I have sought to put forward the Government's views. I have

1021
expressed, although the hon. and learned Gentleman appears not to have been listening, the Government's view on production. That is the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
Mr. Dell: I specifically asked the Minister whether he could now confirm that the aircraft meets the British Airways and Air France specification. I remind him that that was a matter which the Department thought it could now confirm. It would be helpful if the Minister would answer that question.
Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the certificate of airworthiness?
Mr. Dell: We asked the Department whether the aircraft would meet the specification of British Airways and Air France. The Department said it hoped that it would. The Department said, however, that the matter was not absolutely certain before further trials. It expected to be fairly sure—this was what was said last Session—by this time this year. We are now at this time this year. Is the Department now certain that the aircraft meets the specification?
Mr. Higgins: Perhaps I might refer to the device which I employed in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry. I shall see whether I can give the right hon. Gentleman an answer on that matter.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made several points about North Sea oil and gas, including ministerial responsibility. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, takes direct responsibility under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for all aspects of oil development which fall within the responsibility of the Scottish Office. My noble Friend participates fully in the consideration of policy matters relating to North Sea oil for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible. I hope that this answers the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Grimond: I do not think that it clears it up. For which aspects of North Sea oil is the Secretary of State for Scotland responsible, and for which of them is the Secretary of State for Trade and
1022
Industry responsible? In any event, where is the noble Lord? As far as I know, he has not made any pronouncement or given any information about oil for many months.
Mr. Higgins: I do not think I should be in order to enter into a general discourse on ministerial responsibility. That might be more appropriately pursued on other occasions. The right hon. Gentleman asks where Lord Polworth is. The immediate answer must be that he is in another place. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to clarify the position, it would be more appropriate for him to do so on another occasion.
I turn now to the report of the Public Accounts Committee on North Sea oil and gas, in particular the points covered in the First Report, in paragraphs 97 and 98, and on page 3 of the Treasury Minute. If I may say so without presumption, I congratulate the Committee on the examinations it carried out of the immensely complex issues involved in the development of our oil and gas resources. Recent events in the Middle East, which have resulted in both increased prices and possible threats to the availability of adequate supplies, have demonstrated to a far wider audience the major importance of these resources in the economic development of the country.
The oil finds in the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf are significant, not only because they give us a secure supply on our own doorstep, so to speak, and should provide us by 1980 with almost two-thirds of our requirements, but also, I can say with some fervour as a Treasury Minister, because of the potential benefits to the balance of payments, which should be £1,000 million or more in 1980, and the benefits to Exchequer revenue and industrial development.
The companies estimate that by the end of this year they will have spent over £1,000 million on exploration and development in the North Sea and that about half the value of their orders is being placed with United Kingdom registered companies. In examining this question, the Committee directed its attention mainly to the financial arrangements for securing to the Exchequer and to the economy a due share from the exploitation of this national asset and considered

1023
whether the policy objective of the Government might have been obtained with greater potential benefit to the Exchequer and to the economy.
The policy of successive Governments since the Continental Shelf Act was passed in 1964 has been the rapid exploration and development of our resources. Of course there were critics, and perhaps there still are, though they may be fewer in number, who for various reasons consider this policy to be wrong, but the debate is not concerned with policy. It is concerned with administration. From time to time it may well be that the borderline between the two aspects becomes blurred. I will give my answer as broadly as I can.
The question is whether this objective could have been achieved with tougher licensing terms, particularly in the fourth round of licensing. As the Treasury Minute makes clear, a balance had to be struck between the interests of the revenue on the one hand and an adequate incentive to licensees to explore and develop on the other hand. Prospects at the time were very different from those today, and a misjudgment could have reduced the scale of exploration which has in the event produced such considerable and beneficial results. Ultimately, it is a matter of judgment.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead was anxious to establish that there was no question of hindsight. That was a part of his speech that I did not find particularly convincing. The Government fully share the Committee's concern that the nation as a whole should get a fair return from the depletion of a national resource. The Chancellor has already announced action on artificial losses. In their review of licensing policy, the Government are taking fully into account the main conclusions of the report and the paints made in the public discussion of North Sea policy that it has helped to promote.
The fact that the review has not yet been concluded will not slow down the rate of activity. The companies exploring the Continental Shelf still have more than 200 wells to drill from their existing work obligations, so there is no question of a new licensing round before the results of the review are announced.
The other related question is the reaction to the PAC's report. I was some-what
1024
surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have said that the Government had been slow to react. On 6th March the Chancellor said :
"The Public Accounts Committee last week drew attention to the probability that the yield of tax to the British Exchequer from North Sea profits may in the case of many of the companies be seriously impaired by the set-off of artificial losses made by those companies from their trade in oil from other parts of the world, and they recommended that the Government should take action substantially to improve the effective tax yield from operations on the Continental Shelf.
I am sure that the Committee was right, and I accept this recommendation."
I should have thought that that was almost certainly—indeed, beyond doubt—a record for the time within which a Government have accepted a recommendation of the PAC.
The question of timing is important, and I should refer to another passage in my right hon. Friend's speech :
"The PAC also pointed out that under the present arrangements the Exchequer's share of the ' take ' from oil operations on the Continental Shelf is substantially less than is obtained in other countries. As I have already said, profits from North Sea oil will probably not arise until 1975, but I can assure the House that the Government already had under consideration the other important questions affecting licensing terms and the Government's" take ' from operations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf to which the PAC has drawn attention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March 1973 ; Vol. 852, c. 263, 264–5.]
But in this context, it is important to take my right hon. Friend's statement in relation to the date on which oil is likely to flow.
Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman said that there would not be a fifth round of licensing until the review was completed. I would have been astonished if the situation had been any different. I asked when the review was to be completed so that we would know what the Government intend to do about licensing in the future. They have had a long time to consider it. They still have not given an adequate explanation why the results of the auction and the substantial tenders were not taken into account before the fourth round of licensing was completed. It is not a question of looking at the matter with hindsight. The information was there at the time, but the Government went ahead and ignored it. Why did they ignore it? That has never been explained.
Mr. Higgins: I was intending to come shortly to the hon. Gentleman's second point. I have a thick sheaf of papers which I have yet to deal with.
Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has always gone past the point, or is coming up to the point, but never seems to be on the point.
Mr. Higgins: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is grossly unfair and I do not accept it for one moment. I am seeking to cover all the points. I think I am right in saying that up to now I have covered all the points which have been raised.
Mr. Laurance Reed: Before completing the review, will the Government bear in mind that one effect of the immediate energy crisis will be to encourage the American and Japanese Governments to provide massive incentives for the oil industry to look for marine oil on the eastern seaboard of the United States and in the South China Seas? Bearing in mind that technical expertise and capital available is limited, unless the Government are careful in drawing up revenue requirements there could be a position in which the overall rate of development around our shores in North-West Europe is slowed down.
Mr. Higgins: I would be going far too wide of the motion if I pursued that point. We are concerned with whether we take note of the Public Accounts Committee's report, and I wish to make further progress.
Mr. Reed Mr. Reed rose—
Mr. Higgins: A number of points have been raised and I am anxious to answer them. I turn now to the question of North Sea oil. The House will be aware that measures have been proposed in the Gracious Speech. When details of these are announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, they will demonstrate the Government's determination that the nation should get the full benefit from the resources of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date for the review.
A number of hon. Members have raised the question of access to licensees' costs.
Mr. Douglas Mr. Douglas rose—
Mr. Higgins: I have not yet come to the point with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. I am seeking to answer the point raised by a number of hon. Members about access to licensees' costs. It is not helpful if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends ask specific questions which I seek to answer and then interrupt me before I have an opportunity to answer. I was making the simple point that the Government already have a general knowledge of costs through our contacts with the licensees. In the current policy review we are considering the Committee's recommendation that this could be put on a more formal basis. We have studied with great care the points made by hon. Members.
The House will recognise that the position is complex and not one upon which we can give a snap decision. We must go into it thoroughly to get the right answer. Hon. Members also asked about speeding up North Sea production to meet our immediate problems. We are doing everything possible here. We have asked the companies to inform us of any delays which occur in developing their projects and of any matters which hamper them in proceeding as fast as possible with new schemes. We are anxious that there should be the maximum amount of information about this.
The hon. Member for Craigton asked about the four licensing rounds. What he was saying essentially was that tougher terms should have been considered in 1971. He expressed surprise that there was no change between the four rounds. This must be a matter of judgment and, given the way things have gone and the way the international situation has changed, it is easier now to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that the conditions should have been tougher. We recognise that the argument has force but I believe it would have been risky, with the information that we had at the time, to reach a different conclusion.
Mr. Douglas: Where was the risk?
Mr. Higgins: I come now to consider the question raised by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) about the supply of goods and services to companies engaged in exploration.
Mr. Douglas Mr. Douglas rose—
Mr. Higgins: I am about to answer the points the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way on this point about risk?
Mr. Higgins: Not at this stage. I am seeking to answer the points the hon. Gentleman made in his speech. If I do not do so, the debate will become somewhat incoherent.
The hon. Member specifically raised the question of the provision of various services and supplies and referred to the IMEG report. Although the first licences were issued in 1964, the possibility of a major market for British industry did not suggest itself until the turn of the decade and the opportunities for development in the southern basin gasfields did not, in the view of British industry at that time, represent a market in terms of long-term investment, although some individual manufacturers did not take this view.
The first oil find was not declared commercial until the end of 1971, and before then there was a risk that lack of adequate data might make it difficult to assess the size and nature of the market. Once the commercial oilfields began to be delineated, the Government lost no time in commissioning, in May 1972, the study by IMEG of the potential benefit to British industry. It is difficult to see how a satisfactory survey could have been carried out before then.
The hon. Member also raised a number of points about the contribution made by British industry to the entire operation. In the IMEG report we were looking at the whole scene, not simply at the British market. The essential thing is that British firms should genuinely have a fair opportunity to compete and that the Government should ensure that the necessary information is available. But the House will agree that it would not be a satisfactory solution if the contribution made by British industry were to take place in a protected market rather than in a market where competition could ensure that industry became efficient.
Similarly, new ideas and designs for offshore exploitation are continually evolving, and the Government cannot act as a substitute for genuine entrepreneurial ability in putting forward proposals in the light of changing technology. Our aim is to foster and encourage such
1028
enterprise, but it is right that we should do so in the sort of environment I have outlined.
Mr. Douglas: If the Norwegian industry, in relation to its North Sea enterprise, can operate in a protected market and can receive three orders for concrete production platforms to be built in Norway, two of which will operate in the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf, why cannot that happen to the United Kingdom industry?
Mr. Higgins: I cannot go into an analysis of the situation concerning Norway I have sought to set out what seems to be an appropriate environment within which we can consider the position.
The hon. Member for Craigton raised a point about oil company taxation and the balance of payments, and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to the set-off of capital allowances on extraneous activities against North Sea profits. One of the main areas which the Committee considered was the question of the taxation of oil profits, and it drew attention, in particular, to the likelihood that the United Kingdom Exchequer would receive little revenue from profits arising from continental oil production during this decade because of the losses incurred by the oil companies in their trade in oil in other parts of the world and the fact that these can be set off against profits.
I referred earlier to the Budget Statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer shortly after the publication of the Committee's report and to the fact that the Government accepted the Committee's recommendation that we should take action substantially to improve the effective tax yield from operations on the Continental Shelf. I have indicated that consultations are proceeding with industry on the practical problems involved, and it is the Government's intention to introduce the necessary legislation in next year's Finance Bill. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that deferring the legislation until next year because of the need for consultation will not result in any loss to the Exchequer. That is an important point. A number of hon. Members had not fully taken it into account. Indeed,

1029
I think that one or two hon. Members had not taken it into account at all. Plainly, it is an extremely important point of view of the Government and the Treasury.
Another aspect of the subject of taxation of oil company profits which attracted the Committee's attention and has been raised in the debate concerns the question of capital allowances and group relief. This relief applies to a group of companies all of which are resident in this country for tax purposes. A company in the group which has current capital allowances greater than its taxable profits is entitled to have the excess set against the current taxable profits of other companies in the group.
The Committee was concerned that capital allowances on investments unconnected with the North Sea—let us say, expenditure on a tanker fleet—might be used in this way to reduce the taxable profits arising from the Continental Shelf operations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave careful consideration to this question but decided that it would be inappropriate to restrict the group relief provisions for oil companies. There is a real difference here between group relief and artificial losses. In the case of artificial losses the corporation tax yield from North Sea profits was threatened by entirely artificial losses peculiar to the oil industry. We are properly proposing action against those losses to correct the special situation.
In contrast, the system of group relief is part of the general structure of corporation tax and is available to all industries. Certain abuses of the system that had come to light were corrected in this year's Finance Act. Now that has been done, when the problems of artificial losses have been dealt with it will be difficult to deny to the oil companies normal reliefs which are available to groups of companies generally.
I have explained why I think it inappropriate to introduce a discrimination of this sort into the corporation tax provisions, but I assure the House that we recognise the Committee's concern and that we shall be aware of the point in the general review which the Government are carrying out on Continental Shelf operations.
Mr. Dell: Have the Government decided against that because it is impracticable
1030
or because the Government object to it in principle? Secondly, have the Government considered the effect of their decision on the tax yield from the North Sea, if it is one of principle, on the relative position of the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer and other national exchequers which are fortunate enough to gain this sort of tax revenue? Do the Government regard this as an additional reason for introducing a barrelage tax?
Mr. Higgins: It would not be appropriate for me to go further than I have gone in my last few paragraphs. As I said, we are looking at the whole situation. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my last sentence before he intervened ; namely, that we recognise the Committee's concern and we shall be aware of that point in the general review which the Government are taking of the Continental Shelf operations. If I may resort at this early stage to the classic answer, I would not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
Mr. Dell Mr. Dell rose—
Mr. Higgins: We think it right, given the Committee's concern, to look at this point. I am anxious to answer as fully as possible the many questions which have been raised, but I should be abusing the time of the House if I continued to give way to the triumvirate of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.
In conclusion I will refer briefly to two technical matters which are close to my heart and have not been mentioned. The first concerns Estimates. We should express our gratitude to the PAC and the Expenditure Committee for the welcome they have given to our proposals for revising the form of Estimates. The work of revision is well in hand, and the new programme classification of Estimates format will be used in the Vote on Account and in the Public Expenditure White Paper.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary told the House on 7th February that the Government see this as the next important step in the process of improving the presentation of their proposals for future public expenditure. Although the rate of parliamentary and public discussion of public expenditure has rightly been transferred to the annual White

1031
Papers, the Supply Estimates remain of considerable importance as the detailed statement to Parliament and the public of the Government's proposals for most of their own expenditure. Because of the procedural basis to the control of that expenditure by this House, and the basis of departmental accounting and control, it is clearly right that it should be revised to take account of the many changes that have taken place over the last decade. The Government are confident that the changes will make the Estimates more acceptable and useful by themselves and make it easier to understand how they relate to the plans for public expenditure as a whole that are set out in the White Papers.
The Public Accounts Committee has referred to two specific instances on the question of trading funds—the Royal Mint and Her Majesty's Stationery Office—and to the preparations for a switch to trading fund finance. As the House knows, the Trading Fund Act was passed at the end of the last Session and we expect that over the next two or three years most, if not all, of the bodies named in that Act will move to this method of financing. The Government hope to lay a draft order for the Royal ordnance factories early in the new year.
This change will affect the scrutiny of those bodies by the PAC. There will no longer be estimates and appropriation accounts. Instead, we shall be moving towards a system which brings them much closer to a quasi-commercial organisation so that the Committee can concentrate on, for example, the question of the rate of return achieved in the target, which is relevant in that context, and move away from the present appropriation accounts of expenditure against Estimates, which is not. That is an innovation and change that should be welcomed, but it will make a difference to the way in which these organisations are dealt with by the PAC and by the House.
I apologise for taking so long to answer the various points that were raised, but this is an occasion which the House values as a means of probing closely the various points on which the Committee has spent an enormous amount of time. I think that it would have been inappropriate if,
1032
in dealing with the various points, I had not sought to deal with them in considerable depth, in the same way as the Committee spares no effort in going into the various points in the greatest depth possible, and the House is grateful for the work that it does.
9.53 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Reed: A short while ago I intervened and put a question to my hon. Friend which he felt was not germane to the debate in hand and particularly to the report of the PAC. I therefore feel constrained to rise to my feet to impress upon my hon. Friend that my question is germane and, indeed, essential to the central argument.
The Committee's main recommendation was to improve revenues to the State, and the central aim of the Government's strategy for North Sea oil—an aim which I fully support—is to sustain the rate of exploration and development on the Continental Shelf.
My point is that one cannot consider this matter in isolation from what is happening elsewhere in the world. The oil business is a worldwide market, and if other countries offer incentives to explore and exploit marine assets on their Continental Shelves that are a more powerful lure than we can provide to this worldwide industry, the rate of exploration and development of our own Continental Shelf is likely to slow down.
My point, which I hope will be borne in mind in the review, is that in considering at what level we pitch our taxes or our royalties let us be aware of what other countries are doing. The American President has provided great incentives, and I have no doubt that the Japanese Government will do the same, for exploration to take place on the Eastern seaboard of the United States and in the South China seas.
The only other point, which is again germane to the argument, is that as development proceeds in the United Kingdom offshore area we are moving into very much deeper water. This means not stretching existing technology but the evolution of a wholly new technology. Consequently, the risks and the costs will be that much higher. Again, if we wish to maintain momentum, which is the declared objective of the Government, and which I support, these considerations

1033
must be borne in mind. My fear is that if the Government, woe betide them, were literally to take the advice of Lord Balogh, they would defeat their main objective. At present, as the energy crisis matures, the rapid and thorough exploration of what we have in our offshore areas should remain the priority over and above maximising revenues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament and of the Treasury Minute and Northern Ireland Memorandum on those Reports (Command Papers Nos. 5451 and 5470).

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR ORGANISATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
9.56 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
After my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made a speech of great length and detail, I apologise if my contribution is not so impressive. This legislation is concerned with the continuation of the immunities and privileges at present enjoyed in the United Kingdom by the International Sugar Organisation in the event of the British Government temporarily ceasing to be a member of it. The organisation was established in 1969 by the International Sugar Agreement of 1968, to which the British Government are a party. That agreement expires at the end of this month, when it will be replaced by a new, but more limited, interim agreement, without economic provisions, and designed largely to keep in being the organisation as a forum where preparations can be made for the negotiation in due course of a fully comprehensive International Sugar Agreement with economic provisions.
The European Economic Community has yet to determine its attitude towards joining this interim agreement. We hope, however, that it will reach a decision soon. But there is a problem of timing. Although the Commission has recommended that the Community should join, it is not certain that the Community will reach a final decision this month. Unless it does, the British Government will not be able to become a party to the interim agreement, and, therefore, continue as a member of the organisation, as from 1st January.
It is therefore possible that there will be a gap in our membership of the organisation from the expiry of the International Sugar Agreement at the end of this month until we can join the interim agreement or a new international Sugar Agreement. We must ensure that during any such gap there is no uncertainty
1036
about the status of the organisation, which is located in London. In particular, we must still be able to extend to it the immunities and privileges which it currently enjoys.
The International Sugar Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1969, which was introduced by the previous administration, gave effect to the headquarters agreement which was signed on 29th May 1969. The interim agreement will also be administered by the organisation.
If we are obliged even temporarily to leave the organisation there will be serious doubt whether the 1969 order would continue to be effective to implement the headquarters agreement. This is because, under Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968, an order such as the 1969 order can be made only if the United Kingdom or the British Government is a member of the body in question. In view of this uncertainty, I am advised that the present Bill is necessary in order to ensure that the 1969 order will continue in force after the United Kingdom ceases to be a member.
The alternative to the Bill would be to terminate the headquarters agreement. Under article 29(2) of that agreement it can be terminated only by agreement or in the event of the headquarters being moved from the United Kingdom. The British Government would, however, be most reluctant to seek to terminate the headquarters agreement or to see the headquarters moved from London.
It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker interrupted the Business.
Ordered,
That the International Sugar Organisation Bill may be proceeded with at this days Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Rossi.]
Mr. Royle: Such action would have unfortunate repercussions in respect of the other commodity organisations located in London, such as tin, wheat, coffee and cocoa. Moreover, London is the main centre of the world's sugar trade, and it is both practical and convenient to all concerned to continue to have the organisation located close to the London market. Particularly as any gap in our membership is likely to be of

1037
relatively short duration, I think the House will agree that it would be appropriate that the United Kingdom should continue to act as the host to the organisation.
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Peter Shore: This is a sad little Bill, but it touches on a matter of great importance—the future regulation of world trade in sugar. This is particularly of concern not only to people of this country but to the many countries in the developing world which are greatly dependent on the export trade in cane sugar. Therefore, it would be wrong for such a measure to go through on the nod and escape the discussion and scrutiny which world trade in sugar and the future of the International Sugar Organisation deserve.
It was right that the Minister in presenting the Bill should give some account of the circumstances that have led him to present it, of the purposes it is designed to serve, and of the future outlook for the International Sugar Organisation.
The Bill envisages in Clause 1 an important and unwelcome development, namely—
"The termination of the membership of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of the International Sugar Organisation …".
That is a matter of profound regret. The Under-Secretary told us that it is hoped that this will not be a termination of more than an interim character. Nevertheless, it would be regretted by everyone if we should cease to be a member.
The first question which comes to the mind of anyone who knows the background is : why does a Bill of this kind have to be presented to the House? Clearly the Minister does not take the view that Britain should not be, with advantage to itself and to others, a member of the International Sugar Organisation. That would not be argued.
The argument, such as it is, would be that it would be tolerable for Britain not to be a member—I personally do not find this a very attractive argument, but I have heard it advanced—if Britain as part of the organisation of the European Community were to retain through the organisation of the EEC a kind of
1038
collective membership or were to be still a part member of the organisation through the EEC. As I understand it, that was the original intention.
When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reported to the House in July of this year on his discussions in Brussels on the future sugar régime he said, speaking of the proposals for a new régime which had been put forward by the Community :
"… they would enable the Community to participate constructively in the resumed negotiation for a new International Sugar Agreement."
It was clearly the expectation of the Minister of Agriculture and of many others that the Community would be able to join the International Sugar Organisation before the end of 1973. We know what happened to that. The countries of the EEC could not agree among themselves, and, therefore, could not present a collective mandate to which the Commission could speak in the councils of the International Sugar Organisation when the organisation met to consider a possible new agreement in Geneva in October this year.
Apparently, the major bone of contention among the members of the EEC was whether or not the EEC could agree to be a net importer of sugar, and could thus take a position in the International Sugar Organisation as a net importer, on the Commission's suggestion, of some 600,000 tons of sugar, a total which many of us thought was inadequate from the point of view of the net imports of the Community, and very generous in terms of what that represents in exports of beet sugar from the Continent. So we are clear that the Community could not agree collectively to join the International Sugar Organisation for the reasons I have mentioned.
That being so, I do not understand why the United Kingdom should now envisage its withdrawal from the International Sugar Organisation, and I hope very much that the Minister will explain why he is still persisting in what might have appeared a reasonable strategy if the EEC had joined the International Sugar Organisation. Is it his view that, since we became a member of the EEC, we have, as it were, lost the right to belong in our own name to the International Sugar Organisation, and that if

1039
we were to join the organisation after the end of this year, or remained members of the existing organisation after the end of this year, we would be in breach of the Treaty? I hope that when he replies the Minister will let us know the answer, because it is clearly a matter of very considerable concern.
That is the first part of my concern with this little Bill, and I now come to the second part.
It is clear that the Bill envisages that the International Sugar Organisation will continue to exist, even if Britain does not continue to be a member of it. But in what form it will continue to exist, what kind of presence it will have and what kind of functions it will exercise are not at all clear. We should know the facts before we consider giving this measure our approval. We know that from 1968 until the end of this year the International Sugar Organisation will have been a frame into which the very important international sugar agreement of those years has been fitted. What I and, I am sure, the House want to know is what the Minister now expects of the International Sugar Organisation. Does he envisage that it will be an administrative organisation with, perhaps, a secretariat for research and statistical purposes, as I have heard it described, or does he believe, as he led me to believe by his remarks, that a further international sugar agreement will be fitted into the International Sugar Organisation if it is left, as it were, as an empty frame? It would be interesting to know, if he does expect that a further international sugar agreement will be reached, what obstacles he envisages have yet to be overcome.
There is here a point that the Minister might help to clear up. When we last debated sugar on 24th October his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was quite categoric about, in his view at any rate, what were the causes of the breakdown or the failure to agree a new international sugar agreement. He took the view that it was due to differences between major consumers and major exporters of sugar, and that but for their disagreement—and, in particular, I think he bad in mind Cuba and Canada—an international sugar agreement might well have been reached.
1040
On the other hand, there is the alternative explanation which the Minister of Agriculture was very anxious to rebut, that it was impossible to get an international sugar agreement in October because the EEC was totally unable to reach any agreement on what its policy was going to be and what its position would be in a future ISA. Although, as I say, the Minister of Agriculture rebutted strongly any such explanation, it was interesting to read Commissioner Soames giving his address to the European Assembly on 17th October when he said :
"The Commission believes that the exclusion of Europe from these important talks "—
the International Sugar Agreement talks—
"was not good for Europe, it was not good for the approach of the world powers in trying to reach an international agreement … It remains the hope of the Commission that when this question is taken up again, the Community will be able to use its influence and that the next conference will come to a satisfactory conclusion."
I think a reasonable interpretation of those words indicates that Sir Christopher Soames, at any rate, took the view that the major obstacle to getting the International Sugar Agreement renewed was the absence of the EEC. I think we shall all remember with considerable sorrow that the representatives of the United Kingdom who were there just sat there, gagged as it were, unable to make any contribution at all to the solution of this problem.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman, who referred to this as a little Bill, is straying beyond the object of the Bill, which is about Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968.
Mr. Shore: I fully realise that one must not stray too far into these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am, at the same time, confronted with a Bill which seeks to make quite a radical change. It envisages the termination of the membership of Her Majesty's Government in the International Sugar Organisation, and I think we are right, first, to interrogate the Minister as to why this is so, and, secondly, to interrogate him, as I have been doing, about the kind of international sugar organisation to which Britain will no longer adhere at the end of this year, and how it differs from the

1041
International Sugar Organisation which we have known so far.
Mr. Anthony Royle: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I think I am right in saying that the Bill relates to diplomatic immunity—and that a gap may occur. It does not cover in any way the longter-term arrangements of the International Sugar Agreement.
Mr. Shore: What we are concerned about—and I am not pursuing this much further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am coming towards the end of my remarks—is to question the Minister a little more on how long the gap which he is expecting will be, and what factors in the situation, in his view, have to be resolved before the gap can be closed. That is why I asked what were the major reasons why the International Sugar Agreement had not been renewed last October.
If it is due mainly, as Commissioner Soames plainly thought it was, to disagreement among the Nine, we should like from the Minister a reasonable assurance that every effort will be made in future to reach agreement, and to reach agreement on membership of the ISA by the European Economic Community, as a major net importer.
Finally, may we have from the Minister this assurance? If he is unable to get the EEC to adhere to a new international sugar agreement, will he then have no hesitation in himself recommending to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he come to the House and put to us that the United Kingdom should itself adhere to the new agreement as a full member of it?
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: My observations on this little Bill, as it has been called, will be brief.
For once, if he will forgive me saying so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has been unduly lenient with the Government in what he had to say about the significance of the Bill. I believe that what the House is asked to do tonight reaches the ultimate in the Government's cynicism towards our wider responsibilities in the third world and towards the wider economy of the world as a whole, for which they like
1042
to express so much commitment in terms of their membership of the EEC.
I say that because, at the very time when we are asked to support a Bill which envisages the continuation of the International Sugar Organisation and its privileges within London, the Government know full well that within the European Economic Community a struggle is taking place between those who advocate that we should adopt an outward-looking policy on sugar and towards the needs of the developing world and one of the most ruthlessly powerful sugar beet lobbies one has ever seen within the Community which takes the view that the first responsibility of the Community is to sugar producers in Europe.
The House is asked to say that we are prepared to see this organisation stay on in London and, as it were, we wish it well for the future, before we know with any certainty that we shall be able to fulfil our obligations as we have always stated them towards the wider world community. This is a most unhappy situation for the House.
Although we are asked to rush this piece of legislation through in as uncon-troversial a fashion as possible, we see in the Bill the very contradictions which some of us have spelled out in the whole thesis of membership of the EEC. On the one hand, we are told that we are entering Europe to enable us to make a more important contribution to the wider world. On the other, we put in caveats right, left and centre and say that if, because of the nature of politics operating within the Community, we are unable to do that, we must find gentlemanly ways of going forward without causing too much disruption on the surface if it can possibly be avoided.
I almost wish that it were possible to divide the House tonight to show our contempt for the Government's double-dealing as manifested in this Bill.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) described this as a sad little Bill. It is sad because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said, in presenting it to the House the Government are trying to look both

1043
ways. This was illustrated by the Minister's opening remarks. He used such words as "in the event of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a member", and he constantly referred to matters of uncertainty.
But at no stage did the Minister question the need for an international sugar agreement. How could he? We know that, without such an agreement, the free market for sugar varies by, I believe, a factor of nine. The fact that the futures market is in London, and the need, which the Minister stressed, for the organisation still to be based in London and still to be given the facilities of the previous Act shows just how much the Government realise the importance of this organisation in the world market for sugar.
The Minister did not give any indication whether he thought the Bill would need to remain on the statute book for very long in the event of Britain ceasing to be a member of the agreement. I should have thought the answer was that it would be there for a short period. That answer can be derived from the summit communiqué published in HANSARD in October last year where it said the EEC should involve itself in
"—the promotion in appropriate cases of agreements concerning the primary products of the developing countries with a view to arriving at market stabilisation and an increase in their exports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October 1972; Vol. 843, c. 812.]
which is precisely the objective of this organisation. Therefore, I suggest that when the Minister replies he should say that if the legislation is to be used at all it will be for only a short bridging period, because, as I understand it, its objectives are also the objectives of the organisations to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West, referred to the question of quantities in Europe. I understand that in 1968 the EEC applied to become a member of the organisation. However, it was offered an export allocation of about 300,000 tons a year, which I understand was not regarded as sufficient. Perhaps this is understandable as the EEC has guaranteed prices of 134 per cent. of what I understand to be its requirement. Therefore, it seems that the Government, in having to introduce the Bill, are saying, on the one hand,
1044
that this is a friendly organisation which fully conforms with the EEC objectives but that, on the other hand, there has been a hitch in the negotiations. Agra Europe in its October bulletin summarised the matter in a headline saying
"Sugar : No international agreement likely until the EEC finalises its internal policy."
There we have a reasonably objective assessment of why the Minister is having to introduce the Bill. The whole reason for the Bill is the paradox, which came as no surprise to some of us in view of the nature of the organisation.
I would, therefore, associate myself with all the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West, in saying that not only are we not surprised that the Government are having to introduce the Bill, but some of us think it would have been necessary in spite of all the protestations of the Government at an earlier stage.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Before the Minister asks the House to pass the Bill he should answer two simple factual questions. First, is it possible, or is it not, for the United Kingdom, while a member of the EEC, to remain in its own right a member of the International Sugar Organisation? Secondly, are the British Government, if they now have a voice and a view on the matter, in favour of either this country or the EEC being a member of the International Sugar Organisation?
10.24 p.m.
Mr. Eric Deakins: This is a ridiculous little Bill. It may be legally necessary but, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I very much regret the circumstances in which the Minister has had to come to the House with it.
Will the Minister answer one factual question? Is there any other international organisation with its headquarters in London of which Britain is not a member? What a ridiculous position Britain is getting into when we can have the headquarters of one of the great international trading organisations of the world in our capital city and yet are denied the right by virtue of Common Market membership to be a member of that international organisation. That is the crux of the debate. It throws into a

1045
prominent light the objections which many of us raised during the Common Market debates last year.
I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary to put the Bill into formal operation, and that by the end of the year we shall have reached a decision that we can be members in the enlarged EEC of a new international sugar agreement and, therefore, return to membership of the ISO.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Royle: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for sparing the time to be in the House so late at night on such an important little Bill. I am also grateful for the questions I have been asked. I shall try to keep within the rules of order in replying, although it will be difficult. I do not possess the skill to do it as well as the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) does, but I shall do my best to answer all the questions.
The right hon. Members for Stepney and Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) both asked an important question : why cannot the United Kingdom join the interim agreement, regardless of what the rest of the Community does? They know that now that we are members of the Community we must as far as possible move in step with our Community partners, particularly in the case of sugar, a commodity covered by a common organisation of the market. The Community as a whole should participate in the interim agreement, and we hope that in due course it will do so.
The question of how long it will be before we take part in the interim agreement has been raised. As I said in opening, the EEC has yet to determine its attitude. We hope that it will reach a decision very soon. There is a problem of timing. Although the Commission has recommended that the Community should join, it is not certain that it will reach a final decision in the very near future.
Mr. Jay: I think that the Minister says that it must be the Community rather than the United Kingdom which is a member, if either of them is. Does he mean that it is legally impossible under the Treaty of Accession for the United Kingdom separately to be a member of the
1046
International Sugar Organisation, or just that in the Government's opinion that would be politically undesirable?
Mr. Royle: I thought I had made my view plain. I was saying not that it was legally impossible but that it would be difficult to accept that as a member of the Community we should not move in step with our Community partners in such an arrangement.
Mr. Neil Marten: This is the key to many of the questions raised tonight. My hon. Friend said that we must move in line with the EEC as far as possible. Does he really mean that? If he does, it is quite possible that we need not move in line with it on this matter and could become members of the ISA without the EEC. Can my hon. Friend clear that up?
Mr. Royle: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well what I mean. We can all do all sorts of things in life, but we have become members of the EEC, and it has been made plain—it was made plain by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate in October—that on such an issue we would wish to move with other members of the Community. As far as possible we wish to move in step with them.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman made a welcome and important statement, at least about the legalities of the matter. The common sense of keeping in step is one thing. If the Community moves all together in a positive direction, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's strategy, but we are now dealing with a situation in which its members have not moved. We must envisage the serious possibility that the Community will not move for a considerable time. In that case, what does the Minister propose to do?
Mr. Royle: I think the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the remainder of my remarks, because I am coming to the point that he has made that, in some way, the renegotiation conference failed because of the attitude of the Community. There is no question of that. The failure of the conference can in no way be attributed to the attitude of the Community. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to "Tut, tut", but what I have told the House is a correct assessment of the situation. The

1047
failure was due entirely to the disagreement between the principal exporting and importing countries over price levels and other related issues, and that, too, was made clear to the House in October by my right hon. Friend.
One other important question that was asked was about the implications of all this for the developing world. It is very difficult for me to answer that. It is a question that I should like to answer if I could. But it is fair to say that the Bill which I have laid before the House in no way affects the assurances which the Government gave to the developing Commonwealth sugar-producing members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement at meetings in Lancaster House in June 1971, which I attended, and again in March 1973, at which meeting I was not present, about the access of their sugar into the enlarged Community after the CS A expires at the end of 1974. The Government continue to stand firmly by these assurances, and the House will recall that we have assured the Governments concerned that the Community's undertakings on sugar represent a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fan-terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the CSA in respect of all its existing developing member countries.
Mr. Judd Mr. Judd rose—
Mr. Royle: I cannot go wider than that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but if I go beyond what I have said I shall be in breach of order, and I should not like to incur the wrath of the Chair.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) raised a point about members of international organisations in London. I am advised that there is no other organisation of which we are not a member for which we have made an order under the 1968 Act.
Mr. Jay: Before the hon. Gentleman finally sits down, may I ask him to answer my question? Are the British Government in favour of the United Kingdom or the EEC being a member of the International Sugar Organisation? Surely we should know that?
Mr. Royle: The right hon. Gentleman heard my remarks. I went as wide as
1048
I could. I have stretched points of order and the patience of the Chair in doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Jopling.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR ORGANISATION BILL
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

CASTLEMARTIN
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Leader of the House has said that there will in due course be a debate on the report of the Defence Lands Committee, but that it will take place after the Government have reached their conclusions. That is entirely wrong. Surely the right course is for the Government to take hon. Members' views into account before reaching decisions. That is why I am raising tonight the major recommendation of the committee, the proposal to transfer the RAC range from Lulworth to Castlemartin.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor Goldsmid) has already discussed in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill some of the military implications of the recommendations, and has presented a forceful case for rejecting them. I shall try to show that the social and environmental arguments are equally powerful.
I have the impression that, as it approached the end of its labours, the committee suddenly realised to its horror that it was unlikely to recommend the release of any significant site. Fearing a public outcry, and taking note of a long-sustained campaign by amenity

1049
groups for the lease of Lulworth, in desperation it came up with the ill-considered proposal to transfer the RAC range.
Whether my impression is right or not, what seems to be beyond argument is that it failed at this point to perform one fundamental public duty ; it totally and completely neglected to consult those who would be most affected, or even to inform them of what it had in mind. Beguiled perhaps by the fact that the status quo at Castlemartin is reluctantly accepted by the people of Pembrokeshire, the committee did not even discuss the proposals with the county council or the national park committee. No one in the area was given even the slightest hint that a massive extension of military activity might be proposed.
The Tyneham Action Group is, therefore, incorrect when it claims that the recommendation was reached after a very careful and detailed examination of the evidence, and that
"… it may be assumed that a wise and impartial judgment has been arrived at."
The truth is that the committee listened to the views of those who were to be relieved of the burden and that it did not even speak to those whom it now wishes to shoulder it.
Fortunately, the committee's failure has been redeemed by the Government, who have willingly received representations from a large number of local organisations and others. The Government have been doing the job that the committee neglected to do. But, even then, if they were to accept the recommendation, there would have to be a public inquiry—although I trust that we will not get to that point, because the objections to the proposal are formidable.
First, there is the loss to agriculture—I am glad to see the Minister of State, Welsh Office, who is responsible for agriculture in Wales, present—of the favourable winter grazing for sheep, which is not something to be treated lightly. This is a critical and indispensable element in the country's agricultural structure. Each autumn, about 12,000 to 15,000 sheep arrive on the ranges, and after lambing a much larger number are transferred to the high uplands of the Prescelly Hills. In addition, a considerable number of store cattle graze on the ranges. At
1050
Castlemartin we are already being deprived of the full use of some of the best agricultural land in Britain. This further loss would have serious consequences for the farmers in the Prescelly Hills and those in the immediate area. It might well drive more off the land altogether.
Then there is the fact that it will be necessary to close public access to what has been described as some of the finest coastal scenery anywhere in the world. Unlike Lulworth, all of it lies within a national park. It includes the incomparable Stack Rocks and the finest breeding colony of sea birds accessible to the public on the mainland of Britain and visited by thousands of people each year. All this would be shut off although "improved access for the public" was included as one of the main objectives in the terms of reference given by the Government to the committee. It is ironic that the committee recommended expenditure of £100,000 a year to improve access at Lulworth in the years prior to closure while putting forward a scheme which would totally shut off the coastal part in this national park.
There will, if the move takes place, be an intolerable increase in the burden of noise falling on people living in the neighbouring villages and the towns of Pembroke, Pembroke Dock and Milford. Because of the lie of the land, the nuisance is far worse than at Lulworth. These Pembrokeshire towns all lie close by, in the prevailing wind off the range, and the town of Milford Haven, because of the geology and the open water of the Haven is particularly vulnerable to noise and vibration. A population of 30,000 is, therefore, affected by these proposals.
At present no firing takes place in winter, during two weeks in August, at weekends, generally after 4.30 in the afternoon and never after midnight. In future it will be necessary to fire the whole year round, with greater concentration and frequently at night.
The fourth objection is that it will be necessary to construct a large new camp, installations and married quarters, in the national park. The present camp is quite small and relatively unobtrusive. The new and much larger camp would represent a major development in a place

1051
where it would never otherwise be permitted. This part of the park is maintained as a designated remote area, in which any form of development is severely restricted and from which coast-side caravan sites have been removed. A development of the kind now proposed would make a mockery of the work of the National Parks Commission
I must draw the attention of the House to the likely conflict between the needs of the Army for concentrated range use and the requirements of the port of Mil-ford Haven. It is extraordinary that the committee should make its recommendation without any reference to those who run the port, and even more extraordinary that, having laid down the condition that
"the site must be clear of main shipping lanes and have minimum interference from coastal shipping, fishing and yachting",
it should then propose the increased use of a range whose danger area lies directly across the entrance to the country's greatest oil port. It is also a fishing port and the centre of Celtic Sea oil exploration.
The Conservancy Board in a letter to the Department of the Environment said :
"It will be seen from the enclosed chart that the full range danger area completely dominates the approaches to the port. Since shipping has priority, it has been found in practice that military personnel have frequently had to stand idly by their guns for periods while ships pass through the danger zone, and in the past successive Commandants of the range have repeatedly sought our assistance in persuading masters of vessels to avoid the danger area, while they have themselves restricted charges so as to reduce the extent of the danger area and thus permit firing to be less interrupted."
The board goes on to say that it :
"does not readily accept the statement in … the report that tankers do not cause a serious problem."
It has grave fears that in future shipping will not be given the absolute precedence it should clearly have in entering a great port. Its fears are reinforced by the reference in paragraph 89 to byelaws needed to prevent unacceptable interruption to training.
There is the problem of communication and road congestion. Once again the committee fails to comply with its own conditions that
"ready access by rail and road must be available."
1052
No attempt is made to explain how troops are to travel from Bovington to Castlemartin. If the journey is made by road, they may well find themselves in the position of the German general on a recent visit to the ranges who spent three and a half hours one Saturday morning on the road from Castlemartin to Carmarthen. Visitors to demonstrations on the ranges, and I understand there are many of them, will find the journey far more difficult than to Lulworth. Troop and ammunition transports will inevitably add to the existing congestion on inadequate roads.
There are the enormous military difficulties spelled out in the report, including the problem of arriving at satisfactory arrangements with the German Army, with which there is a particularly happy relationship in Pembrokeshire. Those arrangements, I believe, are important to the British Army, too. I do not intend to elaborate on the case already ably deployed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth or on what the committee itself describes as the "formidable weight of military evidence". I can only say that not one soldier I have spoken to believes that the proposals can be made to work.
Finally, there is the question of cost. At a time when there are overwhelming economic arguments for a reduction in public expenditure and when the defence budget is being cut back by £50 million, it seems to me almost insane to contemplate the expenditure of more than £14 million on building new installations when perfectly good ones exist already. In any case, I believe that the estimate will prove—as estimates are prone to prove—wildly optimistic. It does not, for example, include the cost of building schools, and yet I am assured that the existing schools could not possibly absorb the added burden and, indeed, that the move would leave perfectly good schools in Lulworth standing vacant.
I may be told that the scheme would provide jobs in an area of unemployment. It would do so only at the expense of jobs in Dorset, and in any case it is questionable whether those who have been employed for high wages in constructing refineries will switch easily to the kind of employment which would be provided by the range and at a time

1053
when developments in the Celtic Sea are likely to provide new opportunities.
In conclusion, I must draw attention to one remarkable fact which I think may well be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). While nobody in Pembrokeshire wants the Army to come from Lulworth, practically no one from Dorset wants it to leave. Of course, there is a pressure group, but, as the report said,
"A majority of representations favoured continued military presence at Bovington and Lulworth and sought no changes in the present arrangements."
The Bishop of Portsmouth reported in a letter in The Times that a public meeting and opinion poll at Lulworth showed an overwhelming majority in favour of no change. I have here a copy of the Bournemouth Evening Echo, which, under the heading
"Big support to let Army stay",
says that
"97 per cent. support for their campaign to keep the Army in Lulworth is being claimed by the village committee fighting the Nugent recommendations to close the gunnery range and Dorset Planning Committee decided yesterday they would like the Army to stay.'
In Pembrokeshire opposition has been expressed by every local authority, new and old, by all the political parties, unanimously at public meetings, by the farmers' unions, by the women's institutes, by the National Park Committee, by the Milford Haven Conservancy Board, by the Wales Tourist Board, by the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales and by a host of individuals and organisations throughout Wales and beyond Wales. There is total unanimity in the opposition. The case for rejecting these ill-considered plans—and, incidentally, I hope that the matter will not be left entirely to the Ministry of Defence, because other Departments are deeply involved—appears to me to be overwhelming. It is time that the Government rejected them.
10.49 p.m.
Mr. Evelyn King: My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) has presented on behalf of his constituents a cogent case which I am sure has impressed the House and which I hope has impressed
1054
the Minister. I must briefly say something for Dorset.
The function that the Minister has to fulfil is to marry environment plans with military efficiency. I understand his difficulty. It is proposed that three areas should be upset : first, that the occupants of Castlemartin shall, against their will, have military use upon their land increased ; secondly, that the population of Lulworth and Tyneham shall have something inflicted upon them against their will ; thirdly, that the inhabitants of Hohne, which has armoured regiments stationed in the neighbourhood, should have something done to them against their will, involving international repercussions.
I speak for Dorset only. I have represented Dorset, South for some time. I recall no instance in which there has been such unanimity against what Lord Nugent and his committee suggest. Dorset County Council is against the proposal by 97 to three. In the village of West Lulworth, which is nearest to the range, 97 per cent. of the population are against it, as is Wareham Rural District Council, Swanage Rural District Council, Wareham Urban District Council, every parish council in the neighbourhood, the National Farmers' Union, two trade unions and the Labour and Conservative candidates in the area. I should be interested to hear of greater unanimity on any issue than that.
In Hohne, which by courtesy of the Minister I was permitted to visit by helicopter a month or two ago, a German organisation—and Germany is not now an imperial fief—similar to those in Pembrokeshire and Dorset is equally determined to preserve its environmental heritage. So there is this curious game of military dominoes in which Dorset, Castlemartin and Hohne in Germany are all upset. To what end?
The cost is to be £14 million as at today's prices, which must mean £30 million in five years' time. It is not a reasonable proposal. I hope that the Minister, in consultation with his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, will reject it, as it should be rejected.
I do not disregard altogether the claims of the amenity groups. Lord Nugent suggested a compromise. Instead of this

1055
huge expenditure, for £100,000 a year reasonable access could be given to Lulworth, and that would satisfy most parties.
10.53 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate on a subject which I know is dear to his heart. Ever since the publication of the committee's report he has left my Department in no doubt of his great interest in and concern for the constituency he represents, which I know from my visit to the area last April has in it some of the most beautiful scenery in the country and one of the most important army training areas.
I pay tribute, also, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). Since the report was published, he, too, has taken an active and vigorous interest in the matter. He has consulted the views of his constituents and led a deputation to see me which presented, with great cogency and clarity, a case for the Army staying in Lulworth. I note that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke are tonight singing in harmony.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke criticised the Nugent Committee. I am sure all hon. Members, whether or not they agree with the committee's recommendations, agree that in producing its report the committee performed a valuable service. The committee took a long time, and did a great deal of intense work in the preparation of the report.
I know that my hon. Friends would like me to give a definite answer tonight, but I do not imagine that they are really expecting me to do so. As they know, the Government are still considering this recommendation, as well as other recommendations that the committee made. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16th October, the Government hope to announce their conclusions early in the new year. The House will recall that, when the report was published, the Government stated in the accompanying White Paper that they wished to allow a period for public consideration, and I think it only right, given the very difficult decisions which have to
1056
be reached, that this period should be fairly long.
Mr. Evelyn King: I understand that the Government allow the public to comment, but is it not also reasonable to allow this House to comment before a decision is taken?
Mr. Blaker: That is a point for my right hon. Friend, and no doubt he will note what my hon. Friend has said. As I was saying, I think it right that the period for consideration should be fairly long so that there is adequate time for anyone who has views to formulate them.
The recommendation was that the Castlemartin site should be retained and that greater use should be made of it in order to facilitate the move of the RAC Gunnery School from Lulworth. The main function of the school is to train officers and NCOs of the Royal Armoured Corps as gunnery instructors who will subsequently be responsible for the supervision of all aspects of gunnery training within their regiments, the greater part of which are in the British Army of the Rhine.
The move of the Gunnery School to Castlemartin would mean that the range there would have to be used for 12 months of the year, as opposed to the more restricted use at present, which leaves the area free for sheep and cattle grazing during the winter. There would be more firing at weekends and at night. The report fully recognised that the recommendation posed a number of difficult problems, and, not surprisingly, we have received a large number of representations since the report was published, not only from my hon. Friends, but from many others concerned with Castlemartin. We have been examining the problem very carefully in the light of all the representations which we have received.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke rightly pointed out, one of the most difficult of the problems is the question of the training facilities which we have provided for the use of the Army of the Federal Republic of Germany at Castlemartin since 1961. At present it has exclusive use of the range for five months a year, and sends its armoured units to carry out tank gunnery practice. The Federal Republic particularly values the excellent battle-run at Castlemartin. The committee, in proposing that the

1057
Gunnery School should move to Castle-martin, recommended that consultation should take place with the Federal German authorities on how best their future tank training requirements could be met. The Government have assured the Federal Government that there will be adequate consultation with them before any decision is taken. Consultation is well in hand, and certain detailed studies have been made.
I should like to turn now to some of the representations which have been made to us about Castlemartin in more detail. We have received 57 letters so far, including 26 from private individuals, 13 from local authorities and 18 from national or regional bodies or societies concerned with conservation and the environment. All but five of these have been against the proposal made by the Nugent Committee and none has been positively in favour.
In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, a deputation from the Castlemartin Action Group came to the Ministry of Defence on 19th September. Its members were ably led by Mr. John Bennion, the chairman of the South Pembrokeshire District Council. They set out their arguments in a reasonable and cogent manner, drawing special attention, as my hon. Friend has done, to the amenity value of the Pembrokeshire National park, the dependence of the area on tourism and agriculture, the present good relations between the Army and the local community, and the strains which they feared might be put on the local services by an influx of additional resident population. Their comments will be fully taken into account before a decision is reached.
I should comment here on the view which my hon. Friend has expressed about the adequacy of the Nugent Committee's study of the effects of its proposals. The deputation also made this point. Lord Nugent's committee was an independent one, but a reading of its report, in particular pages 154, 157 and 345 to 348 shows that it was very conscious of the problems that its suggestion for greater use of Castlemartin would present.
The members of the committee visited Castlemartin itself and examined those areas which had been the subject of evidence
1058
from the public. They accepted that the greater use of the area which they proposed would, for example reduce the opportunity for grazing sheep and cattle there. They also make clear that they investigated in depth the possibility of increasing training activities at Castlemartin, and they took advice from the Welsh Office and noted that such increased activity would reduce the possibility of giving greater public access to the coastal path and St. Govan's Head. They recognised that their proposals would be resisted but nevertheless concluded unanimously that, taking all the factors into account, environmental and otherwise, their recommendations were right. My hon. Friend made particular reference to some of these factors, and they are all very relevant points.
Though I cannot speak for the members of the committee, I should be surprised if they were not conscious of the majority of the points which my hon. Friend has made. But, in any event, I assure him that they will all be weighed very carefully in the balance by the Government before a decision is reached.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The committee deals with the difficulties for Castlemartin in a few short paragraphs but devotes several pages of the report to the detailed evidence given by a wide range of bodies in Dorset. I have in my hand a letter from the county council informing me that at no time did it receive an invitation to meet the committee or to discuss the proposals that it would be putting forward. I know that the Committee spent less than a day looking at the site.
Mr. Blaker: I note what my hon. Friend has to say. The committee received evidence from the county council, though it may be true that it did not discuss the matter with the council—although it was an independent committee and it is not my job to assess how it acted. Whether or not the committee acted correctly, it is my job to listen to the representations made to me and to the Government by my hon. Friends and those coming from other sources.
In conclusion, I thank both my hon. Friends for the way that they have put their case. Whatever decision the Government finally come to, it is hardly likely to meet with universal approbation. But

1059
my hon. Friends can rest assured that all the points they have made will be most carefully examined.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Fuel Conservation
  Fuel Conservation
  Land (Scotland)
  Land (Scotland)
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Arab Pilots (Training)
  Arab Pilots (Training)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Training)
  Teachers (Training)
  Postgraduate Students (Fees)
  Postgraduate Students (Fees)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Independent Schools (Lambeth)
  Independent Schools (Lambeth)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Overseas Postgraduate Students
  Overseas Postgraduate Students
  Teachers' Superannuation
  Teachers' Superannuation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-French Nuclear Policy
  Anglo-French Nuclear Policy
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  Rockall
  Rockall
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Zambia (Detained British Subject)
  Zambia (Detained British Subject)
  Tanzania (Pensions)
  Tanzania (Pensions)
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Maintenance Costs
  Maintenance Costs
HOME DEPARTMENT
  "Belfast Ten" Prisoners
  "Belfast Ten" Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Maintenance Costs
  Maintenance Costs
  Local Government Electoral Boundaries
  Local Government Electoral Boundaries
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Sittings and Divisions
  Sittings and Divisions
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Catering
  Catering
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Exceptional Needs Grants
  Exceptional Needs Grants
  Arrested Persons
  Arrested Persons
  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Offshore Oil and Gas
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Post Offices
  Post Offices
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
SCOTLAND
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Absenteeism
  School Absenteeism
  Sporting Estates
  Sporting Estates
  Housing
  Housing
  Land Ownership (Highlands)
  Land Ownership (Highlands)
  Children's Hearings
  Children's Hearings
  Children (Prosecution)
  Children (Prosecution)
  Residential Training (Children)
  Residential Training (Children)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Emergency Dental Service
  Emergency Dental Service
  Abortion (Lane Report)
  Abortion (Lane Report)
  Dental X-rays
  Dental X-rays
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Nottinghamshire)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Nottinghamshire)
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
WALES
  Transport (Study)
  Transport (Study)
  Farm Tenancies (Obligations)
  Farm Tenancies (Obligations)
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Welsh Language Council
  Welsh Language Council
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Schoolchildren (Glamorgan)
  Schoolchildren (Glamorgan)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRY
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRY
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Steel
  Steel
  Heliports (City Centres)
  Heliports (City Centres)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Offshore Oil
  Offshore Oil
  Oil Conservation
  Oil Conservation
  Petrol Supplies (Disabled Drivers)
  Petrol Supplies (Disabled Drivers)
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Canadian Reactors
  Canadian Reactors
  European Nuclear Steelmaking Group
  European Nuclear Steelmaking Group
  Prices
  Prices
  Oil Consumption (Electricity Generating)
  Oil Consumption (Electricity Generating)
  Petrol Ration Books
  Petrol Ration Books
  Hydrocarbons
  Hydrocarbons
  Reactor Programme
  Reactor Programme
  Monopolies Commission Inquiries
  Monopolies Commission Inquiries
  Fuel Conservation
  Fuel Conservation
ENVIRONMENT
  Palace of Westminster (Exterior Cleaning)
  Palace of Westminster (Exterior Cleaning)
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
  Office Development Permits
  Office Development Permits
  Electric Vehicles (Research)
  Electric Vehicles (Research)
  Kerbside Markings
  Kerbside Markings
  Land and Property Market (London)
  Land and Property Market (London)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Workhouse Building, Oundle
  Workhouse Building, Oundle
  Local Government Committees (Chairmen)
  Local Government Committees (Chairmen)
  Clay Cross
  Clay Cross
  Motor Vehicles (Safety)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety)
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Avon County
  Avon County
  Clean Air Act
  Clean Air Act
  Housing Cost Yardsticks
  Housing Cost Yardsticks
  Planning Appeals (West Riding)
  Planning Appeals (West Riding)
  Local Government Boundaries
  Local Government Boundaries
  A1 (Northumberland)
  A1 (Northumberland)
  Water Authorities (Sex Discrimination)
  Water Authorities (Sex Discrimination)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Invisible Exports (Shipping)
  Invisible Exports (Shipping)
  Foreign Currency Loans
  Foreign Currency Loans
  Public Investments (Disposals)
  Public Investments (Disposals)
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Arab Countries (Investment)
  Arab Countries (Investment)
  Special Deposits
  Special Deposits
EMPLOYMENT
  Training (Wales)
  Training (Wales)
  Redundancy Payments Appeals (Costs)
  Redundancy Payments Appeals (Costs)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Insured Workers (Pembrokeshire)
  Insured Workers (Pembrokeshire)
  Brixton
  Brixton
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Catering Wages
  Catering Wages
  Earnings
  Earnings
  DEFENDANTS' COSTS
  DEFENDANTS' COSTS
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER
  TRAFFICKING IN BABIES
  TRAFFICKING IN BABIES
  RENTCHARGES
  RENTCHARGES
  CRIMINAL TRIALS (WINCHESTER)
  CRIMINAL TRIALS (WINCHESTER)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Poultry Marketing
  Poultry Marketing
  Farm Price Reviews
  Farm Price Reviews
  Dried Peas
  Dried Peas
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ministry of Defence Police
  Ministry of Defence Police

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

OPTION MORTGAGES
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the only Question which stands on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider raising the present limit of the 100 per cent. option mortgage scheme to £10,000.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. The Government raised the house price limit for the option mortgage guarantee scheme from £5,000 to £7,500 in 1971. There has been no demand from lenders or potential borrowers for an increase in the limit.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware—and here I must disclose my interest—that there is one building society of not a moderate size (and I suspect there are many others) who would welcome the Government review of the option mortgage limit? Is he further aware that when the Government last reviewed this limit in 1971 the price index figure stood at 144, as against 116 when the scheme started in 1967? Is he finally aware that to-day the same price index figure stands at 256? Is that not justification enough for a review?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the higher priced houses will be bought by people outside the housing option mortgage guarantee scheme and therefore it does not apply. We have taken steps to increase the option mortgage subsidy as from January 1, 1974, which will keep it in line with tax reliefs at interest rates which are higher than 10½ per cent. I think that covers the points raised by my noble friend.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, would it not be right to remind ourselves that
312
£10,000 is a very ordinary sort of mortgage in these days? There are in fact thousands of people purchasing properties which we should have regarded, five years ago, as being worth perhaps £6,000 but which are certainly worth £10,000 to-day. Would it not be a splendid contribution on the part of the Government to help people who are having the utmost difficulty in obtaining mortgages?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take the point raised by the noble Lord but I must refer him to my first answer. There has been no demand from borrowers or lenders to raise the figure to £10,000. According to a sample taken by the building societies, 31 per cent. of all dwellings mortgaged with building societies in the United Kingdom in the third quarter of this year cost under £7,500.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask a further supplementary question, following on what my noble friend has just said. To quote the average house prices, nation wide, in the North East the figure was £7,800 for the third quarter while in London and the South East it was £13,700. Is that not a strong case for the introduction of a regional limit for the option mortgage scheme?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Government have taken note of the regional schemes for various housing improvements, but building societies have the main responsibility for mortgages and the Government assist to only a small degree. The matter was discussed with the building societies when the present limit was agreed in 1971, but it was then considered to be too difficult to have regional variations.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, for the sake of clarity, may I ask the noble Lord, when he quotes a figure of £7,500, whether he is referring to the actual purchase price or to what was lent on mortgage?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this refers to the option mortgage guarantee scheme only. I should like to emphasise that the option mortgage scheme does not have a limit. It is only the option mortgage guarantee scheme which has a limit, and of all the

313
option mortgages which are taken out, just over one half are taken out with the guarantee scheme. There has been no demand for an increase in the guarantee scheme.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, may I ask one final supplementary question: whether my noble friend's right honourable friend will consider introducing 100 per cent. mortgage facilities under the new low start mortgage scheme? And will he not agree that the 100 per cent. mortgage offers considerable help to many young couples and may avoid their being forced into the expensive clutches of the second mortgage market?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend is referring to the proposed deferred interest mortgage scheme for first time purchasers. This is of course different from the subject of option mortgages which is under discussion, and the option mortgage guarantee scheme in particular. Detailed arrangements for the deferred interest scheme have not been finalised; they are still under discussion with the Building Societies Association. I think I should take note of the point raised by my noble friend and if I can find any further information I will either write to him or inform the House.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, on what do the Government depend for their information as to the demand from borrowers?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the building societies.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, surely it is not the building societies who deal with the option mortgage scheme; therefore there must be other sources of information open to Her Majesty's Government. Would not the noble Lord agree that any sum which was appropriate in 1971 must be inappropriate to-day?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the option mortgage guarantee scheme is dealing with about one half of one per cent. or 1½ per cent. of the once-and-for-all premiums. This is paid on the increase over the usual percentage limit for an advance by up to 25 per cent. of the valuation of a property; that is, up to 100 per cent. if their normal advance limit is 75 per cent. This is
314
dealt with under the option mortgage guarantee scheme, as the noble Baroness commented, on a single premium. In the case of the option mortgage guarantee scheme, the Government share the risk with the companies and therefore, if it is under 95 per cent. there is, I think, 2½ per cent. interest on that one single premium. So for example, if the figure were £1,500 the premium would be £60, which is added to the total cost. We are talking about the difference between 2½ per cent., 3½ per cent. and 4 per cent.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that that informative answer really skirts round the frills of the question? Does he not think the real question is, what should the Government be doing to bring down the price of houses, which has increased so enormously while his Government have been in office? Furthermore, does he not think that the concrete way of bringing down the price of houses is to see that more are built, instead of fewer? It is a fact that fewer houses are now being built than at any time during the last 10 or 11 years.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this discussion has become slightly wide of the original Question, but may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that in the last 12 months for which figures are ascertainable the actual figure for houses which have been completed and improved is just over half a million. This Government have changed the policy slightly; we have improved old houses which otherwise would have been condemned. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said about bringing down house prices, but although the answers that I gave on the option mortgage guarantee scheme were a little involved. the difference in the amount of interest between these top figures and the ones for all premiums is really very small.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is basing his answers on a dangerous supposition when he quotes the building societies only? What about local authorities? Are they not in a position where they can grant mortgages to applicants?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have no information at my disposal which leads me to suppose that

315
the average building society loans are different from the average local authority loans.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, could not the noble Lord persuade his noble friend Lord Kinnoull to put down an Unstarred Question, so that we might have the opportunity of questioning the answers which have been trotted out?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would be delighted.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am sure that everyone sympathises with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, because some of the supplementary questions have become rather wide of the original Question; but when he finds himself in difficulties he really ought not to quote statistics which have nothing to do with it at all. He really ought not to bring in—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD WIGG: I intend to put my question in my own time and in the same way as some questions have been put by others of my noble colleagues on other occasions. Is the noble Lord aware that it is unwise, when making a comparison between houses completed, because he is ashamed of the answer, suddenly to start talking about improvements, something which previous Administrations have not carried out before, just because he wants to use that particular stick to beat the Labour Party?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the question that was asked by one of the noble Lord's colleagues did go wide of the Question on the Order Paper, as I pointed out, but I thought I was entitled to say that we had changed the emphasis from new building to improved houses which otherwise would have been pulled down and lost to the housing stock.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when he quotes improvements, they could amount to just putting on a lick of paint or putting in a sink? This is not comparable with completed houses.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have been talking about improvements which have qualified for
316
discretionary or standard grants. This is not "just putting on a lick of paint".

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY CONTROL BILL
2.50 p.m.
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 48); read 1ª.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short enabling Bill to give the Secretary of State temporary powers to control the production, supply, acquisition and use of petroleum and any substance derived from it, and of any other substance used as fuel; and similarly to control the production, supply and use of electricity. The Bill also implements E.E.C. Directive 73/238 of July 24, which requires Member States in the event of difficulties arising in the supply of crude oil and petroleum products to provide the competent authorities with the necessary powers to restrict consumption, to allocate supplies, to regulate and to draw on emergency stocks. There will be no disagreement in this House, I am sure, that it is wise to take powers of this sort, both to deal with the current situation and to have on the Statute Book powers which can be revived temporarily to deal with any similar difficulties that may arise in the future, subject always to Parliamentary control.
In the last few weeks the energy situation has changed radically. We can no longer count on plentiful supplies of oil. Still less can we expect cheap supplies. These changes have serious implications for our economy, for our balance of payments, for our way of life and for our security. It is impossible to foresee at all clearly how these changes will affect us in the longer term or even in the immediate future. To safeguard our position in the longer term the Government have taken steps for the rapid development of North Sea oil; for the development of natural gas; and for the reconstruction of the coal industry. Our studies for the future of nuclear power are still well advanced. Some

317
years must inevitably pass before we can rely on our own resources to meet our needs of energy. Even then there will remain the possibility of our supplies being disrupted by industrial action, as is now happening. It is, therefore, sensible for us to have such powers in reserve for speedy action, if need be.
On the need to deal with the immediate future, nobody is likely to disagree. The industrial action of the N.U.M. and of the Electrical Power Engineers Associations, together with the uncertainty about our oil supplies, have combined to put three of the four source of energy for consumers in growing jeopardy. So far we have relied upon the Emergency Powers. But these are of short duration. They are not appropriate for a situation which may continue for some time. Under these powers we have already taken such action as is immediately necessary. We have placed restrictions on the use of electricity. We have reduced oil deliveries to 90 per cent. of what they were a year ago, except for public transport. We have put a ban on the purchase of petrol in cans for hoarding, while allowing those who normally get their petrol in cans to do so. We have also started to issue petrol rationing coupons so as to reduce the time needed for putting petrol rationing into operation if and when it becomes necessary. But we have not yet made any decision to introduce petrol rationing. We have published advertisements to explain how the public can collect their coupons. The scheme is simple and flexible. The value of the coupons in terms of petrol has not yet been determined. The scheme covers not only basic needs but a wide range of special needs—domestic and business. If rationing were introduced, everyone would be expected to accept some inconvenience. But the scheme will protect such people as disabled drivers from severe hardship, and it will safeguard services essential to the life of the community.
May I now outline the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 defines the substances to which the Bill applies; that is, petroleum (which is defined in Clause 8), any substance derived from petroleum, any substances used as fuel, and electricity. Thus the controls provided by the Bill extend to petroleum, coal, gas and electricity, and also to non-fuel petroleum
318
products such as lubricating oil, naptha and petrochemical feedstocks.
Clause 2 provides that the Secretary of State may make Orders regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, acquisition or use of any substances to which the Bill applies. This power would provide not only the statutory basis for motor fuel rationing, but also the means to control other fuels, including electricity, whether for industry, commercial or domestic use. The Secretary of State may also give directions to producers of the various fuels and petroleum products as to their production and use. Such directives may prohibit or restrict the use of any material required for their production. In this way we should be able to secure the most effective use of the raw materials available. Directions may also be given to suppliers for the purpose of regulating the supply of any fuel or petroleum product. Directions could specify the persons whom the supplier should or should not supply. Under the Emergency Powers, directions have already been given to suppliers, restricting deliveries of petroleum products; these directions could be given afresh under the Bill once it has received the Royal Assent. Directions may also be given to persons carrying on a business with regard to the use that they may make of any fuel or petroleum product covered by the Bill. These powers could, for instance, enable conservation by business consumers to be enforced. Power is also given to regulate the prices of petroleum and substances derived from petroleum. This provision provides a more flexible and effective means of controlling oil prices in a scarcity situation than would be possible under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. The Government see no need to take similar powers to control the uses of other fuels, since they can be adequately controlled under the counter-inflation powers.
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to require any undertaking or class of undertaking to keep records and furnish information relating to the substances covered by the Bill. Clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State to authorise any person who supplies or uses fuel or petroleum products to infringe any relevant statutory or contractual obligation while acting in accordance with authorities granted by him; for example, by reducing temperature in working premises

319
below the statutory minimum level. Suppliers of fuel could also be relieved of the requirement to meet quality standards if that would enable production to be increased. Alternatively there is a more general power enabling an Order in Council to be made to modify the provisions of any enactment which directly or indirectly affects the supply or use of fuels. Subsection (2) enables authority to be given to particular operators to relax certain statutory provisions relating to the operation of public service vehicles, so as to enable the most effective use to be made of the vehicles and crews available. The relaxations would also have the effect of legalising cost-sharing or farepaying in private vehicles. Subsection (3) permits existing legislation to be modified in so far as it directly or indirectly affects the supply or use of substances to which the Bill applies—for example, national speed limits could be reduced to conserve petrol. Subsection (4) provides for an Order in Council to be made modifying an order made under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973; the object being to enable the price of any petroleum product to be controlled under this Bill rather than under the Price and Pay Code.
Clause 5 applies for the purposes of this Bill certain provisions of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactment and Repeals) Act 1964 which are necessary to supplement the powers in the Bill itself. These make orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and allow orders and directions to be varied or revoked. They also deal with procedures for notices authorisations or documents; the territorial extent of the Bill; offences involving false documents or false statements; restrictions on the disclosure of information; and offences by corporations. Powers are also given for duly authorised officers to obtain documents relating to compliance with orders made under the Bill, if necessary by obtaining a search warrant. These provisions are necessary for the enforcement of any controls on fuels that may be imposed, for instance, rationing of petrol.
Clause 6 deals with penalties for contraventions of any legal requirements imposed under the Bill, or for obstructing anyone in the exercise of powers or duties in this connection. Attempts and con-
320
spiracies to commit such offences are also covered. For example, petrol rationing would in all probability give rise to attempts or conspiracies to commit offences, as distinct from the actual commitment of offences. Persons guilty of an offence under the Bill would be liable on summary conviction to three months' imprisonment or a fine of £400 or both.
Clause 10 limits the duration of the Bill to November 30, 1974, but provides for its provisions to be extended, by Order in Council, at any time when they are in force for a period not exceeding one year. They could also be reactivated after they had expired. The powers it confers would, therefore, be readily available at short notice if they were needed at any future time. Extension or reactivation of the powers would need to be approved by Parliament before the end of 28 days. Finally, Clause 11 extends the Bill to Northern Ireland. Any necessary restrictions on fuel in Northern Ireland would be administered by the Ministry of Commerce, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry.
My Lords, these are the provisions that the Government think necessary to enable us to make the best use of such sources of energy as may be available to us in times of scarcity. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that they are sensible weapons to have in our armoury, now and in the future, to deal with temporary energy difficulties. As to their uses, nobody can foretell how far they will be needed. As to their misuse, both Parliament and people will be vigilant and resolute to ensure that they will be taken out of the armoury and used only when strictly necessary for the wellbeing of the nation, and that they are put back into the armoury and the key returned to Parliament as soon as possible. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.——(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining this Bill, although we disagree most intensely with part of his speech. We find it reprehensible that, when your Lordships' House is being asked to agree to a certain measure to defend our oil and petrol supplies, the Government should take advantage of the occasion to wage an attack on the

321
miners of this country. If I may put it politely but bluntly, it is a little disgraceful that someone like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, should have accepted a brief of this kind to read to your Lordships' House. All the Miners' Union of this country has decided to do—whether one agrees or disagrees with it—is to work their normal week's work; what the Minister is saying is that they will not work overtime to suit the purpose of the Government. There may be an argument about that, but to call in aid this particular item in promoting this Bill is going too far. I said that we were grateful to the Minister for explaining this Bill, but I would not withdraw one word of what I have just said.
When a country gets into a difficulty of this kind not imposed by the miners of this country but by those who control oil in the Middle East, then obviously the Government have to take action to preserve the rights of our industry and people, so far as that is humanly possible; so I would not, nor would my noble friends, dissent from the decision of the Government. However, there are one or two matters that we should like to raise on this particular Bill. Conditions now exist where workers are working in both the dark and cold, and if the Minister has any doubt about that let him read the Report of another place with regard to what was happening last week in that particular Assembly. If in fact we want people to work, at least let us provide them with a little heat and light in which to do their job. I do not want the situation to be exaggerated. While we all agree that precautions should be taken, do not let us over-exaggerate the position that our country is in at the present moment.
The Minister says—and I find this a little difficult to understand—that the Government have taken action to prevent rather selfish people from filling up cans at petrol stations and taking petrol away with them. He has the wholehearted, 100 per cent. agreement of this side of your Lordships' House in that. This is a form of private enterprise with which we thoroughly disagree. May I turn to one other point mentioned by the noble Lord when he said that we were getting into difficulty? One of the matters that your Lordships' House will find it difficult to understand is that the Minister in another
322
place, when being asked to press the case for the rationing of petrol, said that there was no threat to our oil supplies. Only last week, after the meeting with the distinguished sheikh from the Middle East, he was saying that our supplies had been assured. It is difficult to accept the statement that our oil supply has been assured and then be asked to pass a Bill to deal with deficiencies. What is the real position? If in fact a decision had been made to cut supplies of oil to this country, not only would this House understand and face up to it, but so would the people of this country. If we have to ask the people to take action to meet this situation, they will do it better if they understand the reason for it. The Minister, in winding up, had better tell us the difference between what he has said to-day and what the Minister was saying in another place last week.
May I also ask him whether action can be taken about the position between garages throughout the country and their suppliers? Apparently at the present time there is some doubt as to what in fact the central suppliers are going to supply to the local garages. Nearly all of us in this country depend on collecting our supplies through the local garages; if they know what they are going to receive, they can ration it out in a sensible way. What was happening last Friday and Saturday in this country was that they were not rationing to a gallonage but to a pound's worth of petrol. We all understand that. What we cannot understand is the Government saying that there is no danger of rationing and then the garages needing to take unilateral action. What is the decision of the Government? Do the Government think that rationing will have to be introduced, or are they simply going to allow every retailer to make a plan of his own?
The Minister spoke at the conclusion of his introduction of difficulty about the expectations with regard to price. It is true that we have seen very wide fluctuations in the price of oil. Indeed, last weekend it was said that oil was being bought at something like 18 dollars a barrel. One can only think that if the world price went up to that level, there would not be any motor manufacturers in this country because nobody could afford to run a car. With that in mind,

323
we are entitled to know from the Government to what figure the price is expected to rise. If the price is going to rise, would the Government take into consideration that the tax on a gallon of petrol is enormous? It is getting nearly into the whisky range, and that is bad enough. Instead of putting up the price, would the Government consider, for a change, cutting the tax in order to keep the price down? I merely put that forward as an idea. It may not work—I do not know—but it is one of the ideas that the Government had better consider.
While we raise no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, we say quite firmly and sincerely to the Government, "Do not come back again asking for these powers and seeking to put the blame on the miners and the electrical engineers of this country; put it on the shoulders of the sheikhs who have imposed this decision upon us."
3.7 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT or WHITLEY: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for being about to ask him a number of questions of which I have not given notice. This is partly because, as he knows and through no fault of his own, this Bill has been very rushed and we have had only a short time to look at it. Indeed, although we had already started to do our homework, we received the Bill formally in this House only this morning. I regret to say that since then the noble Lord's telephone has been engaged all morning, proving that a Ministry, even without portfolio, is extremely busy. I shall understand completely if the noble Lord is not able to answer immediately all the questions I shall be asking, though a number of them are questions for which we would expect the Government to have fairly full answers already worked out.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, while regretting the necessity for this Bill, we support it. Only the Government can decide whether petrol rationing is going to be necessary; it is one of those difficult judgments that Governments are required to make. As has been pointed out, in any system short of actual rationing there are considerable unfairnesses and inconveniences in attempts to cut down the allocation of petrol in this country. These
324
problems have already been felt. If we should require petrol rationing, it would be a pity to have gone through a period of time when these unfairnesses, and the advantages which are taken of them by some unscrupulous people, can take place. That is not to say that even under rationing there will not be some loopholes which ought to be stopped. At a recent social function a friend of mine was shocked when one or two of the people present who were involved in industry said that they were not worried about petrol rationing because all they had to do was to buy a few motor cars, draw the petrol ration for them, and then sell the cars when rationing was over and write down the loss to the firm. This is something that the Government will be trying to stop, and I hope that they succeed. But far worse things are happening if we go on with a period of shortage without rationing. What I should really like to know is how much of the essential cost of introducing a rationing system has already been committed by the issuing of ration books. Is it, in fact, a fairly large percentage, so that the actual introduction of rationing would not mean a great deal more expense?
The next question that I should like to ask really relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was asking. I agree very largely with his speech on the subject of the miners. To return to a point that I was making on a Statement just recently, our view on these Benches is that Stage 3 is fundamentally misconceived; that it should have been a much tighter stage of control, but that there should have been a quite definite and broader loophole than the ones that exist one broader loophole to deal with special cases. The fact remains that since the oil embargo there is a very special case for the miners and the whole mining industry, on a long-term as well as on a short-term basis. We are not now talking about something that could airily be called "blackmail"; we are talking about what has to be paid in terms of wages in the mining industry in order to retain the work force that this country needs. I would ask the noble Lord whether the suggestion made on the front page of the New Statesman last week, that Clause 4 of this Bill would, in fact, enable the Government to exempt the mining industry from Stage 3, is

325
true. If it is true, would they not look at the subject again not, as I say, as a matter of trying to find a loophole through Stage 3 in a general manner, but because quite generally the whole situation with regard to fuel supply has changed?
While I am on the subject, may I make a small remark on the question of whether the miners are in any way breaking the law? Of course they are not. I think it is worth making the point that as soon as this particular crisis is over the Government must look at the whole problem of the structure of industry and the place of overtime in it. It is totally ridiculous that merely by banning overtime workers should be able to bring an industry to a halt, or slow it down. The whole subject should be looked at again, and this should have been done by any Government—it should have been done over a period of time, at any time since the war.
I would join the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in asking about the future of oil prices. He has asked that question fully, and I will not therefore add to it, except possibly to ask a question about future oil reserves. In addition to the matter of prices, I think we are entitled to know whether the Government have plans to create large stategic reserves in future, granted that we may be moving into a period—we certainly are moving into a period—where energy is getting to be a real problem. We may be moving into a period where the oil supply will be used more and more as a weapon in foreign affairs.
Returning to the Bill, I should like to ask about the Government's attitude to the problems of rural transport. I know they are aware—they have already said so—that the whole pattern of life in the countryside has changed since the last time petrol rationing was brought in, but we have not yet, I think, had any plans or any signs that they propose to do anything very much about it. We all know now that country villages are much more dependent on private transport than they were before; much more dependent than are the people who are living in the towns and suburbs. We are entitled to ask what will be done to help people living in the remote countryside?
326
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, put forward a healthy and fairly full defence of the idea that this Bill, unlike others before it, is going to be put into cold storage; and that in future, if the Government want to exercise these powers, they can do so at any time by an Order in Council, although it has to come to Parliament within 28 days. I wonder whether that is necessary. It is an attitude, I think, of turning to emergency legislation which is to be deplored in general, and I should have thought that, the noble Lord would have had to make out a much better case for it than even he has been able to do. We on these Benches remain opposed to that particular provision. I would also ask whether under this Bill imprisonment is really necessary as a penalty. It is a question which I have not investigated deeply, but I think that whenever the penalty of imprisonment is provided in a Bill like this, it is, in fact, up to the Government to explain exactly why. We know that our prisons are too full, and that prison is not necessarily the best way of dealing with this kind of offence.
That, my Lords, is really the end of my detailed questions about the Bill. To sum up, I think it is quite clear that while a large part of this crisis is not the fault of the Government, a certain amount of it is. If they had devised a better Stage 3, if they had had better policies in the first half of their period of office so far, we should not be in the kind of mess we are in now. Although we have to support the Bill we do not like it and we are not happy or grateful about it. We do not wish to have to show the Dunkirk spirit, although we are prepared to do so if we have to. We do not want to say, as a Dickens character,
"O, let us love our occupations,
"Bless the squire and his relations,
"Live upon our daily rations
"And always know our proper stations."
We went better than that in future. But that really is another story, and I hope it is one that my noble friend Lord Avebury will be taking up in the debate on energy which we shall be holding in this House on Wednesday. In the meantime, my Lords, reluctantly we support this Bill.
3.18 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, having listened to the noble

327
Lord, Lord Hoy, as one would expect, he made out a case for the mineworkers to show that they are not breaking the law. Of course, we all agree with him. But I thought it less than fair to my noble friend when he implied that what the miners were doing had no real effect on the present crisis. I bet to differ from him.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I did not say anything of the kind to the noble Lord, who is a very good friend of mine. What I was saying was that the Government should not use the miners' strike, or the work-to-rule, as an excuse for the denial of oil supplies to this country by the sheikhs of the Middle East.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I go along with the noble Lord, but I said that I thought he implied it: I did not say that he said it. But I will not quibble over a few words. The fact is that a great many of our generating stations, currently being run on oil, are capable of being switched over to solid fuels. If they cannot take advantage of that, then it has a bearing on the whole matter that we are discussing. That is the point I want to make.
But I should like to have a broader statement from my noble friend on how far the situation takes us. When one hears of ships meeting bunkering difficulties abroad, speeds having to be reduced two or three knots, in time this can be cumulative and will affect the delivery of our exports. There are many problems of that nature about which I think the House should be told. I am a director of a small air freight company. We do not carry passengers at all. Every ounce of cargo that we take out of this country is an export. Our supplies have been cut. It seems that the freight companies have been put in the same category as the charter companies carrying holiday makers to Spain and elsewhere. That is the kind of thing that I think ought to be looked into by the Government. Why is it that some filling stations are shorter of fuel than others? Is my noble friend satisfied that distribution is all that it should be? I have even heard it suggested that the privately-owned filling station is having a worse deal than those owned by the oil companies. This happened in America last year. where the small man
328
was being squeezed out at the expense of the large oil companies' garages. I should like an assurance on that point from my noble friend.
I think that when the country is told frankly what is expected of it the British people usually respond. I was impressed, late last night coming up from the country, by the discipline of drivers. Over a distance of 30 or 40 miles I did not see one driver travelling at over 50 m.p.h. It was steady, orderly trallic. I believe that in this whole unfortunate business we have to tell the people very frankly, almost daily, where they stand. They want the facts, and I believe that if my noble friend will put the facts before the nation he will get a response from them.
3.21 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the House is obviously disposed to accept this Bill, and I am grateful for that. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said but I am not sure that he is really on very good ground if he thinks that the miners' restriction (or whatever you like to call it) on overtime, their unwillingness to work overtime, is having no effect on our supplies. If they are having an effect, then of course it is all part of the same picture.
LORD HOY: The noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so, must not say that. I did not say anything of the kind; and the noble Lord must not get out of his own argument by trying to accuse me of making one that I never made. What I said was that the decision not to export oil to this counry and to the countries of the E.E.C. was made by the sheikhs in the Arabian States, not by the miners of this country. If the noble Lord wants to come to this House and to the nation and ask us to take measures to deal with this situation, all I am saying to him—and in case he did not understand, let me repeat it—was: do not let him seek to put the blame on the miners of this country.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was very careful not to put the blame on the miners of this country. I mentioned the National Union of Mineworkers' action and the E.E.P.A.'s action, and combined that with the anxieties about the oil situation—and it is a fact that all these are combined. The noble Lord must give due weight to the fact that to quite a considerable extent the various sources of fuel are interchangeable.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I did not say anything other than that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If that is so, my Lords, any shortage of coal at any given time is going to bear on the availability of oil. For example, the consumption of fuel oil in the power stations is of course closely related to coal burn. I am advised that if the two generating systems had been able to receive uninterrupted coal supplies throughout the winter—that is, from October 1 to March 31 next—the saving in fuel oil as compared with last winter's use would have been of the order of 41 million tons.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is going a little too far, if I may say so. If he wants to argue Phase 3 of the Government's programme, let him do so in that context; but I would advise him not to use the debate on this Bill for that purpose. Perhaps he does not want to get this Bill through. I do not know—it is for the noble Lord to make up his own mind. But to use a debate on Phase 3 of the Government's economic policy to justify this particular Bill is, I think, going a little too far.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am trying to convey to the noble Lord that fuels are interchangeable, that they are all interlocking, and that it is the general situation that we have to look at. It is a fact that the output of coal in the last fortnight or so has been between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. below the normal level. This is a very serious consideration which we have to take into account, and I did not do more than say that this was part of the general situation. I certainly made no attack whatsoever: I merely pointed to the realities of the situation and then sought to draw the conclusions of the action that we must take in accordance with those realities.
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me how garages can know what they are going to get, which is a very fair question. Of course, the general reduction of 10 per cent. in supplies applies all round, to everyone. It may be—and this is possibly also in part the answer to my noble friend—that in the past some garages, perhaps the smaller garages, have been getting supplies from some zone other than their normal supplier. I do not know, but I am told that that sometimes
330
happens. But when one is restricted to 10 per cent. less than one's normal supplies, it may well be that there is a greater drain on some garages than on others. This is a situation which is very difficult to control by the very nature of the distribution industry. One sees at many garages at the present time notices saying, "Regular customers only, please." But this is of course something that cannot be wholly adhered to because, no matter how regular customers are, they do not always buy all their oil supplies from the same garage. So this is a difficult problem. I recognise that it is difficult, but it is in order that everyone should get a fair supply that drivers must cut down by 10 per cent. on what they were getting before.
My Lords, the noble Lord accuses me of saying things that I did not in fact say—
LORD HOY: My Lords, there is another aspect to this. I am told (I do not know, and the Minister may or may not be able to confirm this) that when a garage man who orders petrol feels that he has not got the supply to which he was entitled there is some tribunal to which he could appeal. I am told that in one particular case the owner of a garage I know wanted to make an appeal but that there was not an appeal tribunal. What is the position in this respect?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is no appeal tribunal. One can appeal to the regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry, and they will make inquiries to see what help they can give. The noble Lord then said that my honourable friend in another place—I think he meant my honourable friend the Minister for Industry—said that there was no danger of rationing.
LORD HOY: To supplies.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought the noble Lord said rationing, and I beg his pardon. He said there was no danger to supplies. My Lords, I wish that were so; but we have to take into account the facts as they are. The noble Lord will be well aware that the Saudi Arabians have said that we could receive by way of supplies either the average of what we were receiving over the first nine months of the year or the amount we received in September, whichever is the higher. It so

331
happens that September is the higher, but September is not a high month for imports. The imports tend to come in towards the end of the year, which is the period of the highest consumption. Moreover, had it not been for the present oil situation consumption would have gone up because consumption has been showing a tendency to go up. If we take these two factors together there is a considerable shortfall at the moment, and we cannot be sure how the future situation is going to work out. The Saudi Arabians can have some title to speak for all the Arab States, but they cannot completely bind the rest of the Arab States, and certainly not the rest of the world. There is a world shortage of oil, and within that context it is obvious that our future supplies are not as assured as we should like them to be.
The noble Lord talked about price. It is of course a fact that the price we have to pay for the oil went up by 70 per cent. in October, and this has not yet been fully reflected, certainly in the prices that are being paid by consumers in this country. But the consumers cannot be insulated indefinitely from the effect of such increases. So far, in this country the increases have been limited to an average on petroleum products of about lip per gallon—an increase in April last and a further increase of 1½p in October. In some cases the companies have made considerably greater increases on individual products because they are able to even them out over their whole production. There has so far been no increase in oil prices in this country reflecting the October 16 crude oil price increase. Such increases are a matter for the Prices Commission under the Prices and Pay Code and are therefore outside the Department's immediate responsibility. So I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's question on that point; all I can do is to tell him what the situation is.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked how much of the essential cost of introducing rationing has already been committed. The main cost of any rationing system must lie in the administration—the number of people employed in it. The cost of advertising the system, issuing the books and so on is a minor cost compared with the total cost of running the rationing scheme if it is to last
332
for any time. The noble Lord asked whether Clause 4 would allow the Government to exempt the miners from the provisions of the Counter-Inflation Act, or rather from the Code. It would not, of course, because if he looks at Clause 4 he will see that we are dealing there with the Price Commission and not with the Pay Board. It is on prices that the Secretary of State can act; he could not, as the Bill is drafted, act on pay, nor, for that matter, would it be desirable that he should. The whole basis of the Counter-Inflation Act is that it should be and should appear to be fair to all, and if you exempted one particular group of workers you would be under attack from other groups—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, himself pointed out or implied in his speech the last time we debated this subject. The miners have a very—I do not like to use the word "generous" but I should have thought acceptable offer because of the form in which they are able to use the provisions of the Code, and we all hope, I am sure, that they will avail themselves of it.
The possibility of using this counter-inflationary period to revise the structure of the whole industry is one which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, did not advocate. He very sensibly, if I may say so, said that the Government should look at the whole structure of industry to reduce reliance on overtime after this period is over. The understanding on which overtime is worked in the coal mines and on which the whole working of the coal mines depends dates back to 1949. It may be unsatisfactory now, but it is difficult to change it in the middle of a counter-inflationary period, and I entirely accept the noble Lord's suggestion.
He asked about rural transport. There are some ways in which it should be possible to help here, and indeed Clause 4 is intended to do so—for example, the use of school buses, the pooling of the cost of running cars, the sharing of cars and the sharing of the cost and even fare paying will all be possible. We certainly recognise that there are very special problems in rural areas and we shall look at this subject very closely. The noble Lord then asked whether imprisonment is really necessary under this Bill. My Lords, I think that most people in a period of rationing would regard taking personal

333
advantage at the expense of one's fellows as a serious offence. Indeed, I believe that in some countries it was an offence which met with the death penalty during war time. I should doubt whether the country as a whole would be with the noble Lord in feeling that in some cases imprisonment would not be an appropriate penalty.
My noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury asked about air charter flights, with particular reference I think to the Christmas season. Obviously this kind of use of aviation fuel is of a lower priority than some other uses on which the country may depend very much more; nevertheless, I think one must have regard to contracts which have been entered into. We are looking into the whole situation but I cannot say more about it to-day. The position here will clearly have to be considered carefully. My Lords, I think I have covered all the points that have been raised and I should like to say once again that I hope the whole country will realise that we are very much all in this together, and that people will accept this Bill in the spirit in which the Government intend it, which is to safeguard the wellbeing of the country.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Prohibition on stopping of vehicles at urban junctions]:
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("30") and insert ("15").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment concerns the new distance regulations for
334
the stopping of vehicles at urban junctions to improve the driver's range of vision. I approve of this in principle but I must admit that I quarrel with the actual distance specified in the proposed regulations. Extensive prohibition will greatly reduce the available street parking space with junctions in close proximity, especially when street parking to-day is at a premium. In this regard, some years ago, during the passage of the Transport Bill, with the great help of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, I managed to get an Amendment through the House which provided that surplus monies after parking meter maintenance had been incurred through the fines paid to meters was put towards extra parking facilities in London. Unfortunately local authorities and Governments have paid not the slighest attention, and no effort has been made, so far as I can see, to provide the extra parking facilities we so badly need.
That is one of the reasons why I feel very concerned about the actual distance of 30 yards, because any space of this nature is very important to a motorist when he experiences difficulty in finding a parking space at the present time. Successive Ministers, I think I am right in saying, have already suggested 20 yards and 15 yards; and now it is back at 30 yards. I would say that a sensible compromise would be something like 15 yards. That is the distance that I should have thought would adequately provide sufficient vision on either side of the junction and at the same time would enable motorists to find that extra little bit of parking space that is so important in a crowded city like this, and also would enable tradesmen of different kinds to find space to park their vehicles. I am therefore hoping that Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it is necessary for this proposed parking ban to be quite so extensive as 30 yards, and I beg to move that it be not more than 15 yards and not less than 5, which is already in the regulations.
LORD SOMERS: May I just say that I entirely support this Amendment. I think that 15 yards is adequate; it is quite a fair distance. Anyone who cannot see past a car 15 yards away to note whether there is other traffic approaching ought to have an eye test.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I support my noble friend in his Amendment, mainly on the question of delivery vans. Real problems are caused over deliveries in city centres, and these would be considerably aggravated were the distances set down in the Bill maintained. It is disappointing that only last week it was announced that the Government were going to reduce the amount of money to be expended on urban road development and we all admit that most of the congestion occurs in the urban areas. The limit as set down in the Bill would add greatly to such congestion. It would appear that a delivery van driver may have to park his vehicle at such a distance that he would have as much as 70 yards to traverse in order to make a delivery. Whether the goods are carried that sort of distance or wheeled on some kind of a barrow would result in the delivery van remaining in a waiting position for that much longer. If the Government could see some way to reduce the distance I think that a considerable amount of congestion could be avoided.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: The noble Lords who have spoken to the Amendment have made the point that they regard 15 yards as being more than a sufficient distance on either side of a junction. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the particular point about the parking of cars. This is not necessarily what many people are considering. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about delivery take-ups is one which common sense demands must be kept in view. We have to bear in mind that what we are trying to do is to reduce the number of vehicle-to-vehicle accidents which, as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said during the Second Reading debate, caused 6,270 casualties in 1972 alone.
When we say in this clause
"… such distance of an urban junction as may be specified in the regulations, being a distance of not more than 30 and not less than 5 yards"
it must be remembered that these regulations may prescribe the actual length of the ban on different classes of junctions. The distance is not fixed at 30 yards. It is envisaged that the ban will normally run for 15 yards from a corner on Class A and B roads and for 10 yards on other roads, that is C roads and unclassified
336
roads. It is considered that for some junctions a normal length of 10 yards or 15 yards may not be sufficient because of the character of the junction layout. For example, at a widely splayed junction the normal length would not reach adequately into arms of the junction. Therefore in subsection (2)(e) provision is made for the regulations to provide in this type of case that the appropriate authority should have power to increase the length of the ban where road safety considerations made this desirable, but not for longer than the maximum of 30 yards.
Local authorities will to be allowed to use their discretion in the procedure adopted for exercising their powers to extend the length of the stopping bars but they will be required to consult the police. Already, authorities have similar powers to decide local traffic orders, such as where and for what length yellow-line parking restrictions may be necessary, and there is no reason to think that they will use this new power in any other but a responsible way. I hope that on reflection the noble Earl will consider that this is a flexible matter and that the local authorities will use their powers sensibly and not to the detriment of the general public.
EARL HOWE: I fully acknowledge that this idea is more flexible than I thought. I do not even like the idea of an authority being given permission to extend the parking distance to 30 yards. That was the point I wanted to make. I do not propose to press the matter further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.47 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 28, at end insert ("or in order to show reasonable consideration for other road users").
The noble and learned Lord said: This raises a small point not wholly devoid of principle, but it is not a point on which I would think it justifiable to take up much of the time of the Committee. Noble Lords have just been reminded of the object of this clause. In subsection (4) one finds that the regulations which may prohibit stopping within a certain distance of an urban junction are not to

337
prohibit stopping in certain defined circumstances. The circumstances are defined in paragraphs (a) to (e). Then there is another, as it were, sweeping-up provision with which the subsection ends. I draw attention to the last two situations. The first is:
"Where the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control."
That is rather an extreme situation. I do not know what is contemplated; whether it is assumed that the driver may have got into a skid and is unable to stop the car however hard he tries. That perhaps is the sort of situation. The last one is:
"or it is necessary for him to stop in order to avoid an accident."
That surely posits that unless he does stop there will be an accident. That again is rather an extreme situation.
All I seek to import is what I may perhaps describe as a "safety valve". I submit that it is open to consideration whether it would not be desirable, in order to prevent tempers being frayed and to permit reasonable courtesy in the user of our roads, to say that a regulation is not to insist upon a driver not stopping if he wants to stop and thinks that he ought to stop in order, to use the phrase in the Amendment,
"to show reasonable consideration for other road users."
It may be said against me that that is rather a vague phrase and it may be difficult to determine what is the precise effect of the regulation. If so, I hope that a more precise phrase may be found to substitute for it. I began by saying that the point was a short one, and I do not wish to take time on it. I certainly would not press it to a Division, but I should like to leave it as a thought with the Government, in order that they may consider whether it is possible slightly to tone down the rather extreme qualities of the situation which they describe in the language they use, in which a driver is permitted to go on notwithstanding the regulations.
LORD CHAMPION: All I would say in addition to the point made so well by my noble and learned friend is that I think every driver of a motor vehicle is aware from time to time of circumstances arising where, without actually offending against the Highway Code or
338
any regulation, he stops in order to show courteous consideration to other road users. I am sure that we have all done that in our driving careers. Such action, in my opinion, is invaluable and tends very much towards road safety.
I do not know what other noble Lords feel about it, but I must admit that when a lack of consideration is shown to me by other road users I tend to have feelings of annoyance and frustration arising from that lack of consideration. Those feelings, in my opinion, tend very much towards causing road accidents. If I drag along for miles and miles behind a vehicle arid find that I cannot pass him, eventually frustration gets the better of me, and unless I take a very tight grip on myself I tend to take a chance and pass that vehicle—I say that I tend to, but of course I do not, being a good driver and conscious of the fact that it is up to me to show a good example. But these feelings definitely exist, and I think my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is absolutely right in asking that there shall be imported into this clause the words that he is proposing.
LORD AIREDALE: I have in mind a specific example which I think justifies this Amendment. Supposing a driver is driving along and sees some way ahead of him a pedestrian crossing the road—the pedestrian may be elderly and not have the best of eyesight, and it may be after dark. The motorist can see quite well that merely slowing down will be satisfactory and that no accident will occur, but he can also see that the pedestrian is not happy about the situation, and he is quite sure that the only way to make the pedestrian happy about it is for him to stop. That situation would seem to me to justify the Amendment.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: At first sight, this is an attractive proposition. To show due consideration cannot be anything but admirable, and even the noble Lord, Lord Champion, after driving for many miles behind his juggernaut is still showing due consideration in restraining himself. But in this Amendment we are concerned with a clause which deals only with the position at urban junctions. In this case I think there is no question of overtaking between thirty and five yards short of the urban

339
junction—at least, I hope there is not. Although the idea is attractive, we feel that this Amendment is unnecessary as the situations to which it could relate are already covered in the general dispensation to stop in order to avoid an accident. If, for example, to refer to what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Airedale, when giving way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road or teetering just in the road, or even to another vehicle which wishes to cross his path, a driver stops he can quite truthfully say that he is stopping for the sake of road safety and only secondarily out of consideration for the other road user. Road safety is an excuse which will always be accepted under Clause 6.
I submit to your Lordships that the Amendment as worded would also require a definition of "reasonable consideration". If the Amendment is inserted, how are we to define "reasonable consideration"? It is not an easy thing to do. It would be interpreted differently by different motorists. Therefore we feel that such a position would be not only difficult to enforce, but possibly open to abuse; that is, avoiding a ban. The drafting of an Amendment which embodied the intention of the present Amendment, but avoided its pitfalls, would, I am advised, pose considerable difficulties. Provision of this kind has never been considered necessary in similar legislation —for instance, the ban on stopping at pedestrial crossing regulations, and motorway regulations—and there is no reason to believe that the legal climate has changed in any way in this respect. Therefore I hope the noble and learned Lord will not consider it necessary to insist on this Amendment.
LORD FOOT: Perhaps I may deal at once with the two arguments put forward by the noble Lord in opposition to this Amendment. His second point was that to import these words into the Bill would present the courts with difficulty because it is difficult to interpret the words "driving with reasonable consideration" and to define what is "reasonable consideration". I do not foresee any difficulty of that kind, because already under the section in the Road Traffic Act dealing with careless driving a person can be convicted either for driving without due care
340
and attention or driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. If it is possible for magistrates' courts, as they do daily in great numbers, to decide whether a person has been driving without reasonable consideration for other road users, what is the difficulty confronting them in deciding that a person has driven with reasonable consideration for other road users? There is no greater difficulty in the one case than in the other.
Then the noble Lord said that if, in the circumstances referred to by my noble friend, a person stops, he would be excused under this clause for doing so because he would be stopping in the interests of road safety. Unless I have misread this subsection completely, there is no such defence in the subsection. There is nothing in it to say that you are justified if you stop in the interests of road safety. What it says, in the material part, is that you are justified if it is necessary to stop in order to avoid an accident. That is quite a different matter, and it does not cover the case put forward by my noble friend; that is, to stop not because it is necessary to do so to avoid an accident, but to stop in order not to increase the apprehension or anxiety of the imaginary pedestrian who may be crossing your path. Therefore, on both grounds it seems to me that the answer put forward by the Government to this Amendment is inadequate, and I hope the noble Lord may even now be prepared to reconsider the matter.
3.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hope the noble Lord will think a little more about this Amendment. I agree with the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, say that courtesy was secondary to avoiding accidents. I should have thought that courtesy was the basis of avoiding accidents. I should like to put to the noble Lord a particular example which has become fairly normal practice in this country. If you come to a place where cars are crossing, it is a common practice to put on your lights to indicate that a car in a side road may pass in front of you. As I say, this has become rather the normal practice; but under this clause it will be illegal, because you are not doing so in order to avoid an accident, but merely as an act of courtesy. You are putting

341
on your lights and indicating that if the other driver wants to come in from the side road on to the main road he is free to do so. There is no question of avoiding an accident; it is merely to allow a car to get through which otherwise will be held up. That is an act of courtesy which I suggest under the wording here will be made improper.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I will certainly consider what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have said. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will be aware, I am not a lawyer, but to drive dangerously or carelessly is in itself an offence which I do not think this clause would excuse in any way whatsoever. I do not think that we are in conflict with what he said. To avoid an accident, as I thought I had said, is to be concerned for road safety. If you think an accident could occur because a pedestrian is a waverer or a "haverer", whichever word you may care to choose, you would take road safety into consideration in order to avoid an accident. Courtesy is vitally important—it is a matter of manners—but I should have thought that avoiding an accident should be put above courtesy in this context, purely because the one could involve mutilation, if not death, and it is obviously a vital thing.
As to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, we must remember that the main purpose of roads is for the transporting of traffic. At many road junctions there are lights which are geared to sensible controls, and it is unusual for pedestrians not to get a fair chance to cross. If every motorist proceeding down a street in traffic saw somebody for whom he felt sorry—perhaps an injured or an old person—and took his own line on this, it could cause unnecessary hold-ups. The Bill is designed to avoid this sort of thing. Subsection (4) gives various reasons for stopping, and this seems to me to be reasonable. Most junctions which need them have crossings for pedestrians. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I should have thought that avoiding accidents is included in the intention behind the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
BARONESS BIRK: With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has answered the point raised by the noble
342
Lord, Lord Foot—that is on the definition of "reasonable consideration". As the noble Lord said quite rightly, if it is an offence to drive without reasonable consideration, why should it not be possible to define "reasonable consideration"? I do not think the noble Lord has answered that point.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I said earlier that I was advised that to put the word "reasonable" into legal language would be very difficult, because it could be interpreted differently by different people. I shall certainly ask my right honourable friend and his legal advisers to reconsider this matter, but at the moment I am advised that it is difficult to see how this could be satisfactorily worded.
LORD SEGAL: I wonder whether I may put to the noble Lord another type of road user, who is not necessarily a pedestrian. I refer to the disabled driver of a three-wheeled vehicle who is returning home after a heavy day's work in a sheltered occupation. There may be no question in this case of avoiding an accident, but it may be necessary to have an additional clause in the Bill in order that perhaps rather more than reasonable consideration may be exercised in a case such as I have outlined; that is, where stopping would relieve the driver, who is disabled or returning home after a day of considerable strain, of added nervousness or anxiety. As I say, there is no question here of avoiding an accident, but why add to the strain which a disabled driver may be undergoing if he were using the road in these conditions?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I really do not see why a disabled driver in his car should be treated differently from other drivers. He must be able to drive, otherwise he would not he given a licence, and therefore I do not see why he should be felt to be endangered if he tried to stop. If exceptions were made, it seems to me to be going against exactly what we are trying to stop. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord is asking that he should be able to park and get out or whether, if he has some special sign on his car, he should be given some special priority because he is disabled.
LORD SEGAL: I am sorry if I did not make my point quite clear. It is not a question of avoiding an accident, but I

343
think some extra provision should be made to enable a driver to exercise due consideration in exceptional cases even when an accident is not involved.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I am still not quite clear as to his point. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord is asking me to consider, because so far as I can see avoiding an accident would apply to all vehicles and even to property. "Avoiding an accident" is a very wide phrase. I am not quite sure what special point in regard to the disabled driver the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD SEGAL: Simply that his is perhaps a special case in comparison with that of a pedestrian, where due consideration ought to be given to this type of road user, even where there is no question of an accident being likely to occur.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: If I may say so with respect, I think this is a trivial point. It does not follow, even if a driver is driving a three-wheeled car, that he is necessarily disabled. If he is in the traffic flow moving with other traffic, he has to obey the traffic laws just as any other driver. If you are at a junction and a driver wishes to cross over in front of you. I think perhaps you would not be exercising wise judgment in giving way unnecessarily and thereby holding up the traffic behind you.
LORD STOW HILL: If I may say so, I do not really think that the answer we have had from the noble Lord is a satisfactory one. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out language very like the language which, in the event, is actually used for creating the offence of careless driving, and if the courts are expected to interpret that sort of language in order to adjudicate in a particular case whether the offence of careless driving has been committed, I should have thought it was perhaps not asking too much to interpret similar language in this context. I think that the considerations urged by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, were very relevant and cogent in this regard. However, the noble Lord who answered for the Government said that he would give further consideration to this matter and that he would
344
consult his advisers further upon it. I should be grateful if he would do that.
I do not really agree with him that the language in the subsection covers the case of exercising reasonable consideration for other road users. I would again, if I might, remind him of the actual language which is used. The relevant words in the subsection are:
"It is necessary—"
—and I stress the word "necessary"—
"…for him to stop in order to avoid an accident."
A truthful and honest driver may have to admit in cross-examination that he thought that if he did not stop he would be inconveniencing other people, or that perhaps if he did not stop there might have been a slightly greater risk of an accident taking place than if he had stopped. If that is all he can say in his own defence then, under the wording that is used, he will be guilty of an offence if this language is important. In order to excuse himself, with the language which is imported into this subsection, it has to be shown on his behalf that it was not necessary—and again I stress "necessary"—to stop. The logical corollary of that is that had he not stopped there would in fact have been an accident: in other words, it could not have been said that it was necessary for him to stop. The word is not "desirable" for him to stop, or "prudent" for him to stop, or "wise" for him to stop—the word is the extreme word "necessary". If he did not stop there would have been an accident, so that the stopping was the inevitably necessary step he had to take in order to avoid an accident. That is extreme language, language which I submit to the Committee ought to be modified and qualified in this context. I hope that, when the noble Lord considers the matter with his advisers, he will give serious thought to that language see whether it cannot be qualified in some sense so as to require the regulations to make provision to excuse the driver who, while he cannot say, "I had to stop because if I had not done so there would have been an accident", is in a position to say, "It would have been extremely discourteous of me not to stop; tempers would have been frayed." Anxiety could be caused—for example in the case mentioned of

345
the elderly lady crossing the road some distance ahead, who was not in fact in danger but might have thought she was. I press upon the noble Lord to think carefully about this language which, in my submission, is not appropriate language.
Having said that, as I intimated when I moved the Amendment, I hope that I may have the permission of the Committee to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
4.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Prohibition on stopping of motor vehicles on footways
(" . Any person, who without lawful authority, drives, draws or parks any motor vehicle of any description, or any part thereof, on a foot ay shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
The term "footway" in the above section means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public has a right of way on foot only.")
The right reverend Prelate said: The purpose of the new clause is to give statutory protection to the public against the growing nuisance caused by motor cars being parked on footpaths. I am President of the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety, and there is no subject about which we receive more representations from the public than the irritation caused by the growing practice of parking motor cars on footways. This is not only something that causes a great deal of irritation, it is also a cause potentially of danger. It often happens that the pedestrian is forced to walk out into the highway in order to get round motor cars that have been parked on the footway. This becomes even more necessary when prams are being pushed, or when there are invalid chairs being moved along the footpaths. It often happens that people have to go out on to the highway in order to get round motor cars that have been parked on the footway. This is a growing danger and I am sure that your Lordships are from time to time aware of it. It is something on which in my view the public are entitled to have the protection of the law.
I am instructed that the law on this matter is difficult to define. I am told that if a motor car completely blocks a footway then it is held that an obstruction has been committed; but in the case of Absalom v. Marlin it was held that where a motor car was only partially blocking a footway no offence had been committed. The law on this matter goes back to Section 2 of the Highways Act 1837 which lays down that an offence has been committed if anyone wilfully leads, or drives any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine or cattle or carriage of any description on to a footway. It does not deal with the question of parking, and I am told that the courts will not accept that a car which has been parked on a pavement has necessarily been driven there, though it is not revealed how it got there. In any case, I suggest that in these days, when the circumstances of the road are so entirely different from the circumstances 135 years ago, that this matter ought now to be clearly defined in the law.
I hope we shall not hear the argument that the state of the roads and the number of vehicles upon them are such that a vehicle must park on a footway in order that there can be any passage on the highway. This seems to me to be a completely illogical argument, as illogical as it would be to suggest that someone who cannot find space to build his house has therefore the right to pitch a tent on the highway. The footway is that part of the area provided for movement which is the prerogative of the pedestrians. I would contend that the motor car driver has no right to park his vehicle on that part of the freeway, and I hope that the law can be so adjusted as to give that kind of protection.
Last March, my right reverend friend the then Bishop of Hereford, asked a Question on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, replying, said:
"My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will consider legislation making it an offence to park on the pavement as soon as a suitable opportunity arises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/3/73; col. 1279.]
What better opportunity could there be for legislation on this subject than in this Bill? My Amendment gives opportunity for implementing the assurance that was given last March, and I trust therefore

347
that the new clause will prove acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SOMERS: I agree with a great deal of what the right reverend Prelate has said; and, as one who belongs to both the notorious classes of pedestrian and cyclist, I have a certain amount of sympathy with it. But I must point out that in cases where the road is very narrow it is much safer for a car to be put at least half-way on to the pavement in order that other cars may get by. Some roads are so narrow that if cars were parked entirely off the pavement it would be impossible for cars to pass, and certainly impossible for two cars to get by at the same time. There are many roads like that. Consideration of that fact must be given. The right reverend Prelate said that he was President of the Pedestrians' Association, and I wish that many pedestrians were as conscious as he is of the necessity for road safety. They seem utterly to disregard it; they seem to be unaware that anything else is on the road except themselves. But, of course, while everybody on the road is a road user, a parked car takes up a good deal more room than a passing pedestrian.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: I should like briefly to support the right reverend Prelate. While I recognise that motorists draw off the road and on to the pavement in an endeavour to give traffic more room on the road, I agree that pedestrians should have the entire right of way on the pavements. In this area of Westminster, at least, there are many institutes for the blind. These people are used to counting their steps and know their route by heart. When they come across vehicles in their path they are frightened and sometimes hurt. This is so to my knowledge in West-minister, and I am certain that the same applies in many other parts of the country. I should like to support the Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I wish very strongly to support the right reverend Prelate in his Amendment. I had not intended to speak, but I know that my noble friend Lord Terrington, had he been able to get here in time from the City, would have wished to support the right reverend Prelate very strongly and to give the example of what happens
348
nightly in the street in which he lives. Perhaps, therefore, I may quote the example given to me by my noble friend, who lives in a street that may be known to some noble Lords; Radnor Walk in Chelsea. As a matter of interest, I may add that the Poet Laureate also lives on the same side of the same street and suffers from the nuisances which I am about to describe.
Radnor Walk is a narrow street which is "one way" from South to North. On the one side of the street there are parking places. It would obviously be quite impossible for cars to park on the other side of the street and to leave any space for traffic to go down the middle. Therefore, in effect, the whole street has been made a parking lot. Every night those who wish to enjoy some of the amusements of the King's Road leave their cars in a continuous stream almost wholly on the pavement in front of the houses of Lord Terrington, the Poet Laureate and everybody else living in that street.
I often agree with the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, but I did not agree with a word of what he said to-day, for the simple reason that he seemed to think that what he said justified parking. Of course it does nothing of the sort. If one cannot park without going on to the pavement, thus being a nuisance to the inhabitants of the houses and endangering the pedestrians, who as my noble friend has just said, may be blind, then although this Bill is not, like the Bill we were discussing the other day, specifically designed to save the environment, we do not want to legalise, or to fail to find a remedy for, something that in effect is lowering the quality of life for everybody living in one of the smaller streets in London. If a stream of cars is left on the pavement it is an intolerable lowering of the quality of life in that street. Apart from that, the right reverend Prelate, who is such a master of the law on this subject that I should not dream of adding anything to his legal argument, presented a very cogent argument in quoting the answer given by Her Majesty's Government, who said that they would consider legislation when opportunity offered. Opportunity now offers. The right reverend Prelate has given the reason why this provision should be made law.

349
I should like to add one other thing. It is insufficient to make a new law unless the police are going to enforce it, but unless we make this change in the law there is nothing that it is in practice possible for the police to enforce. I am informed by the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, that in the case of Radnor Walk the quality of life of those who dwell there has been lowered by this practice, but the police will not, in the present state of the law, take any action whatsoever. I believe that if the law were to be amended as the right reverend Prelate asks that it should be amended, the police would enforce it, or Questions in this House would make it almost impossible for them not to enforce it. Unless the Government produce arguments against this provision which have not yet been put forward, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not withdraw his Amendment but that we shall make this very necessary amendment of the law.
LORD BARNBY: As one who has listened to all those who have spoken and has much sympathy for the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate, I suggest—perhaps in ignorance, but moving around I find reason for it—that with cars parked, whether on pathways or on roadways, in areas where there is poor lighting or no lighting at all, and in foggy weather, the absence of any lighting of the vehicle so parked constitutes a great danger to traffic. Therefore I hope that when my noble friend replies to this Amendment he will deal with the point about the lighting of vehicles parked on pathways or on roadways and whether there is any distinction about it. I cannot help calling to mind that in this House some years ago, on the passing of the Countryside Act, the Minister refused to indicate in the designation of the right of passage on common land, whether it should be on foot, on wheel or on horse. The ambiguity was a deliberate one, and in this case, as my noble friend has just said, I hope that whatever may be the decision there will not be deliberate ambiguity.
4.27 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: From this side of the Committee I should like also to support the right reverend Prelate. Indeed I had agreed in his absence to deal with the Amendment last week. I have
350
not the privilege of living in Radnor Walk, but I do live in the humble borough of Hammersmith, and I have the misfortune to live near a factory where double banking—and I think we must use the correct local colloquial term for this—is a constant menace. This is double banking not only of small cars but of large goods vehicles. Indeed, as I was leaving home last Thursday morning, with the idea of moving this Amendment, a large juggernaut nearly ran me down as I was walking along the pavement near the factory, in order that it might double bank on the pavement. That experience, of course, put me in exactly the right mood to move the Amendment in the House a little later.
I should like to emphasise one thing that the right reverend Prelate said: that, the present law is out of date. As a magistrate, one is confronted by this fact as other magistrates will know; that if a vehicle is wholly on the pavement one can possibly deal with it as an obstruction or in regard to a road junction, but it is extremely difficult to deal with vehicles that are half in the road and half on the footway. As I understand it, this is particularly the burden of the plea made by the right reverend Prelate to put the law right in this connection. This is an opportunity which I feel sure the Government will not miss. We in this House have an opportunity that we do not often get to change a Bill because we are dealing with it before the other place. So often we are told that we cannot interfere with a Bill which has gone through the Chamber of the elected representatives of the people and that we cannot dabble in these matters as they have dealt with the Bill satisfactorily. This is our opportunity, and I plead with the Government to pick up this very small but important clause in order to bring the law up to date.
I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that I usually agree with him, but I was rather startled when he seemed today to attack pedestrians. He seems to feel that most of them think of no one else. While pedestrians sometimes act as if they think they are the only people around, many motorists also are guilty of this. But we cannot legislate against other sections on those grounds. If there are narrow roads this would seems to be an argument not for

351
banning double banking, but for stopping cars from using them at all; or at any rate to have a one-way restriction. I plead with the Government to use this opportunity to include this new clause.
EARL HOWE: As the right reverend Prelate knows, I do not always agree with what his Pedestrians' Association says and does. The pedestrian can be a perfect menace to the motorist. Not only does the pedestrian seem to want the right of way of the pavement, but he appears to want it also on the highway. But I agree with this particular Amendment purely from the point of view of road safety. It is not generally known that when a car approaches a pavement with a particularly high kerb, that kerb can damage the side wall of a tyre to such an extent that within another 4,000 or 5,000 miles that tyre will be useless. Throughout our cities cars are driven on to the pavement, over the pavement and down again. It causes damage to the tyre and reduces the mileage. From that point of view I support the Amendment.
LORD GARDINER: I must disclose the fact that I am Vice President of the Pedestrians' Association, an Association I joined many years ago because, although I have been a lifelong motorist, it seemed to me that, in a conflict between a vehicle and a pedestrian, while the pedestrian was not likely to do a great deal of damage to the vehicle the motor car is still the biggest agency for causing death and injury in this country. I joined secondly because it seemed to me that the motorists were adequately protected by the Automobile Association and the R.A.C., and this very small Association is the only body representing pedestrians.
As I was coming to the House this morning, I started to count, but eventually gave up, the number of vehicles I passed which were parked, wholly or partly, on the pavement. It seems to be thought nowadays that if there is a road with a yellow line, it is all right to park provided that most of the car is not on the road but is on the footway. This seems to me wrong. For over 130 years we have had highways, and these highways are divided into the "carriageway" and the "footway". We are still using
352
the old terminology of the Highway Act 1835. While pedestrians sometimes have to cross roads, the proper place for vehicles is the carriageway and the proper place for pedestrians is the footway. As the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, the practice of parking cars on the footway is particularly dangerous to the blind. I know that the Pedestrians' Association have had a letter from the Secretary of the Law Commission (I think in his personal capacity) in which he says:
"Your proposal seems in principle to be eminently reasonable and an improvement of the existing position."
At least it is clear that they do not oppose it. I hope the Government may accept the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, before he sits down, would be kind enough to put my mind at rest. I think he said that more deaths and injuries are caused by the motor car in this country than by any other cause, whereas I believe it to be a fact that most deaths and injuries are caused by accidents in the home, completely unconnected with the motor car. I trust that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for putting that question to him.
LORD PLATT: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, the great majority of deaths of males from the age of 15 to 24 years are due to accidents, and three-quarters of those are due to motor accidents. If the noble Lord cares to read the Decennial Report of the Registrar General, which is 500 pages long, he will come across that piece of information. Although I am in general sympathetic to this Amendment, I think we have to take into consideration two quite separate circumstances. First, there is the motorist who, as noble Lords have said, thinks it is all right if he parks pretty well on the pedestrian part of the road, out of the way and not causing harm to the pedestrian. He parks his car there for as long a time as he likes. But there is another, quite different, circumstance: the case where a motorist breaks down in a country road. His car does not stop immediately, he has a certain momentum, and the first thing he does is to drive on to the pedestrian way. There it is safer. If the Amendment is going to be accepted, there should be

353
some wording in it which makes an exception of the situation where, for emergency purposes, because he has broken down, the motorist drives on to the pedestrian way.
BARONESS NORTHCHURCH: This is a matter in which I am interested, because I am in sympathy with the Amendment, but a problem does arise from the fact that many parts of London, as well as in other towns, there are narrow streets where parking is allowed officially on one side, leaving an area of road not large enough to allow two cars to pass. This means that if anyone has, for instance, to unload a vehicle in that road, that vehicle must be put partially on the pavement. It is right that one should not be allowed to park there; nevertheless, there are times when one needs to unload or pack a vehicle. At such times the vehicle has to be partially on the pavement in order to allow other cars to pass. The road in which I live, not far from here, is a one-way street. There is a great difference between parking, which should not be allowed for long periods, and the fact that vehicles must remain in the street for a short period when unloading. I am sure this point has been considered by those who have brought forward this Amendment, which is excellent in itself, but there are real problems of this kind all over the country where narrow streets still exist in old towns.
LORD FOOT: I hope it will not be misunderstood if I seek to come to the assistance of the Government on the assumption that the Minister will seek to resist this Amendment. I see the Minister nodding his head. I am in entire sympathy with the objects of this Amendment and do not dissent from it in any way on its merits, but I am doubtful whether the form of words used here is not going to introduce considerable difficulties for the interpretation of the law. All that the Amendment says is that:
"Any person who, without lawful authority, drives,…or parks",
and so on, on a footway, is then committing an offence. He is committing a summary offence to be dealt with and to be decided on by the magistrates. I suggest that in cases where a charge of this kind is brought, the magistrates will quite often be confronted with difficult legal considerations. Nowhere in the Amend-
354
ment is there any definition of what constitutes lawful authority for parking a car on a footway. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate and his Association have given consideration to this matter, but may I give just one illustration of the sort of difficulties that may arise, difficulties which will have to be resolved by magistrates?
Under the law of this land, as I understand it, if one is a freehold owner of a piece of land and has a house on it which abutts on a highway, in the ordinary way one is the owner (and this is a very complicated field of law) of the highway in front of the house up to halfway across, and is presumed to have dedicated the right of passage along the highway to pedestrians and indeed to vehicle owners. They have the right of passage over that part of the highway, and as long as they do not obstruct it but merely exercise their right of going up and down, they are all right. But suppose the owner of the house chooses to park his car in front of his own house on the footway, either wholly or partially on the footway, is he doing that with lawful authority or is he not? I suggest it could well be argued that he is doing it with lawful authority.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, shakes his head, but may I try to develop the point for a moment. If he is indeed the owner of the highway up to halfway across, then I suggest that the act of parking his car on the footway or on that part of the highway is not being done without lawful authority; it is being done with lawful authority, although it may offend against the criminal law because it constitutes obstruction of the highway. The actual parking is being done with lawful authority, because it is being done with his own authority; he is the legal owner of the land. Therefore, while I am in sympathy with the objectives which the right reverend Prelate wants to achieve, I very much doubt whether this is the proper way to do it. I certainly think that if this Amendment were to be carried in principle we should need to have some better definition of what constitutes lawful authority.
LORD CONESFORD: It had not occurred to me before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke that I ought to declare an interest. I think

355
I am and always have been a vice-president of the Pedestrians' Association.
LORD THOMAS: I should like to support the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Howe. I think this habit of parking on the pavements is not only bad for tyres but also imposes dangerous strains on the steering gear, the steering arms and stub axles and other vital parts of the machinery. I am all against it.
4.43 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: The right reverend Prelate can certainly congratulate himself on having caught the interest of the Committee with his Amendment, as I had a suspicion he would. I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, hit the nail on the head in his speech when he pointed out that this new clause would make it an offence to park a vehicle of any kind on a footway anywhere in the country. This Amendment does not just limit the prohibition to urban areas; it has no limits at all. As the right reverend Prelate said, there has been intermittent pressure for making parking of motor vehicles on footways an offence. As he said, in March, 1973, his right reverend colleague the Lord Bishop of Hereford got the answer which he said I gave, that the Government would consider legislation making it an offence to park vehicles on the footway as soon as a suitable opportunity arose. Following on that commitment which I gave, the position was reviewed and discussed with representatives of the Home Office and the police. The outcome of that review is a recommendation that the proposal should not be pursued, for the following reasons.
The most important reason is that local authorities already have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to introduce orders banning parking of vehicles on pavements either throughout their areas or on particular problem streets. That is in Section 1 for the country as a whole and Section 6 in the G.L.C. area. We have heard about Radnor Walk. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, did not read us an ode from the Poet Laureate giving us more details about it. There is one point I am slightly surprised about. We have heard that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, are both vice-presidents
356
of the Pedestrians' Association. I am sure your Lordships will find that all these streets have single or double yellow lines down them. Unless the Pedestrians' Association all go rambling after 6.30 at night and before 8.30 in the morning they will not find these streets encumbered with vehicles, because generally where there are yellow lines it is forbidden to park after 8.30 a.m. and before 6.30 p.m., let alone on the pavement. So let us limit what we are discussing to reality. It is during the hours of night or evening or early morning in these very congested streets. Parking on pavements, I have already said, is illegal; local authorities can, if they wish, ban parking on pavements even where there is no restriction on parking in the road, so the powers are available. It is really up to noble Lords, honourable Members in another place and members of the public who feel themselves aggrieved, to make their feelings known to the local authorities who represent them, because they have got the power.
A national ban does not necessarily make sense. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, made a useful point, for which I am grateful, that there are streets with wide pavements and narrow roads where parking on pavements not only helps the traffic flow but contributes towards road safety. There are many cases, such as narrow roads through pre-war council housing estates, where there are no garages, and many cars are parked half on and half off the pavement. The noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch, also made this point, for which I am grateful. In such streets the effect of a national ban would be to cause the local authority to ban parking altogether on the street, or at least down one side of it, which would be unpopular with the residents, or to risk a situation in which the street might become so blocked up by parked cars that access by an emergency vehicle could be delayed. For these reasons the police, who were consulted, were unanimously against this unlimited proposal. The Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act has already made it an offence for lorries to park on pavements except in certain specified and restricted circumstances. These vehicles were, of course, responsible for most of the damage and inconvenience which was done. I cannot help but sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. If I understood her aright, she

357
must live in a very grand area where there is room on pavements for double banking, including that of juggernauts.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: If I may interrupt the Minister—there is no room; that is the point. The vehicle mounts the pavement irrespective of whether there is room or not. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, before he enlarges his argument too much, that I find it rather pathetic if he thinks that nobody parks on double or single yellow lines because people are all so law-abiding. Let him take a ride down the Kings Road, Chelsea, any night and see how many people obey these laws. With regard to vehicles going on the pavement, the whole point is that drivers do not look to see whether it is narrow or wide. I see now that I have the misfortune to live in a special area.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I said that after 6.30 p.m. and before 8.30 a.m. the single yellow line generally does not apply. I think that reduces the point the noble Baroness is making. I was saying that if during the hours of daylight any car parks on the pavement where there are single or double yellow lines there is obviously an immediate offence. If it is causing an obstruction the police can tow the vehicle away, and the driver can be brought to book and to the courts. I apologise for misunderstanding the noble Baroness about her pavements and double banking. Where double banking obstructs traffic it is already an offence, and where the juggernaut goes on to the pavement, that is already an offence under the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act.
As with many other matters concerning transport, this is an issue which should be dealt with locally because local authorities understand the local problems. A national ban would restrict the present freedom of these authorities to allow or prohibit parking on pavements according to the needs of the local situation. On this issue, the arguments for local flexibility are strong both from a practical and political point of view. At a time when the emphasis is all on giving local authorities freedom to make their own decisions, this would appear a retrograde step. The right reverend Prelate said to me the other day, when we were discussing matters in general, that he felt local
358
authorities did not use the powers they have, and in situations which cause danger or inconvenience to pedestrians a ban would be appropriate. This is really a matter for local opinion to force the council to act. This does not make it a matter for national legislation because the powers are already there.
However, we can undertake to take the first opportunity of drawing this issue, and the steps which it is open for local authorities to take to deal with it, to the attention of these local authorities. This we are willing to do, and I am willing to give the guarantee that we will do that. I think that the assertion that the pavements are for the people and the roads for the vehicles, although a nice-sounding phrase with popular appeal, is not really a just one. It is a matter that should be dealt with locally, and let us encourage the local authorities, where necessary, to use this power and not use this heavy, sweeping juggernaut of an Amendment to deal with what is a comparatively small problem.
LORD BARNBY: May I tempt the noble Lord to make a reference to the point that I raised? If there is opposition to the Amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate—which, from the speakers who have given their views, appears to find much favour in the House —and the Government resist it and it does not succeed, does it not appear that the danger which may come from parking is in a different category if it is parking on a highway as against parking on a pathway? As is advanced by some, the absence of lighting at night on a parked vehicle in, say, foggy weather, can constitute danger, so is it likely that there would be any classification by the Government so that a vehicle parked on a pathway might be obliged to have lighting but this would not be imposed on a car parked on a highway?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I did not answer the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, because the whole of his speech, which he has re-emphasised, dealt with lighting regulations and not particularly with parking. I can answer any question on parking, but at the moment I am not able to answer him on lighting. If he would put his point on a more appropriate clause, I will answer him.
LORD POPPLEWELL: There seems to be a genuine difficulty over this. I have much sympathy for the right reverend Prelate in his Amendment, and at the same time I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who feels that the Amendment is too ambiguous to be allowed to go through in the way it is. Undoubtedly obstructing footpaths, particularly in towns, is absolutely absurd and something should be done about it. Then there is the point put forward by my noble friend Lord Somers about B roads, or even on some A roads, where a vehicle pulls up on the roadside so that the driver can go into a cottage or a house. In this case he really creates some difficulty, because the road is barely wide enough to take two passing vehicles. There are genuine difficulties on both sides, which perhaps some of us do not fully appreciate. The noble Lord said that the Government have discussed this matter consequent on the promise the noble Lord gave to the right reverend Prelate some time ago. Then he went on to say that, although they had discussed this matter with the local authorities, there was some suggestion of drawing the attention of the local authorities to this difficulty.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Not to the "difficulties"—to their powers.
LORD POPPLE WELL: Surely the difficulties would have arisen during the discussions at that particular time, so how much is that worth? Is there not a genuine difficulty here, and would not the noble Lord agree to look at this matter again to see whether a way can be found to meet these difficulties? This Bill is starting in this House, and before it goes through to the other place surely some thought can be given to all the implications involved, and some regulations devised that would meet the situation and the difficulties that we all know exist. The right reverend Prelate referred to a law of about 130 years ago which governs this type of situation. This law was passed long before motor cars were even thought about. Now, surely, is the time, particularly in view of the pledge that was so specifically given, for some further consideration to be given to defining more exactly the position of the law at the present moment, having in mind both the difficulties for the pedes
360
trian and the difficulties for the motorist. Very often, particularly in some of these B roads, it would be less dangerous to park partly on the footpath than it would to park on the road. On the other hand, on many occasions it is more dangerous to park partly on the footpath rather than wholly on the road. This seems such a simple matter when we talk about it, but the more we get involved, the more difficulties there are. I hope that the Government will agree to have another look at this point before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: On one small point, I think that the right reverend Prelate referred to the Highway Act 1837, but it is in fact the Highway Act 1835. With regard to the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, as to having a further look at this point, it may not be known to most noble Lords that there are at the moment discussions going on with the G.L.C., who are well aware of their powers. But as it is such a complicated matter they are in the process of producing a Private Bill which would have as its purpose the banning of parking on pavements in Greater London. This is being discussed at this moment with various bodies, such as the police, so it may not be necessary for the Government to take any action. We are talking about London, of course.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I appreciate the difficulties about London, but I am thinking of Corner Street in York, which the noble Lord will know. It is a beautiful and narrow street, and I want to preserve its character. As the noble Lord knows full well, it is a common occurrence for heavy vehicles to travel along the footpath the whole way along Corner Street. This does not apply only to London, but to everywhere.
EARL HOWE: I do not think that the noble Lord has referred to the road safety angle, which is terribly important. When I mentioned tyres, I meant tyres after 5,000 miles of use reaching such a state of imperfection from being continually run over kerbs that they can burst. My noble friend Lord Thomas, who is not here, has also referred to suspension and steering. The local authorities have great powers to look into questions of road safety, and I hope that if any discussions are to take place with

361
the Government as a result of this, attention will also be paid to the road safety angle.
LORD JACQUES: Would the noble Lord the Minister also bear in mind the disadvantage of relying upon local powers in a matter of this kind? Unless we are going to have a notice on every footpath saying whether a motorist can park there or not, then the motorist will not know what the parking conditions are not only in each town, but in each part of the town. That is a chaotic way of operating.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in support of my Amendment. I readily accept that there may be one or two aspects of it that need tidying up, such as something suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot. As regards the words in the clause, "without lawful authority…" I understand they were inserted in order to accommodate the
rights of certain local authorities and statutory undertakers who, in certain circumstances, have the right to go on to the footpaths. Generally speaking, I find myself in principle in conflict with what the noble Lord speaking for the Government has said. He is suggesting that in certain circumstances the prerogative of the pedestrian should be invaded by vehicles driving and parking on the footway. I hold that the pedestrian has as much right over the footway as the vehicle has over the highway. I cannot accept that in other than very exceptional circumstances vehicles should be allowed to park on footways. I am very sorry that the noble Lord has not been rather more flexible in his reply to my Amendment. Therefore, I am afraid I have no alternative but to press it.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ogmore, L.

Auckland, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Peddie, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Hanworth, V.

Popplewell, L.

Berkeley, B.

Howe, E.

Reigate, L.

Birk, B.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Killearn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Summerskill, B.

Clwyd, L.

London, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Collison, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Conesford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Mancroft, L.

White, B.

Fiske, L.

Milverton, L.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Amory, V.

Grantchester, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Annaly, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Northchurch, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Platt, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Courtown, E.

Hailes, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Craigavon, V.

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

Sandford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Daventry, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Stamp, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denman, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Derwent, L.

Limerick, E.

Teviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Thomas, L.

Elles, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Foot, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Garner, L.

Molson, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Glasgow, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 7 [Extension of offences to which fixed penalty procedure and duty to give information apply]:
5.11 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: Paragraph (b) of Clause 7(1) appears to be applying the fixed penalty procedure to contravention of certain orders, involving perhaps reserved bus lanes. Some of these lanes are reserved for taxis and buses only. Instructions to this effect are painted in white on the road surface, and in a low-slung car they are very difficult to read. Few motorists, in my experiences seem to pay much attention to the lanes. They are pushed into them by traffic on their offside going the same way. Drivers are certainly confused by this addition to the multitude of new regulations.
We have heard a great deal about Radnor Walk. I am going to refer for a moment to an experience of mine in Park Lane, at the southern end approaching Hyde Park Corner, on the way to your Lordships' House. I entered a lane which has been a bus lane for some considerable time and which is now, apparently, a taxi and bus lane only, about two-thirds of the way down. I followed two taxis on the understanding that it was a bus lane only because I had not noticed this rather absurd method of painting the distinctive marks on the road. I was stopped by a sergeant plus one at the end of the road, who told me that I had broken the law. I asked him how long this had been an order on the road, and he said for a very short while. This seems to me to be most confusing to motorists. It is very difficult because if you happen to be in a motor car which is of a very low-slung nature (that, I think is the technical term) you cannot see this mark very well. Also, there is the fact that apparently this road is in use as a bus and taxi lane only between the hours of, I think, seven o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the afternoon. I wonder how many motorists actually know that.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): It is from four o'clock in the morning to seven o'clock in the evening.
EARL HOWE: I thank my noble friend for that information. I wonder how many motorists actually know these times. It seems to me that this is adding to the confusion. I do not know whether it is possible to stop this being the subject of a fixed penalty, but in the interests of motorists one should really try to do something about making these signs a little more plain so that they can understand when they may use these lanes and when they cannot use them. These regulations are complicated, and disputes will undoubtedly arise. These disputes will involve our police in extra duties at a time when our police force is rather short in numbers. Having myself had the experience of making a mistake, and being someone who is reasonably observant on the road, I think it must be very difficult for other motorists not to make the same unfortunate mistake.
I am hoping that my noble friend will look rather carefully into this Amendment to delete this paragraph and will reconsider, it may be with his right honourable friend, whether the application of the fixed penalty procedure to bus lanes really is desirable. I beg to move.
5.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope that we always consider very carefully Amendments which are put down by any Member of your Lordships' Committee, and certainly my noble friend Lord Howe has accurately described the purpose of this slightly obscurely drafted, but nevertheless correctly drafted, paragraph. Of course, bus lanes are comparatively new, at any rate in this country. It so happens that my knowledge, if it happens to be accurate, about the hours during which the bus lanes in Park Lane operate is derived from my own observation driving what is, I should think, a pretty low-slung car, which I have thankfully now got rid of because it was so low-slung that one could not get in or out of it. I dispute with my noble friend that it is really as difficult as all that for motorists to find out when bus lanes are being used or, indeed, which part of the road is designated as a bus lane. But of course I am entirely in favour of making these lanes as clear

365
as is possible so that people do not by misadventure get into a conflict with the law; and obviously it is right that the local authorities—because this is a matter for local authorities—should do everything they can to mark these bus lanes clearly.
But that is really as far as I go with my noble friend, because there can be no doubt that experience has shown that bus lanes are extremely favourable and useful as a method of speeding up public transport. I remember arguing at great length at the London Development Plan Inquiry how advantageous it would be to have a large increase in the number of bus lanes. Now, indeed, this is coming about, certainly in London, and in other towns as well, and it is found that the lanes speed up public transport and enable it to have the advantage over private traffic which sometimes it otherwise significantly fails to have. It gets blocked up in a great traffic jam and hence people do not find it attractive; then it runs down, so there is a nasty, vicious circle very much to the disadvantage of the people who live in the town. I should have thought that anybody who has studied traffic engineering is by this time likely to be convinced that, as a principle, bus lanes are a good thing.
Now, how do you enforce them? The way to enforce them at the moment is to prosecute a person for an offence. My noble friend said that we need to economise as much as we can on police time. That is another point on which I wholly agree with him. All we are doing is saying that, where you have an offence of this sort created, instead of the policemen actually having to take the case to court and prosecute, we should use the well-established fixed penalty system under Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, by adding these bus lane offences to a whole lot of other ones, involving both moving and stationary traffic, to which fixed penalties apply. The offender then gets given his ticket and has to be prosecuted only if he does not pay. This we were discussing the other day. I should have thought that that is highly economical of police time, and is likely to commend itself to the Committee.
I would conclude by saying that I agree with my noble friend that we should make as clear as possible the areas and the times when bus lanes are in operation and
366
other people should keep out; I think that bus lanes are a good thing and should be encouraged; and I would suggest to the Committee—and this is the point of this Amendment—that the fixed penalty system of enforcement is likely to be efficient and economical of the use of the police, and is thoroughly desirable. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree with me in resisting this Amendment.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: May I ask the noble Viscount whether it rests with the local authority as to the number of hours per day that a lane is used as a bus lane? (Is it within their discretion to lay down the number of hours? Can they vary the hours?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes. These are local matters. They are operated by scheme under the 1967 Act. It would be for the highway authority to say which part of the road is affected; and if there is going to be some time of the day when the road is open to all and some time of the day when it is used by only buses or only buses and taxis, then it is for them to decide on those hours.
EARL HOWE: I do not think my noble friend, to whom I am grateful for that reply, would expect me to agree with him; otherwise, I should not have moved the Amendment. I still feel that the police will have to stop motorists before they can deal with this fixed penalty.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, they will.
EARL HOWE: That will obviously involve policemen from time to time in standing at the foot of bus lanes to catch a number of motorists. It will not just be a number of motorists; it will be almost every motorist. Perhaps the noble Viscount does not realise how often this rule is abused. These bus lanes are used continuously by motorists in the same way as the speed limit is always being broken, not only by people outside your Lordships' House but possibly by every Member of this House. It is something that nobody likes to admit. It is breaking the law, but we all do it from time to time. To my way of thinking, more publicity and propaganda are very necessary in this case, and if it is possible to I get the Greater London Council, or

367
whoever is responsible, to give more publicity and propaganda so that the motorist is helped in some way I think that should be encouraged. With those remarks and, as I say, my thanks for the reply, and the fact that I am not very happy about it, with the indulgence of the House I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Duty of local authorities to promote road safety]:
5.21 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 14, after ("shall") insert ("in consultation with the police authority for the area").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has a quite simple purpose. On the Second Reading when discussing Clause 8, I mentioned that in future there was to be an extension of the duty of local authorities in respect of road safety. Subsection (2A)(a) provides that local authorities:
"shall carry out investigations into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on roads or parts of roads, other than trunk roads, within their area;"
I asked on Second Reading whether it is the case that in future we shall see two bodies, the police and the local authorities, carrying out an indentical investigation into the same accident. To that question the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, did not reply—and I make no complaint of that, for a Minister at the end of a long debate cannot answer every little point raised in a Second Reading debate. If he had replied to us all, on all the little points raised last Thursday, we should have been here until midnight. Fortunately, he did not do so, which gives me the opportunity of raising the matter on Committee.
It seems to me that to have two public bodies having their representatives turning up at the scene of an accident with their notebooks and measuring tapes, viewing the skid marks, if any, and making separate reports to their employers would make a nonsense of both bodies. The Amendment has the simple purpose of ensuring that consultation by the local authority with the police shall take place, and certainly it is our
368
intention that unnecessary duplication shall be avoided. I believe that our Amendment would have that purpose, that it would indeed ensure that these bodies would actually work together in the examination at the scene of an accident, both making separate reports to their authorities, but as the result of a single investigation. I beg to move.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I think I can assuage the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that there will be dual overlapping of purpose in this consultation by local authorities on road safety. It is not envisaged that local authorities should investigate individual accidents as and when they occur. The purpose of the provision is to place a duty on local authorities to investigate accidents which occur repeatedly on roads or parts of roads with a view to identifying a common factor or factors which suggest local remedies of a publicity, road user training or engineering nature. That is what this is intended to do. It in no way duplicates the work of the police. In fact many requests for an in-depth investigation into an accident situation by local authorities are initiated by the police. The starting point for all such investigations can only be the information supplied to the local authorities by the police, so therefore in practice the police will be automatically consulted at the outset. There have previously been many bodies responsible for advising on safety factors. This is placing on the local authorities a statutory duty to take their place and act as a global consultant adviser to take action. I think I can go on further and advise the noble Lord of circulars we have sent out on this matter, but I think I have probably said enough.
LORD BROWN: I would ask the noble Lord whether I heard aright that the task of investigating repeated accidents was laid on the local authority. Is it not possible that if Clause 8(2A)(a) goes through, some individual who has witnessed an entirely trivial accident of no great importance will be able to insist that the local authority under this part of the clause carries out a detailed investigation?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I do not think that necessarily members of the general public would

369
know who was investigating what. They would see officers there, whether in plain clothes or in uniform. The main point is that the authority concerned will get the information because the police will report to them. If accidents occur more than once at a certain place, the noble Lord will know that it is usually because it is a dangerous area due to some particular facet of that area. It may be, as I have said, an engineering factor, it may be a bad geographical area which gets icy patches; it could be one of many things. This is a road factor which is there to be looked at perhaps as a general purpose. It is not to put onerous duties, or duplicate the work of the police. I do not think that the noble Lord's point would arise in practice.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My noble friend has made it perfectly clear to us that the intention is that the local authorities should not have to investigate each accident. All the same, I am wondering whether anybody reading those words might, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Brown, have said, not think otherwise than that a keen local authority's duty was to investigate all accidents. I am wondering whether the addition of a word or two might make the point crystal clear, as my noble friend has said, that that is far from being the intention.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Viscount: is not the local authority also the police authority? The Act of 1972 defines local authorities which are responsible for the particular section in the 1972 Act. There is no definition here either in England or in Scotland and the subsection, and indeed the "crib" which the Government kindly provided in the Vote Office, indicates that this is probably the county in England and I suppose it is the region in Scotland. But is it not the same as the police authority, or is it supposed that the local authority will have an entirely different organisation which will carry out investigations apart from the police?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I do not think it would always be the case that it is the same authority, though they would often be so because again this is a duty that would make for road safety in general. We are not looking
370
at the particular accident each time. This is a big measure. Up to date there have been two or three and even more advisory bodies on road safety. We are now pulling them together under one hat and the police will continue to advise on this matter. If noble Lords are worried about this, let me read out Circular on Roads 39/73, paragraph 8 which reads:
"Close co-operation with the police continues to he essential. The police are responsible for inquiring into individual accidents, the control of traffic and enforcement of the law. Local authority accident investigation needs access to police accident records, including the statements of witnesses and those involved in accidents; these are the only sources of clues to some accident factors. Moreover, most local accident problems can only be solved by a mixture of engineering, education and enforcement measures.
"The police should therefore be associated with the problem solving process. Many police forces are creating traffic management sections and can contribute experience relevant to accident prevention in this field. Given their many contacts with road users the police can also support local authorities' efforts in road safety publicity education and training. The work of local authority staff and that of the police should be planned jointly as an integrated programme."
I think that noble Lords are reading too much into this point. I do not envisage, nor do I think that any local authority or the police would envisage, the problems arising which noble Lords have thought out for them.
LORD BROWN: Will the noble Lord please get a legal interpretation of the words,
"shall carry out investigations into accidents."?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that those words might be interpreted as meaning every accident. It might not be interpreted, as the noble Lord suggests, as repeated accidents. Here we are dealing with the law and it is no use reading out general comments and instructions to the police. The courts will interpret these words and I am afraid that they may interpret them in an unfortunate manner. Surely this is worthy of a little further investigation.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that I shall get a legal interpretation. So far as I understand it from my notes, the fact that the police will be supplying

371
the local authority with detailed information and statements of facts and figures —information about skid marks, et cetera—will enable the local authority to fulfil its function. But I will certainly do what the noble Lord asks.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should have thought from what my noble friend has said that his interpretations are precisely what was meant by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, when he referred to consultation with the police.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: It is clear that there is a function laid on local authorities, but have the Committee taken account of the fact that as the highways authorities local authorities are expected to increase and enhance their safety devices? Purposely this Bill excludes trunk roads, but the highway authority may be laying gas mains or dealing with subsidence which may occur suddenly in a road in a mining area. If there is a sudden subsidence that may cause a major accident it should be taken into account that the local authority, as the highway authority, will keep in consultation with the local police and will make major efforts, when digging holes or where earthworks are involved, to see that the road is properly defined and that everything necessary to prevent an accident is done. I think it would be their normal duty to consult the police and I see nothing wrong in accepting the phraseology of my noble friend.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: If I understood my noble friend aright, the local authority will consult the police; indeed, a local authority is obliged to do so. I cannot see any objection to putting in these words again. If an authority is already obliged to do that, why not emphasise the fact in this paragraph?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: If the Amendment were accepted it would limit consultation with the police to the investigation process. In fact their interest extends to remedial measures, so the Amendment would not have the effect that the noble Lord intends.
LORD CHAMPION: The circular which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton read out was issued before
372
this Bill was presented to us. I think we have to try to make perfectly clear the intention explained by the noble Lord. It is obvious that a number of noble Lords have some doubts about this matter. While we accept that the Government's intention is absolutely right, it seems to us—certainly to me, and I am sure also to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory—that the instruction in the clause as it stands is mandatory. The word "shall" is used. I am strongly of the opinion that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, ought to tell us that he will consider with his right honourable friend the possibility of importing words into the Bill to make the intention perfectly clear; words that will prevent us from thinking that the whole thing is to be mandatory on local authorities and that they might carry out a duplicate investigation, which would be a shocking waste of manpower. If the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is prepared to give an undertaking that he will consider it, I will seek leave to withdraw the Amendment. I do not ask for an undertaking that he will come back with an Amendment. All I seek is that he should give the matter further consideration, with his right honourable friend, in the light of the discussion that has taken place.
LORD MOLSON: I should like to support what has been said. Let us be clear about what procedure will be adopted when an accident takes place. It is the duty of those involved to report the accident to the police. It is the duty of the police to make an inquiry to see whether anyone has been guilty of an offence. They come to the scene of the accident as soon as possible to carry out an investigation. The purpose of this clause is that the local authority also shall make an investigation in order to satisfy themselves that there is not some defect in the road, or lack of warning, or something of that kind, which has either caused or contributed to the accident. The local authority have no machinery for making the necessary inquiry about exactly how the accident happened. That is carried out by the police who arrive on the scene as soon as possible. Clearly, it would be undesirable and unsatisfactory if two entirely different investigations were carried out, and the investigation by the local authority would almost certainly be unsatisfactory unless

373
the authority obtained information from the policeman who was first on the spot about how the accident happened.
I see no reason at all why it should not be an obligation on a local authority to carry out an investigation into the state of the road in consultation with the police. I have no doubt that in nine cases out of ten they would do so. I see no reason why Parliament should not indicate that in the view of Parliament that is the only way in which it could properly be done; and that to hold two entirely separate investigations into the same accident, one to ascertain the responsibility of individuals involved and the other to find out whether there was some defect in the road surface, would he a waste of effort and not likely to be satisfactory in the outcome. Therefore I see no reason why such a provision should not be incorporated in the Bill. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has suggested, my noble friend will say that he will look into the matter sympathetically, with a view to inserting something of this kind into the clause on Report stage, I feel that he would be taking a wise course.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I think that we are all at one in knowing what we want. I have already given an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that I will look at this from the point of view of seeing that a local authority do not have to go to the scene of an accident every time one occurs. I will of course give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and to my noble friend Lord Molson, that I will see whether we can either convince noble Lords that what they are asking for is in the Bill already, or, if necessary, add something to the Bill. I will certainly give an undertaking to look at it.
LORD CHAMPION: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for that undertaking and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 16, after first ("roads") insert ("including level crossings").
The noble Earl said: Three or four years ago I asked a Question of the
374
Government—not the present Government, but the previous Government—as to whether the railway company had any obligation to keep local authorities informed in the event of an accident taking place. I was informed that they had no obligation, and that if the local authority inquired of the railway company they could reply as briefly as they saw fit because some accidents might be concerned only with the railway. We are now putting an obligation on the local authority to investigate, and the noble Lord has said that they have to draw their investigating information from the police. In the event of an accident on a level crossing, they will have to draw the information from the railway company. It seems to me that it should be made absolutely clear that the railway company should inform them fully of what the information is.
The only Road Traffic Act that has been passed since I asked that Question is the 1972 Act. I have looked through that Act, and there is no reference to level crossings or, indeed, to any obligation on the part of the railway company. Whether there is some general clause which can be interpreted to cover this point, I do not know; I have been unable to find it.
I put this Amendment forward because I think it is important that in respect of the remaining level crossings in this country—and there are still too many—local authorities should have full authority to get the information they require. It is only when they get it that they can form a judgment as to whether the engineering of the highway for which they are responsible can be in any way improved or altered so as to make such an accident less likely to take place. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to support the noble Earl on this Amendment. In the North Staffordshire area within the last two or three years there was a terrible level crossing accident because of the slow speed of a huge lorry crossing the inter-city express road. There was enormous damage and death. We are going to re-invest money in the railways, and I can think of country railway lines in beautiful parts of Britain, Wales, Scotland and England included, that have not been used much up to now, but which may be used much more in the

375
future. Consequently, the noble Earl's Amendment may be one that will improve the Bill if it becomes an Act. Without expanding on my argument, because it is almost self-evident, I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Before I answer the noble Earl, I should like to inform him that the definition of "road" in Section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 is considered to include level crossings over which the road passes. Therefore technically the Amendment is unnecessary. But if I may expand a little, under the proposed provision a local authority could investigate an accident on a level crossing. In doing so they would need to consult the Railways Board about the latter's statutory responsibilities for the crossing, including any stemming from order made under Section 66 of the British Transport Commission Act 1957 and Section 124 of the Transport Act 1968. If the Department considered that the action taken by the local authority was inapproriate, the Secretary of State could exercise powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to have removed, for example, normal road traffic signals installed at the approaches to level crossings.
In practice, this is academic, because it is not envisaged that local authorities should inquire into individual accidents as and when they occur. The purpose of the present provision is to place a duty on local authorities to examine the accidents which occur repeatedly on certain roads or parts of roads, in order to identify any common factors which suggest local remedies of a publicity, road user training or engineering nature. The investigations carried out by local authorities in no way duplicates the work of the police or other bodies such as the D.O.E. Railway Inspectorate—and this is the point that I think the noble Earl was really fishing for. The clause simply places an obligation on local authorities to carry out work which they already do in some measure under existing permissive powers.
I hope that the noble Earl will think that I have explained this sufficiently.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not feel much enlightened, I must admit, by
376
the explanation that I have received. It is said that local authorities will not inquire into accidents. But this is part of their duty. I do not know what Section 196 does, but I should have thought that it was their duty to do this. The noble Lord is suggesting that it is only a matter of interest to the local authority when accidents repeatedly take place. I do not think this is an interpretation that can fairly be put on it. An accident may take place, and as a result it may be clear that certain engineering works should be carried out. There may be one accident on a level crossing, and it may well be clear that some engineering work could have made it less likely to occur. If the local authority are to do their job properly, then I should have thought they were entitled to information from the railway company. From what the noble Lord has said, I am not at all clear whether that is so. If the noble Lord says that they are entitled to information, I am content; if they are not entitled to information, then I am not content.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I thought I made it clear what their duty is in regard to investigating, and that they would get information from the railway inspectors.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I take it that the railway inspectors are obliged to inform the local authority as to the details of the accident, and in that case I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
" () shall ensure that adequate and correct traffic signs and signals are provided; and")
The noble Earl said: I suppose, in a sense, this must be regarded as an inquiring Amendment to see what the Government have in mind and what is the intention behind this provision. I have included here quite specifically, because I think it is most important, the whole matter of traffic signs and controls. I do so because I believe that the basis of safety on the road is discipline, and one of the ways of having discipline is clarity and correctness of signs. One of the dangers that we face to-day is that of incorrect signs; signs which are left

377
standing on the road when the particular purpose of the sign is no longer necessary. What is the result of this? The result is that people take little, if any, notice the next time that they see the sign. I agree that there has been an improvement in recent years, but there are still far too many incorrect signs erected.
Secondly, I say that signs should be clear and adequate. They are not always clear, and they are not always adequate. We have at the present time something like five or six different speed limits. If they are to be enforced, they should be clear—and (may I say?) they should be cleaner in certain places—and spaced more frequently so that there should be no dubiety in the mind of the driver as to whether or not he is exceeding the speed limit. In fact, there is dubiety. Coming to London, I am certainly dubious on occasions as to which particular section I am in.
I mention, further, the subject of white lines on the road. I am wholly in favour of a double white line. I am very doubtful about the white line which is broken on one side or the other. I would say (and my noble friend Lord Monck referred to this on Second Reading, although because of lack of time it was not answered) that in many cases the broken line is a temptation to pass when there is really not adequate room to do so. I would say that, on the whole, the broken white line is set at too low a standard. I say this because I want to know who has the responsibility. Is it the responsibility of local authorities? If so, do they work it out properly? Or is it the responsibility of some other organisation? Is it left to them to form their judgments as to what in point of fact is right or wrong? I refer here to the broken white line and the general clarity of signs. Quite recently I have seen an arrow pointing the wrong way round a roundabout. That has remained there for a matter of weeks and it must of itself be dangerous. Who carries the responsibility for that? I want these words to be put in here to make it abundantly clear that the local authority does carry this particular responsibility. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to support this Amendment, which I consider to be an important one. In doing so, I would draw attention to a
378
fact that follows as a rider to it: I refer not only to the provision of signs but to the need to see that they are not obliterated, in the Springtime, for example, by the overgrowth of luxuriant vegetation from trees. This may seem comic to some people, but it could be of fundamental importance to a driver who is a stranger in a particular area where signs may be obliterated because trees have not been trimmed—of course I do not suggest that they should be cut down. There is another point. As one who drives thousands of miles over the roads of Britain, like many of your Lordships, I would say that nothing could be more exasperating or more dangerous than when road contractors do not take the trouble to remove from the roadway at night many of their signs and some of their dangerous machinery. This should be made compulsory, because the motorist gets into enough trouble for the slightest accident. If he is brought before anybody he is always the victim, and sometimes one is inclined to bring an action against the police, the road authority, or road contractors, because they themselves create hazards. In putting this Amendment down, the noble Earl has drawn attention to the importance of this matter. It is, as he said, a searching Amendment and I shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord has to say in reply.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to a quirk in driving. I myself nearly lost my life through driving through a red light. I was a complete stranger to the particular road and I said to my wife who was with me, "What on earth is the matter with everybody?". She told me that I was in the wrong because I had driven through a red light. Actually, I thought I had seen a green light—but the green light was the reflection of a large green bottle in a chemist's shop which was in a direct line with the red light. I saw that 25 yards beforehand and I drove straight through what was in fact a red light. This is a quirk, and one cannot allow for it; but it just shows that the plethora of signs we have to-day sometimes bewitches, befogs and befuddles a driver rather than helps him. With all respect and gratitude to the Road Research Laboratory, there is still a need for research in depth into the hazards faced by modern drivers.
LORD AIREDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has clearly justified, I suggest, an addition to this Amendment of words such as "and kept free from visual obstruction". There is the additional point of overgrown verges, because these can lead to great danger. At this time of year when farmers are trimming hedges because they cannot get on to the land and do other work, a driver may come to a sharp corner but it will not be dangerous because he can see round the corner over the low hedge and short grass. But come the summer-time, when the hedge has grown and the grass is probably waist high, the driver will come to what is, in his memory, a very safe bend; and then he will find he cannot see one yard round it.
LORD ELTON: There is another circumstance, which is not quite as startling as the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, but it is a rather more frequent occurrence. That is a situation when you are driving along a piece of road that is treated with a double line system which, without warning, suddenly becomes the subject of a single line system. Under one system you have a dotted line on your right which means you may overtake when it is safe, and shortly afterwards you find a similar line, not backed up by another one, which means that you are approaching a hazard and you should say on the side of the road where you already are. In daylight and times of clear visibility, this is a condition one can cope with quite easily; but it is dangerous in fog. I wonder whether it would be possible, in reviewing the clarity of road signs, to establish some uniformity or a code of practice which would ensure that one stretch of road is treated in the same manner throughout its length, or that one standard of road throughout the country is treated in the same manner, or otherwise that some indication should be given of the end of the double-line section when one is approaching the single-line section. At present this system can be quite dangerous.
EARL HOWE: I entirely support the terms of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, particularly as regards the cleanliness of signs. This is something which is constantly overlooked, whether it is the responsibility of local authorities
380
or of central Government. There is also the fact that signs are often completely hidden by overgrown bushes and similar things. Often nothing is done about this. From my experience of road traffic matters, a road—whether it be a principal road or a B or C class road—is the responsibility of a particular authority. I should like to stress the importance of an Amendment of this nature, particularly when it relates to the cleanliness of signs.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Little has been said on this subject with which I could disagree. I would totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that this would be an important Amendment, if it were necessary; but I shall hope to show to your Lordships that it is not in fact necessary, because the clause, as we have heard, requires local authorities to take such measures as they think will prevent accidents. These measures include those taken in the exercise of their powers for
"controlling, protecting and assisting the movement of traffic on roads."
These words embrace the use of traffic signs and signals. If necessary, this can be emphasised in a circular to local authorities when the legislation comes into effect. Local authorities already have powers to provide such signs and signals, and these must conform to the designs prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, or as otherwise authorised. The provision and siting of such signs and signals is regulated by the comprehensive advice arising out of the above Act and issued to local authorities by the Department. The Secretary of State also has power to direct that specific signs be provided or removed.
This clause puts the onus on local authorities and now that they will be bearing the sole responsibility for dealing with road safety, draws attention to the fact that they will be giving much more of their time to these matters. Cleanliness of signs is obviously of prime importance. Similarly, in a case such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, drew to our attention, of a confusing sign, the local authority has power to persuade the offending chemist that he is unwittingly causing danger to the public. My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked which roads were concerned, It is

381
of course all roads except trunk roads and motorways. In reply to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton, the Minister may lay down standards for what local authorities should do. The same point arises on verges. I think my noble friend will accept that the Ministry roads are very well looked after, and it is only in a few country districts in the winter, when tractors are passing, that verges get somewhat blurred. During the post-war period there have been periods of "Stop-Go" and verges have sometimes suffered—for instance, some of the nice white stones that would have been placed alongside a bend are not always there. Those are some of the things that have suffered. I agree that these things are important, and this clause is designed to bring them to the attention of local authorities.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to my noble friend. I take it that this clause makes no change whatever in the responsibility of the local authority for dealing with the signs and the engineering on roads. Is that correct?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: It merely puts the onus on them. They must not wait for other safety bodies to advise them. The onus is put fairly and squarely on them to advise in their own areas.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: To which local authorities is reference made here? In subsection (2)(a) a duty is placed on each local authority. Does that mean the counties and districts, or only the counties? Does it mean the regions and districts in Scotland? In Section 38 of the 1972 Act it is clearly placed on the counties. Is there any alteration?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: It will be the authority which is responsible for road matters in that area. It will probably be the first tier one.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As it is in the 1972 Act, could we not say what the authorities are? I take it that my noble friend is referring to counties and districts. If that is true, that is a change.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I should like to take this point away with me and possibly write to my noble friend. If necessary we can consider whether it needs specifying further.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
6.2 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
Driver of motor vehicle to report damage to roadside wall etc. caused by his vehicle
(". The driver of a motor vehicle who causes damage to a roadside wall, hedge or fence shall report the accident at a police station or to a police constable as soon as reasonably practical, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence thereof.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Henley I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in his name. This is to introduce a new clause to make it the duty of a driver to report damage done to roadside walls, and so on, in the same way that he is already under a duty to report injury to people or animals. We know we are under some difficulty because my noble friend moved a similar Amendment at the Committee stage of the Animals Bill in November 1970. As my noble friend explained to your Lordships (and this is reported in Hansard of November 12, 1970, at column 897), the then Ministry of Transport had given it as their opinion that the matter was not suitable for a Road Traffic Bill since such Bills dealt with traffic on the roads but not with traffic which had trespassed off the road on to private land. They also said it was not suitable for a highways Bill, because that would deal with highways but not with traffic on or off the road. So one wonders to what Bill this would be pertinent. Perhaps it would be pertinent to a revision of our law of trespass. One wonders how long will elapse before we get round to that matter and how many walls are going to be damaged by motorists in the meantime.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied in that debate to my noble friend. He quoted a letter to the Lord Chancellor from the Home Secretary in which the Home Secretary said that he was doubtful whether the advantages that would accrue from implementing the suggestion would be worth the price of extra enforcement and reporting burdens that

383
would be placed upon the police. I must confess that I do not understand that argument at all. The police surely are going to allocate their resources according to the seriousness of an incident when a roadside wall has been damaged. Surely it is going to save the police time and not increase it if the offending otorist is under a duty, on pain of con mitting a criminal offence, to go to the police and admit he is responsible for doing that damage. I do not understand the argument and I hope that we shall not hear it again this afternoon.
This Amendment is too narrow; it would be rather absurd to make it necessary for a motorist to report the damage to a roadside wall but not necessary to make a report if he charged into somebody's roadside cottage. Perhaps the appropriate words should be, "substantial damage to property". If noble Lords do not like the word "substantial" and say, "How do you define that?", the answer is that the courts would define it. Knocking two stones off the top of a wall would not be substantial damage. But if you made a great hole in a wall so that animals could escape on to the highway that would be substantial damage.
I am aware that this new clause carries no sanctions. There ought to be another subsection making it an offence not to report damage, and we would need a penalty. But that, no doubt, could be added at a later stage. I have criticised my own Amendment sufficiently to make it no more than a peg upon which to hang the argument that I have advanced. It is now time to compel drivers to report damage to property as well as injury to persons and animals. I beg to move.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: On a number of occasions we have been urged to introduce this requirement on motorists to report damage to roadside property. I well remember the amount of time we spent on this subject during the passage of the Animals Bill, and what my noble and learned friend said in that debate. After that occasion the proposal was examined very thoroughly. I fear that I have to inform the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that no way was found of overcoming the practical difficulties
384
of enforcing such a law. In 1971 the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, discussed this problem in detail with the National Farmers' Union. The main objections to requiring motorists to report damage to roadside walls, hedges and fences to the police are, as the noble Lord suggested, that damage occurs very often in remote rural areas with no witnesses. Such a law would be virtually impossible to enforce and would probably be widely disregarded. There would be considerable difficulty in defining the necessary distinction between serious and trivial damage. The noble Lord suggests the word "substantial". One understands that heavy walls are substantial, but if you tear up a hedge it would be hard to define the damage. I agree that is a point for the courts.
In reporting damage, motorists might not be able to identify clearly the location of property, especially in rural areas and if the incident took place at night. The police would frequently have great difficulty in discovering the owner of the damaged property in such circumstances. It would be anomalous to single out only walls, hedges and fences when all other roadside property, such as lamp posts and traffic signs, are similarly at risk. It would be equally anomalous to single out motorists, who are by no means the only members of the public who damage walls, hedges and fences. Landowners would not derive much benefit from a law that would be so difficult to enforce and with which it would be so difficult to comply. If there are witnesses to a particular accident or incident the owner already has a civil remedy. Under the present law motorists must stop if they are involved in an accident, with another person being injured. If one goes on increasing the matters that have to be reported to the police it will not help the law at all. I do not think that this clause would have any practical effect.
LORD EROWN: The noble Lord is dismissing the possible benefits of this Amendment rather too lightly. Everybody in the Committee will agree that if there is no witness to the accident then it will not do a great deal of good; but suppose there is a witness then, as the noble Lord said, the person whose property is damaged has a common law claim. I wonder

385
whether the noble Lord has ever been, as I have, in the position of witnessing damage to his own property. Somebody smashes the gate in and one says to the individual, "You will have to pay up". He lives 300 miles away, and one is left with the prospect of bringing a common law claim which will cost a good deal more than putting right the damage that has been done. He is an irresponsible person, and he says, "To blazes with you," and drives off. If that person had to report the incident to the police that would at least be a deterrent and would cause him to think much more seriously about the course he was taking. The incident might have led to a prosecution by the police for dangerous driving. There is a deterrent value in an Amendment of this kind. Of course it does not help the case in regard to damage to property if there has been no witness, but it certainly helps the case where there are witnesses and it relieves the individual of the onerous business of making a common law claim, which he probably will not do. In view of the amount of irresponsible damage that is done by a tiny minority, I think this Amendment might help as a deterrent in future.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I should like to support this Amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brown, I too am a sufferer. In the summer, on the main Glasgow road which runs through my land, nearly every day somebody goes through a fence or a wall and, as the noble Lord has just said, it is often almost impossible to catch the culprit, and if you do catch him it is extremely difficult to pin him down. I think that walls, fences and hedges constitute quite a sensible definition because in nearly every case these are the means of enclosing the stock. If you knock down a lamp post you are not actually letting sheep out. I should like very strongly to support this Amendment because I think it is most necessary.
LORD FOOT: I listened with care to the reasons given by the Minister for opposing this Amendment, and as I did so it passed through my mind that every one of the reasons which he gave for objecting to the Amendment could equally well be applied to the law that there is a duty upon a motorist who is involved in an accident in which an animal is injured, to report the matter to the police. Every one of the arguments
386
given by the noble Lord could be used equally to justify the rescission of the existing law, which has been in existence for quite a long time, that where a motorist is involved in an accident with an animal and the animal is injured, he is under a duty to report it within 24 hours.
What were the arguments advanced by the noble Lord? First, he said that it is virtually impossible to enforce the requirement. It is no more impossible to enforce a requirement that a person who has damaged a wall shall report it to the police than it is to enforce the requirement that a person who is involved in an accident with an animal shall inform the police. Indeed, one would think perhaps that it was more difficult to enforce the law regarding injury to the animal because the animal is a moving object whereas the wall, after all, is stationary.
The second argument adduced by the Minister was that it is difficult to distinguish between the serious and the trivial injury. I do not see why we should try to make a distinction between serious and trivial injury. I do not see why one should not accept the Amendment as it stands and say that one must report any damage. After all, if you are involved in an accident with an animal although the injury may be trivial you are still required to report it under the present law.
The third argument adduced was that it might be difficult at times to identify the place where the damage to the hedge or wall occurred. How much more difficult it is to identify the location of an accident to an animal. After all, the animal may be only slightly injured and may run off. It would not be possible to identify such a location. Then the fourth argument was that it was anomalous to single out motorists because other people also damage walls and fences. So may other people do damage to a dog: they may run over it with a cart, I suppose. There are all sorts of ways in which one can damage an animal, and there are all sorts of ways in which one can damage a wall. So this would not be singling out motorists any more than they are singled out in the case of injury to an animal.
Therefore, all the arguments advanced by the noble Lord against this Amendment are arguments for the rescission of the existing law, by which we require

387
that damage done to animals shall be reported by the driver to the police. If it is right that there are no other arguments against it, how can the Government continue to adopt this anomalous position of saying that it is right in the case of animals but wrong in the case of property?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, that I too am a sufferer. I have some land through which runs the A.94 Aberdeen-Perth road. The road is straight as it passes my land, and if conditions are icy very often one of the speeding vehicles crashes into something. For instance, I have a lodge which has suffered damage on many occasions. Curiously enough, the more serious the damage done the more likely I am to discover who has done it because he has probably injured himself, and in due course the insurance company pays up. What I find so particularly annoying is the person who consciously damages a hedge. For instance, with a field of roots or stubble or corn without stock a driver, seeing a hedge which is not particularly substantial, solemnly backs his motor car through and spends five or ten minutes, or even half an hour in the field, and then drives off. He has completely wrecked that hedge for a little while, and it is very frustrating. Therefore I have sympathy with the points which have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has rather shaken me because I cannot see the fault in his argument about the animals' being injured and having to report such an accident within twenty-four hours. Indeed, I find this is similar to the provision which we have here and, because of what he has said, I should like to consider this and to find out what my right honourable friend has to say on that point. Without putting any onus on the other side in regard to putting this Amendment down again at the next stage, I should be grateful if they would enable me to check on this point.
LORD AIREDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment. I do not think it would be right for me to try to take it to a Division
388
now because I have already criticised it as being not entirely satisfactory as it stands. If the Minister will go to his right honourable friend and will express this doubt; if he will say to him that it is nonsense to maintain the law as regards reporting injuries to animals (one thinks of the difficulty of tracing a motorist who kills a sheep on the roads in the Highlands of Scotland); that if the law in regard to animals is enforceable it surely could be equally enforceable with regard to roadside walls, and so on: if the Minister will consult his right honourable friend and will put that point forward, perhaps we shall be able to get somewhere, if not at the Report stage then before very long; because I have found that in your Lordships' House if one has a good point, and one goes on and on pressing it, sooner or later the law is changed. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD GRENFELL): I have to announce that in Division No. 1, early this afternoon, the figures for the Not-Contents should have been 53 and not 54.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Extention of prohibition on dealing in unroadworthy vehicles]:
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 17, line 30, after ("is") insert ("or is likely to be").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I beg to move this drafting Amendment to identify more precisely the scope of the particular Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, contravention of which makes a vehicle unroadworthy for the purpose of Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which has a ban on the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. The Amendment brings the description of the Regulation precisely into line with Regulation 90 which is intended to act as the existing list.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.21 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 17, line 30, at end insert—
(" () After subsection (1) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
" (1A) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to sell or to supply or to offer to sell or supply or expose for sale any motor vehicle in respect of which there has not been issued a valid test certificate pursuant to the provisions of section 44 of this Act." ")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment anticipates at some time changes in the Ministry of Transport certification system. The sole intention here is to provide that any used motor car should have a valid test certificate. Too often, used motor cars are offered for sale without such a certificate, more particularly with a certificate that could become out-of-date before a sale is completed, in which case, of course, the buyer has to make necessary arrangements to get it tested. Section 61 of the 1972 Act provides that the Department's inspectors can examine any motor vehicle offered for sale at any premises. If such an inspection should take place, we arrive at a situation where the roadworthiness is the subject of an inspector's opinion, whereas if the valid test certificate is attached to the motor vehicle, it shows clearly to the intending purchaser that at a certain and particular time—any time within twelve months—the motor car was, according to the examiner, sufficiently fit for the purpose. This would have two advantages: it would provide initially some consumer protection, and secondly, would ensure that there can be no possible reason for supposing that a vehicle is being offered or exposed to sale by virtue of there being a certificate immediately available. I beg to move.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Testing vehicles on change of ownership has been proposed many times in the past. It has many attractions. It might well improve the protection of the consumer, and would probably reduce the cost which the present testing scheme imposes on the car owner. It would probably enable the testing scheme to concentrate on cars used more extensively in their early life than at present is the case. However, the proposal suffers from two
390
very great disadvantages: first, the M.O.T. test is designed to concentrate on the items vital for road safety. It does not offer any check on the other aspects of the vehicle. There is a good deal of evidence that consumers are often misled into believing that an M.O.T. certificate is evidence of the general good condition of the vehicle. If we add a legal requirement that a test certificate should be produced at the time of sale, it would be more likely to increase this belief to a certain extent than otherwise. Secondly, a large proportion of the existing authorised examiners are themselves dealers in second-hand cars.
Because of complaints about discrepant standards, the Minister for the Transport Industries has instituted an inquiry into ways of ensuring higher and more uniform standards in the test, the results of which are expected soon. To introduce change of ownership and testing by dealers able to certify the roadworthiness of cars they are selling, before the structure of the testing system and the method of supervision has been revised and has been shown to be working more efficiently, would worsen the present problem. Nevertheless, the Minister for the Transport Industries is considering this in the context of the general review of the M.O.T. testing scheme. Change of ownership testing cannot be introduced, however, until it is clear there is greater benefit to be obtained from it than the cost and other disadvantages, such as public confusion about the meaning of the word "certificate". That the public would accept a change is another point; they would expect there to be in existence a system of ensuring high and uniform standards more effective than the present. These conditions are not yet fulfilled and legislation for the proposals would be premature.
There is one last point. The drafting of this Amendment is defective, because it would apply to all motor vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles and buses, for which the M.O.T. test is not appropriate. It would also apply to cars in the first three years of their lives, during which period the test does not apply at all. The wording would seem to allow one certificate to do duty for this purpose throughout the life of the vehicle. In the light of what I have said, and of the view

391
of my right honourable friend, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said the Department are now considering the sale of second-hand vehicles. I wonder whether that consideration will end in time to get something included in this Bill before it leaves either this place or the other place. I am bound to say there is considerable merit in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I recognise the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has mentioned, particularly the fact that some vehicles are sold within the first three years when no test certificate would apply to them. That is a demerit in the drafting of the Amendment. But it does not alter the fact that this is something which must receive serious consideration. I would urge upon the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that he brings to the notice of the Department, and of course of his right honourable friend, that there ought to be something on the lines of the noble Lord's Amendment before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I can well understand that for the moment the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth will withdraw his Amendment—at least, I imagine he will. Nevertheless I think our feeling on this matter ought to go from this House.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will forgive me for interrupting now and making a second intervention from this side of the House. But he did say—or at least I understood him to say—that the test was not a test of the general condition of the vehicle, but a test of its roadworthiness. I am a little puzzled. What is the difference? If it is not roadworthy, surely it is not in good general condition.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: The test concentrates on one or two vital things, like brakes or lights. The general roadworthiness of the vehicle would include things like rusty chassis not necessarily covered by this.
LORD SHEPHERD: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton for making yet a third intervention from this side of the House. While being im-
392
pressed by the merit of the Amendment, I can equally recognise the difficulty of the Minister. Does the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, appreciate that one of the difficulties in legislation is finding time? If we miss this opportunity we may have to wait a number of years before another opportunity arises? Would the Minister consider whether a clause could be put into the Bill that would give the Minister power by regulation to bring in some form of regulations which the noble Lord has in mind? This would give flexibility. It would avoid delay until the Government have an opportunity of introducing a new piece of legislation.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I take the noble Lord's point on the timing of the matter. I do not know how far we are away from the production of this thing which I have been talking about. If there are regulations which could be introduced without a Bill, I will have talks with my right honourable friend; and then, if I can come back to the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, before Report stage—and I hope to do it in a matter of days rather than weeks—to tell them what I have found out, I will do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to my noble friend for his answer. I must confess that I had not anticipated quite the support for the intention behind my Amendment that has been evidenced. I accepted certain imperfections in the wording of the Amendment in the hope that should the Government see merit in it they would tidy it up. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu also asked me to ensure that, in considering this Amendment, vehicles of historic and antiquarian value would be exempted, because such vehicles had possibly never been put on the road, although they might have been sold at auction or in showrooms. I am grateful to my noble friend for telling us that the whole position of Ministry of Transport tests is under review. Your Lordships will know that I have been very keen that a number of other matters should be included in the tests. I cannot see that too much time should be allowed to pass before such changes in these regulations are brought about. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for guiding me along the path of this Amendment, and in the circumstances

393
which have been explained to me by my noble friend, I now beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.32 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 18, line 3, at end insert:
("(6) Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 as amended by this section shall have no application to a person who sells or supplies or offers to sell or supply or who disposes by way of part exchange of a motor vehicle used by him for private domestic pleasure or professional purposes to a person who conducts or is concerned with the management of a business which consists of or includes the sale of motor vehicles to the public and who acquires the motor vehicle in the course of such a business.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, in a sense, linked with the Amendment which your Lordships have just been considering. It is designed to raise with Ministers the position of the owner of an ordinary private motor car, the ordinary private owner who has used it for his ordinary private purposes and the private purposes of his family, and who wishes to acquire a new car. I suppose that over and over again a private owner goes to a motor dealer, a showroom, and selects a new car that he wishes to purchase. In the course of the transaction he trades in the vehicle which he has been using, perhaps for some years. The question which I desire to raise with Ministers is what is the position of such a person in the light of Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.
It may be that I have misunderstood the position, but if I have understood it correctly it is as follows. Under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, the Secretary of State is given a wide regulation-making power; and he can by regulation prescribe requirements as to motor vehicles that are sold, their equipment and particular parts of their equipment. Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 makes it a criminal offence to sell or to offer for sale a motor vehicle which does not comply with the requirements contained in any such regulations. Clause 11 of this Bill enlarges the obligation which is placed upon the proposing seller of a motor vehicle, because it includes among the obligations that the motor vehicle must conform to an obligation (to be imposed, I suppose, by one of the regulations made under Section 40 of the 1972 Act),
394
"as respects the maintenance of vehicles, their parts and accessories in such a condition that no danger is caused".
If I have understood the position correctly, therefore, it is this: that, supposing you have a regulation which requires that a vehicle and its equipment, or parts of its equipment, are to be maintained in such a condition that they will not cause danger, and you sell a motor vehicle which does not comply with that requirement, you commit a criminal offence.
I can well understand that such a criminal provision can be placed upon persons who carry on a business which consists in the sale of motor vehicles, and in particular I can well understand that such an obligation should be put upon persons who in the course of business—motor manufacturers, motor dealers, motor distributors and so on—sell heavy motor vehicles, motor vehicles which, if not kept in a satisfactory condition of maintenance, can cause considerable danger to other road users. But is that really a satisfactory state of the law so far as the ordinary private owner is concerned?
One takes the countless families who have a motor car. They are not people who exchange a motor car every year. It is a motor car of a modest character. They have had it perhaps for two, three, four or five years. They have used it perfectly reasonably. At the end of that period they think they ought to trade it in, to use the familiar expression, and buy a new motor vehicle, because it is beginning to wear out. The ordinary private owner of a car may in those circumstances trade in his family car, which he uses entirely for private family purposes. The brakes in that car may be fairly badly worn; the steering of that car may be worn. The owner may have had no sort of indication that it is so worn that with a little more use it may cease to function, collapse; that the brakes may go, or the steering may go. The car, without his knowing it or having any reason to know it, may be precisely in that condition.
When he takes it, quite unsuspectingly, to the dealer's showroom and selects his new car, he asks the dealer what he will give him in part exchange for his old car. The transaction is entered into, and the old car is traded in by way of part exchange for the new car. I may have misunderstood the effect of these sections,

395
but if I have understood them correctly, if he does that, and if the car that he trades in can be said to be at the time a car which as regards the maintenance of its parts and accessories is in such condition that danger could be caused by it (and those words would certainly be true of the car I have just instanced, the steering of which may go or the brakes of which may go) although he may not know it, may be entirely ignorant of the defects of the car, the fact that it has reached the condition that it will not last much longer, means that he commits a criminal offence. If that is right, I submit that it is not a very satisfactory state of the law. If one looks at Section 60 it creates a criminal offence, an offence which. I submit, should not be one which an ordinary perfectly respectable car owner can commit quite unsuspectingly.
But, in addition to that, the section says that the person who sells the car shall be under all the contractual liabilities he would have been under otherwise; in other words, under Section 60 the private car owner would be liable for all the contractual obligations in the sort of case I have instanced, which would be imposed upon him by the Sale of Goods Act—for example, he might be liable in damages. But it surely cannot be right that the private car owner, a perfectly respectable person with a family, who has used his car perfectly normally, and then trades it in, without having the least idea that he is at risk of committing a criminal offence, should be liable to be brought before criminal courts and fined. That is the position that I desire to raise with the Minister.
If the noble Lord tells me that I have misunderstood the effect of Sections 40 and 60 of the 1972 Act and Clause 11 of this Bill, then I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and apologise for troubling your Lordships with it. However, I do not think that I have misunderstood it; I think that in their ordinary connotation they would apply to the case of a private motor car owner who, in the sort of circumstances that I have described, trades it in when he buys a new car. If it does apply to him, I submit that it is quite enough that he should be liable to pay damages under the ordinary contractual obligations that he would be under now, and that it is
396
not in the general public interest that he, in addition, under Section 60 of the 1972 Act as amended by Clause 11 of this Bill, should remain liable to criminal proceedings. I beg to move.
LORD FOOT: Before the Minister replies, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a question in order to make sure that I understand the effect of this Amendment? The question I should like to ask is this. When he was addressing us about this matter he was dealing in particular with the case of the ordinary individual who trades in a motor car when he is perhaps buying a new one, but as I read his Amendment it goes a good deal further than that and appears to cover the case of any individual who sells, or supplies, a motor vehicle to what I might call a motor trader, a person whose trade it is to sell vehicles to the public. Am I right in thinking that the noble Lord intends that his Amendment should cover the case of an individual who has a car of his own, takes it down to a motor dealer and has a straight sale of that car to the motor dealer? Does the noble Lord intend that his Amendment should relieve that person of any criminal responsibility if the vehicle happens to be defective?
LORD STOW HILL: The answer to the noble Lord's question is "Yes". I quite agree with him that the Amendment is so drafted as to cover the case of a private motor car owner—I emphasise "private motor car owner"—who sells his private car secondhand to a dealer. If the noble Lord says, "Yes, but aren't you going too far?" my answer to him, whether satisfactory or not, would be that I would submit not, because I should have thought that in 999 cases out of 1,000 when an ordinary private owner of a car disposes of it he does it because it is part of a transaction under which he acquires a new car. I accept that my Amendment would apply to a case where he does not do it as a trade-in but just sells it, but I would submit that that does not go too far. He may be slightly financially embarrassed, he may have to pay his income tax and he may want to sell it for one reason or another to a dealer, and if, in the vast majority of cases, it happens in the trade-in position that I have described I would submit that it is not contrary to the public interest that if a private motor car owner

397
sells a secondhand car to a dealer in order to raise money he should not commit a criminal offence, although of course he would be contractually liable under the Sale of Goods Act.
LORD FOOT: May I say that the noble Lord has removed all doubt. The matter is now clear to me, and may I say that I agree that this is not carrying it too far. I am glad that his Amendment is intended to cover the case of the person who just makes a straight sale to a motor dealer.
6.45 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I feel very humble trying to explain to two such learned noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, matters on which they themselves are seeking advice. Although one sees merit in the proposal that private individuals should be freed from the ban on the sale of unroadworthy vehicles when they sell the vehicle to a dealer, that ban extends to vehicles which are unroadworthy only because they fail to meet a limited number of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. These are the regulations of particular importance from the point of view of road safety: the requirement for brakes, lights, steering, tyres, weights and dimensions, and, to be added by Clause 11 of this Bill, the requirement that vehicles should not be in a condition whereby any danger is, or is likely to be, caused to a member of the public; for example, a rusty chassis, as we have already discussed. It is already an offence to use a vehicle on a road if it offends against any of these requirements, and the Department does not want to weaken the incentive for the public to keep their vehicles in good working order. This is really an incentive to the people who are not yet selling their vehicle but will be selling it, say, at the end of the year.
In addition, Section 60 already provides for the case where a private seller is faced with the problem of disposing of an unroadworthy car, by giving a special defence against the charge of selling an unroadworthy vehicle that the seller had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on the road while it remained defective. We think that this provides adequate protection for the individual. If the noble Lord looks further down Section 60, he will find that sub-
398
sections (4)(b) and (c) will give him the points that I am making. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Champion, will be reassured.
LORD STOW HILL: I am extremely sorry to say that I feel that that is an answer that is far from being reassuring. I look at Section 40 of the 1972 Act: that is not limited to heavy vehicles, or anything of the sort. It begins by saying:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations generally as to the use of motor vehicles and trailers on roads,…"
That applies to any motor car. It would apply to a Morris, an Austin, or any private car, so that the first point that the noble Lord made I should have thought was not well founded. Secondly, he says that the private motor car owner already has the protection that he wants, and refers me to Section 60(4)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. With great deference to him, I do not know what language in that subsection he is referring to. It is quite a long subsection, and I will not trouble your Lordships with it.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I said paragraph (b) as well as paragraph (c).
LORD STOW HILL: Well, discard paragraph (c) and look at paragraph (b). This is quite short, and I will trouble your Lordships with it as it is so short. It says:
"that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used,…"
That is a very sorry consolation to him. He might not have the faintest idea what the dealer was going to do. He might think that the dealer was going to trade it straight to someone who walked in and wanted it. It might be very difficult for him to establish that defence in ordinary circumstances. If he could say, "Dear Mr. Dealer, would you please give me a positive assurance in writing on paper, supported by an affidavit, that you will not dispose of this car to anybody else until you have thoroughly overhauled it and have been through all its parts and its equipment and made sure that they comply with regulations", then, if he got that affidavit, I dare say that he would have a good defence, but not without. I am hound to say that that answer

399
—and I say this with great respect to the noble Lord because I know that he takes great trouble with these questions—falls far short of an answer that satisfies me. I hope that he will think again and take this matter seriously, because it affects millions of citizens in this country, millions of perfectly ordinary, decent people, who live within their incomes, drive a modest car and like to take their families to the seaside at the weekend—perhaps it is a little difficult at the moment, but at some time in the future it may be easier. I ask the noble Lord to take this matter seriously and not just to take some note that his advisers have given him without really going into it properly. I am rather disappointed, I must say.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wonder whether I may come to the help of my noble friends, although not in any manner connected with the law. Perhaps I can help your Lordships in a matter of fact, and in a matter of practicality. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, talks about the modest man ignorant of the state of his car when, for a variety of reasons, he goes to trade in it. From 20-odd years' experience, I assure you that there are very few modest men in ignorance of the state of their motor car; and often it is because of their knowledge of the state of their motor car that they come to trade it in. The most reputable dealers in motor cars will make an appraisal, and will make the owner aware of any defects. If such defects are so serious that the value of the motor car drops far beneath that which the owner thinks correct, he usually takes it away and tries somewhere else. Often he sticks a piece of paper in the back window which says, "This car for sale, apply within", or sometimes with a telephone number. Many motor cars change hands quite privately in the full knowledge that there are defects; and they are sold in this manner because the reputable motor car dealer will not accept them.
So far as concerns the vehicle which is sold knowingly to be unroadworthy, certainly in the motor trade, were it to be sold on, perhaps, to the motor trade or to a dealer, the order form which the buyer would be required to sign will contain a particular clause in which he ack-
400
nowledges the condition of the motor car so that it would be virtually impossible for a reputable trader to pass on a car knowing it to be faulty. The practical aspects of this matter surely are that an owner of a piece of machinery should make himself aware of its condition and should offer it for sale under precisely the same conditions as any other person, whether that person is in business or not. If the Amendment which the noble Lords, Lord Champion and Lord Stow Hill, seek to press were made part of the Bill, one can see that motor cars nominally belonging to business houses would find their way perhaps to persons employed in that business, but in their own name, and offered as a private sale. Indeed, many motor cars owned in fleets are registered in the name of the secretary, and are sold privately, purporting to be private motor cars, although, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. So it would seem to me that the Amendment as it is set down would not safeguard anybody at all.
Lotto STOW HILL: I am most grateful for that helpful interjection, and would like to reply if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, speaks from 20 years' experience, but I can speak from 45 years of active experience driving motor cars. In addition to that, for 40 years ago or more I more than once have appeared in the courts for people who had been driving when their steering had suddenly gone, or the brakes had suddenly gone. They had not had the slightest idea that that was likely to happen. I would like to assure the Committee that in those cases, so far as I can remember, I was successful in my defence.
LORD MONSON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in his Amendment. Consider the case of a motorist who has a front-end collision on a motorway or some other road, to the extent that the vehicle is unroadworthy and has to be towed away; and the garage that tows it away happens also to be owned by a motor dealer. He rings up the motorist later on in the day and says: "Look here, your car is in a pretty poor condition and it will cost a lot of money to put right. I'll tell you what, I will give you £50 or £100 for it. I think I can make something on it." As I understand it, unless this Amendment is carried, this will not be possible.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I think that the object behind the Government's thinking on this issue is generally understood. What the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, objected to was the innocent man being deprived of his cause of sale. If, in the noble Lord's case which has just been cited, there is a car which everyone knows is unroadworthy and it is sold to somebody who says that he thinks he can make something of it, I should have thought that under Section 60(4)(b)—which I was sorry to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, decry so much—he would have protection if he had a witness. I should not have thought that he would need to get the letter, "Dear Mr. Dealer …" I think that most people, when they sell their car prior to buying a new one, do not regard it as being in an unroadworthy condition. If they have been fulfilling their legal obligations they will have kept the car in good repair, anyhow, to fulfil the provisions of this Bill. I should have thought that it is usual, rather than the exception; and that, although dishonest and untrustworthy garages always make good heading, good copy and good stories, the average dealer probably wishes to have a reputable name. His long-term interests in trading will be enhanced if he is honest and above board rather than if he is quick and sharp and doing a shady deal.
There are cases, and I see them, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, points out, but I prophesy that paragraphs (b) and (c) would provide protection, defence, for the genuine man. I will certainly find out from my advisers again if that is the case. There is no intention to trip people up unnecessarily, but one wants, in the interests of all of us and of road safety, to stop people from selling something, knowing it to be unroadworthy, and deceiving the person to whom they sell it. I would not agree with what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said, that there are a few people who own a car and drive it regularly who are not really aware of its defects. I accept it in regard to something like a steering column which might be about to snap. That is one of the exceptions to this rule. If such a person were taken to the courts on such a case he would probably have a good defence and it would be explained. I do not think I
402
can say any more on that matter; I have said all that I am able to.
LORD STOW HILL: If the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, says he will give serious consideration to this matter, I shall be quite content, and I shall be grateful if the Committee will allow me to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that it will be seriously considered.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I would certainly undertake to consider it: but this is a matter of the legal interpretation of the defence, a subject on which I am not adequately able to reassure the noble Lord myself. He will appreciate that point. But I will certainly get confirmation from people who are better equipped to give him that information with authority.
LORD STOW HILL: That being said, I am grateful to the noble Lord. May I ask the Committee's permission to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 18, line 32, at end insert:
("In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act (prosecution and punishment of offences) in the entry relating to section 84(1), in column 5, the word "either" shall be omitted and the words from "offender" to the end shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: I feel certain that the noble Lord will be ready to accept these Amendments because they are in the nature of tidying up, rather than vast changes.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: May I suggest to the noble Baroness that we discuss Nos. 35, 36 and 37 together? They rather hang together.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, I was going to suggest that. Amendment No. 35 is a paving Amendment; obviously Amendment No. 36 is the meat of the matter, and Amendment No. 37 is consequential. Also with permission, I should like to point out that the first line of Amendment No. 36 should of course read:
"in section 88 of the 1972 Act",
as I have no doubt the noble Lord has already spotted. There is a measure of injustice which arises from the fact that the offence of failing to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence applies only to a person who in fact holds a

403
current licence. If a person is entitled to only a provisional licence and then drives without obtaining one, or after allowing his provisional licence to expire, he can be convicted only of the offence of driving without holding a driving licence. It is true that, when convicted, a person who thus evades the requirements of a provisional licence will be subject to endorsement of the licence and the possibility of disqualification, but it still frequently happens that he is fined far less on the one charge than someone who, although he ignored the conditions of his provisional licence, at least had one.
Amendment No. 35 seeks to make a person who has not passed a driving test or otherwise become entitled to a full licence to drive a motor vehicle subject to the conditions of a provisional licence to drive such a vehicle, whether he actually holds a current provisional licence or not. If the Amendment is accepted it will no longer be necessary to distinguish between cases of driving without a licence according to whether the offence amounts to an evasion of the provisional licence regulations. It would therefore be possible to reduce the number of cases in which endorsement or disqualification for offences would need to be ordered, and the Schedule to the 1972 Act would be amended accordingly. This is a very small point, but it is one which has caused some real injustice in the courts. I beg to move.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I found the wording of these Amendments and the wording of the original clause extremely complicated. What the noble Baroness has tried to do is, in effect, I accept, fairly simple, but I am advised that this proposal is unnecessary because in both cases there are adequate powers to fine and endorse, which is obligatory, and to disqualify, which is discretionary. These powers are the same for both offences. It is for the courts, as a matter of sentencing policy, to avoid inconsistencies by applying the appropriate level of penalty in the Section 84(1) case.
The effect of these proposed changes would also be that the discretionary disqualification and obligatory endorsement would be applied to a driver who, although entitled to a provisional licence, had not obtained one, and who was in breach of provisional licence conditions for an offence under Section 88(6) of the
404
1972 Act (as proposed to be amended by Amendment No. 37) instead of for an offence under Section 84(1)—that is, driving without a licence. A new offence is really unnecessary, and this Amendment is therefore not required. If your Lordships will look at the matter—in fact I had a table prepared for my own convenience—you will find that what we propose is that if a driver has no licence we are "upping" his fine from £50 to £100. If he has no "L" plates or no supervisor, at the moment, as I have said, he has not committed a further offence because the provision of "L" plates and a supervisor depends upon his having a licence. But what we have done under the Bill is to increase the maximum penalty to a fine of £100 and disqualification. In practice, it is highly doubtful whether courts will want to go above that figure just for the offence of driving without a licence. What the noble Baroness has done in her Amendment, as I understand it, is to add another £100 fine for the man without a licence if he has no "L" plates and yet another £100 fine if he has no supervisor with him, making possible, in all, a fine of £300 and disqualification. This, I think, is really over-egging the pudding, putting too much in, and I do not think it is necessary. The magistrates already have the power to fine £100 and disqualify, and I should have thought that that was sufficient without creating these new offences.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the Minister, particularly for his rather lovely expression, "over-egging the pudding". He makes it sound very simple, but I would point out that these are maximum fines, which very few magistrates ever use. I still do not think he has quite got round the point that the man who has no licence is actually dealt with more lightly than the one who has a licence and then commits an offence. But I will look at what the noble Lord has said, and, if I may, perhaps come back again on this point at a later stage of the Bill. At the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert—
("(6) (a) In subsection (1) of section 101 of the 1972 Act where the words "where a person

405
is convicted of an offence" occur there shall be substituted the words "where a person is convicted of and sentenced for an offence".
(b) In subsection (4) of section 101 of the 1972 Act the words "and the court makes an order under subsection (1) above" shall be omitted and for the words "for endorsement" there shall be substituted the words "for examination".")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 38 is on a different point. I expect the Minister will have an explanation for this as well, but I will present the case and see what he has to say. Those of your Lordships who are magistrates will know that when a person is convicted of an offence which involves an obligatory endorsement there are certain conditions which must be present. It is essential that the court is informed whether or not there are previous convictions, so that it may be known whether or not the case falls within Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act 1972—the totting-up section. It is also desirable that the court should be informed whether or not there are previous convictions so that they can assess the appropriate penalty. The law as it now stands does not require the defendant to inform the court of previous convictions, and it is doubtful whether the court ought to look at a defendant's licence to obtain this information. This Amendment would have the effect that the Statute would be so worded that it would clearly state the purpose of production of the licence: first, to examine the licence—that is, after conviction—for endorsement, and second, to endorse the licence if the defendant is convicted. I beg to move.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: The argument which underlies the noble Baroness's Amendment here is rather abstruse, but it has some practical importance since courts currently depend on the production of licences in determining appropriate sentences, and the alternative is to seek information from the licensing authorities, who are not staffed to deal with the number of inquiries that would be needed. Subject to further consideration of the legal arguments which have been put forward to us by the justices' clerks, it appears to the Government that there is force in the legal difficulties indicated in certain of the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, but not in all of them. What we should like to pro-
406
pose is that there should be further discussions with the noble Baroness and her advisers, and that if the outcome of the discussions are fruitful and indicate that we can make progress then a Government Amendment should be tabled at a later stage.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the Minister for that reply, which is extremely useful. With that proviso, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to ask one small point here. I have not given notice of it, so I shall understand if the Minister prefers to write to me. This seems to me an extraordinarily age-conscious Bill. It reduces the age at which it is possible for drivers to take heavy goods vehicles on the roads under certain conditions, which may or may not be a very good thing. Here it mentions the age of 70 as being an age when certain things have to take place in connection with driving. I would only ask what in fact has caused the Government to suggest this in a Statute? Do they have the statistical evidence to prove that more accidents are caused by drivers over 70 than under? Frankly, I would doubt this, but I am quite willing to be convinced if we can be told why this particular age was chosen. There must always be a reason for the inclusion of a clause of this kind.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: There is indeed a reason, which I have in my notes, but I have not got it with me. The figures are given rather quaintly in Civil Service language of "million man miles" and the accident rate above that age does considerably increase. The point about "million man miles" is rather difficult to understand, but I can show the noble Baroness that the accident rate above that age does considerably increase. Also, the medical profession have advised that that is the age at which our faculties begin to get dimmer and therefore our ability to drive should be looked at again.
LORD CHAMPION: I hope the noble Lord will remember that when he passes 70, as I have done.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: It might prove that a man was the exception to the general rule.
Clause 12 agreed to.
7.11 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 12 insert the following new clause:
Restriction on display of "learner driver" distinguishing mark
(" .—(1) A person authorised to drive a motor vehicle by virtue of his holding a licence (not being a provisional licence) granted under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1972 shall not drive the vehicle while there is displayed on it a distinguishing mark of a kind prescribed by regulations under section 85 of the said Act such as would have to be so displayed if the person driving the vehicle were the holder of a provisional licence:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if there is present in the vehicle another person who would be authorised to drive the vehicle by virtue of his holding a provisional licence.
(2) A person who contravenes the provisions of the foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to ensure that L-plates are used on vehicles only when the holder of a provisional licence is in the car either as driver or as the passenger presumably under instruction. The Amendment is very much the same as one which I moved to the Road Traffic Bill in 1961 but which was not accepted by the Government. Since then I have heard many others comment on why such a provision is not in the road traffic laws. Use of L-plates is a valuable means of helping to ensure safety on the roads. Those who meet or pass cars bearing L-plates exercise special care. But at present there is no provision in the law that L-plates should be removed when there is no learner driver in the car. If the plates are kept on the car in these circumstances it may well become a case of calling "Wolf!" too often and the value of the safeguard is thereby considerably reduced. People who have passed their test have been heard to say that they keep their L-plates on either to get through the traffic more quickly or to get better treatment from other road users.
The second reason why I think this Amendment should be accepted is to assist the police. If there are L-plates on a car and there is only the driver and no
408
passenger in the car, it should be the duty of the police to stop the car as, on the face of it, an offence has been committed. When they stop the car they learn that the driver has a full licence and that they have been wasting their own time, so preventing them from carrying out other duties. On the last occasion when I moved this Amendment it was stated that it was thought that people were keen to remove L-plates when they had passed the test, but on my way home from the House on that occasion I counted nine cars bearing L-plates but each with only the driver in the car. It may be said that when a car is used for teaching people to drive it would be difficult frequently to remove the L-plates and put them back again, but I see no difficulty in making arrangements, if not to take them off at least to cover them up. Therefore, in order to maintain the safety factor of L-plates and also to assist the police, I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, that there should be an obligation to remove L-plates unless a learner is actually driving has been made before, as he rightly says. It is based on the argument, in itself not unreasonable, that the L-plates which all learner drivers are obliged to carry are designed for the specific purpose of warning other drivers and to encourage them to extend extra care and consideration and courtesy, but that if such a plate is displayed by a qualified driver the currency is debased, to the ultimate detriment of the purpose of the warning. Most previous proposals of this kind have ignored the difficulty which an absolute ban on the display of L-plates on a vehicle driven by a qualified driver would create for driving schools and instructors. The majority of L-plates on driving school cars are permanently fixed, and although they can reasonably easily be covered by a hood the need for an instructor to change places with his pupil and to drive himself for demonstration purposes could create some difficulty.
The proposed new clause avoids this difficulty, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, on doing so. But in avoiding it he has, perhaps incidentally, largely destroyed the purpose of the clause. The great majority of instances of qualified drivers using

409
vehicles displaying L-plates arise on family cars where a member of the family is learning to drive. When the qualified driver takes over the learner is very often present in the car—it may be on a holiday, at weekends or during an evening out. The effect of the proviso would be to remove any need to cover or remove the L-plates on all those occasions. Where the qualified driver is driving solo, the fact that he is doing so, and the presumption that he is not in fact a learner, is nearly always obvious to other drivers. If they consciously react to other drivers according to whether they are learners or have qualified status, this gives them the opportunity to do so.
The Government do not want to see the value of L-plates debased, but the respect which most drivers accord to them is not likely to be increased; nor, more particularly, is road safety to be improved by a measure of this kind. In short, the reasons are that the terms of the proviso, in itself necessitated by the recognition of the problem of the professional driving instructors, are such that the family car with L-plates could still be driven by a qualified driver so long as the learner member of the family is present, and this situation would account for much. Where the qualified driver is alone the fact is obvious. Therefore, our view is that the creation of new offences, and with them new enforcement demands on the police, is to be avoided unless there is very clear evidence of consequent benefit in terms of accident saving. There is no evidence that the measure proposed here would have anything other than a tiny effect, and probably it would have no effect at all. There are, needless to say, small technical defects in the drafting of the clause—I will not weary the noble Lord with that. The new clause is not acceptable for the reasons I have given, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
LORD SWAYTHLING: While thanking the noble Lord for his answer, I would point out that when the family car is going along the road with L-plates and the learner driver is in the car, the learner driver is still under instruction and being shown what he should do. I feel that the time of the police, if they did their duty and stopped every car to inquire whether it was a learner driver or not, would be
410
considerably wasted. But in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.19 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 12 insert the following new clause:
Wheel weight of motor vehicles
(" .Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (Secretary of State to have power to make regulations affecting construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) shall be amended by inserting the following proviso to subparagraph (d) of subsection (1) of that section:
"Provided that any regulation made under this subparagraph shall also require that any vehicle or trailer to which it relates shall be fitted with equipment constructed so as to indicate the weight whether loaded or unloaded transmitted to the road by each wheel of such vehicle or trailer in contact with the road."")
The noble Lord said: With permission, may I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 40 and Amendment No. 53 together. Both these Amendments cover exactly the same point but they approach what we regard as something necessary to be done from a slightly different angle. On Second Reading, I called attention to the unsatisfactory state of the law relating to vehicle axle weights and to the concern felt by the Transport and General Workers Union about the number of prosecutions suffered by their members because, they assert, of their inability always to satisfy themselves in loading their vehicles that they were not committing an offence under Regulation 121 of the Construction and Use Regulations. Although most of the drivers concerned are experienced in the loading and distribution of their load, from time to time they are in danger of breaking the law relating to axle weights. The overall weight may be all right, but when it comes to the axle weight they occasionally break the law and find themselves in court. This is because in many cases the driver has no mechanical means by which to satisfy himself that his load is properly distributed and that he is not committing an offence.
I suggested on Second Reading that axle weight mechanisms which are available should be fitted to vehicles of this class. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, replying to the debate said,

411
at column 878 of Hansard of November 15:
"In fact, the devices that the noble Lord wanted can already be required under the existing powers of the 1972 Act—or rather the Construction and Use Regulations made under it."
Later the noble Viscount said:
"I do not think any further powers are needed to provide this equipment."
Those words seem to indicate that a vehicle owner can be required to fit devices which would be a measure of safeguard for the heavy vehicle driver. The complaint of the Transport and General Workers' Union seems to make quite clear that although vehicle owners can be required to fit this mechanism, they do not do so in all appropriate cases. We believe that the Bill ought to go beyond "can be required" and that the fitting of this sort of equipment should be mandatory on a vehicle owner. Our new clause is designed to that end.
Amendment No. 53, to Schedule 4, is an alternative to this proposed new clause. If the noble Lord indicates that he would prefer the method outlined in Amendment No. 53, I will accept that and withdraw this proposed new clause, and later move Amendment No. 53. I think that this Amendment has merit; I know that it has the support of the Transport and General Workers' Union, which caters for lorry drivers, is aware of their difficulties and from time to time defends them in court proceedings. In such a Bill as this I think that we should make provision so that drivers have the protection which it is possible to give them by ensuring that this mechanism is fitted to appropriate vehicles.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: This is an important point, and not least because it causes worry to the Transport and General Workers' Union and to many drivers. The check that an axle load is within the legal limit may be carried out in two ways. One is by positioning the axle on a weighbridge designed for it, weighing only one axle at a time. This is the most accurate method and is the one used for enforcement purposes. Secondly, it can be done by fitting permanently to the axle a device called an axle load indicator which registers on a dial in the driver's cab an indication of the axle load by monitoring electrically the
412
deflection of the springs of the vehicle. At least two leading manufacturers market these devices, which cost from £75 to £110 fitted per vehicle, depending of course on the number of axles. They are increasingly being fitted, in their own interests, by operators who carry loads which are both heavy and also difficult to distribute evenly.
For some time the Transport and General Workers' Union have been pressing the Minister for Transport Industries to make the fitment of axle load indicators compulsory, so that after loading drivers would be aware of their axle loads before going on the road. Their contention is that if no weighbridge is available, drivers may unwittingly offend and be prosecuted. The Minister is in favour of their voluntary fitment by operators who carry loads which are difficult to assess and he has encouraged the union to make representations to such operators on behalf of their drivers. But he has not adopted a policy of compulsory fitment for the following reasons. Many operators carry loads which are bulky rather than heavy and never approach the maximum legal limit. They would therefore be penalised by having to incur this heavy expenditure. Many responsible operators use the most suitable vehicles for difficult loads; that is, multi-axled vehicles which have ample tolerance on each axle within the maximum permitted gross weight of the vehicle. The use of unsuitable vehicles is a frequent cause of axle overloads. Moreover, drivers are professionally trained and should in most circumstances have the requisite skill and knowledge to load, or to supervise the loading of, their vehicles legally and safely.
Thirdly, and probably the most important point of all, to fit all vehicles within the operators' licensing scheme, numbering about 550,000, with axle load indicators would cost some £50 million, which is quite a frightening figure to impose compulsorily on an industry for something which affects only a small section. Because the problem arises mainly from the type of load carried and the particular vehicle used for it, it is not practicable to define a smaller category of vehicles most at risk. Some designs are more vulnerable than others, but it depends on how the vehicles are being used and the type of load carried. It would not be

413
justified to impose such a financial burden on the whole road transport industry when a large part of it is never at risk, and a further part of it keeps within the regulations by using suitable vehicles for the loads carried and by exercising professional judgment in the acceptance and correct distribution of loads. In these circumstances, compulsory fitment would mean imposing unnecessary financial burdens on the many for the sake of the difficulties or failings of the few.
The Minister could take the line in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, apparently would wish, that he supports the voluntary fitment of axle load indicators. The Minister for Transport Industries wishes to encourage the voluntary fitment of indicators by operators and he is prepared to do everything he can to get the union to help to argue with the few owners on this point.
LORD CHAMPION: I see the difficulties. I cannot wholly accept what the noble Lord has said. The fact is that it is possible under existing regulations for the union concerned to press the lorry owners to fit these devices. The fact that a number of drivers have gone to court as a result of their inability properly to adjust their load means that owners have not responded to the request of the Transport and General Workers' Union. That difficulty is immediately apparent and is understood by everyone concerned. I accept what the noble Lord has said about the difficulty that many loads carried in heavy goods vehicles are of such a nature that no one could distribute them so badly that they would offend against the axle rate regulations. I also accept that it would be a nonsense to require a vehicle owner whose lorries are carrying loads of that type to fit to his vehicles mechanisms costing, I think the noble Lord said, up to £100, which is a considerable sum. Taken over the whole industry, that would amount to a great deal of money.
The noble Lord said that drivers should have the skill necessary to enable them to ensure that their loads are distributed in such a way as not to offend against the regulations. This is not always possible, I am advised by the drivers concerned. It is not always possible, try as they will, and despite all their experience, always to ensure that the load is dis-
414
tributed properly. I wonder whether it would not be possible to make regulations which would single out the type of load and type of vehicle where the danger of offending against the axle weight regulations exists and to make the regulations of such a nature as to make it compulsory to fit these devices to that type of vehicle and the loads carried in that type of vehicle. I wonder whether this has been considered by the Ministry and if the noble Lord can tell me anything about it.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot tell the noble Lord anything.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I feel that I must lend some support to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on this Amendment. My noble friend talks about the skill of the driver in loading his vehicle. It is well known that, despite all the skill used, loads move; that despite all the skill in sheeting up and so on, bad weather conditions can affect the weight of loads; and notwithstanding the most careful loading to provide for axle weight regulations within a total gross tonnage allowable, weights could be on occasions, were axle weighing regulations brought in, a load patently in excess of that permitted, although the gross weight of the vehicle is well within the permitted figure.
Equally, it is grossly unfair that a driver should be party to the malperformance of his employer. Under the regulations suggested in the Bill, a driver could be convicted and could lose his livelihood. While my noble friend suggests that compulsorily to require owners to fit these expensive weighing mechanisms is not acceptable to his right honourable friend, it is obvious that some kind of tolerance for the driver and for the exceptional situation must be provided. If my noble friend is not prepared to agree to Lord Champion's Amendment, then I quite seriously put to him that he must provide an alternative suggestion, because the number of occasions on which there is an excessive weight on an axle due to a specific load would be too many for the normal run of drivers, whose livelihoods, as I say, could be in jeopardy. Voluntary acceptance by an owner of the suggestion to fit the equipment will not, I think, go far enough to protect not only the driver

415
but also the owner from a possible infringement of the law.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: While the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has been speaking, it has occurred to me that although the regulations about which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked are legally possible, in practical terms it is hard to see how it could be done.
LORD CHAMPION: If it is possible, it can be done. I quite see the difficulty here. Clearly, I must consider what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, whom I regard as an expert on these matters of heavy goods vehicles, and indeed on many other things associated with motor industry and the freight-carrying part of it. In the circumstances, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I will read carefully what the noble Lord has said, and perhaps return to this on Report with another Amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Amendments to Part III of Road Traffic Act 1927]:
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 37, line 19, leave out ("refers") and insert ("relates").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely drafting. Two parallel references, on page 37, line 19, and page 38, line 26, which both concern applications for driving licences, have been drafted differently, although the intention is that they should have the same meaning. I beg to move.
LORD FOOT: While we are on this particular sub-paragraph, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to something that appears to me to be almost grammatically meaningless in the first three lines of this sub-paragraph. It is sub-paragraph (7)(a) which reads:
"an applicant shall be treated as having passed a relevant test if, and on the day on which, he has passed a test of competence to drive which"—
and so on. I am not asking the noble Lord to explain now what this means. I do not think it means anything and, if it does, I do not think it means what the
416
Government intend it to mean. I only ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to have a look at this wording before the next stage to see if it is a grammatical solecism and whether it cannot be made better.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I will certainly look into it as the noble Lord suggests.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.38 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 41, line 36, at end insert ("and for the word "three" there shall be substituted the word "four" and for the word "ten" there shall he substituted the word "eleven".").
The noble Baroness said: Spurred on by the heady success of having got a half-acceptance to one Amendment, I hope that the Minister is in a benign mood. This is a tidying-up point, and it is suggested because evasion of the law occurs when a person who knows that he is going to be prosecuted for an offence involving endorsement and disqualification takes advantage of Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act to obtain a licence free of endorsement which was ordered within three years before the commission of the offence with which he is then charged.
I think an example may suffice here. Take the case of a person who has two endorsements for exceeding the speed limit on his licence, one on January 1, 1971, and the other in January, 1972, and on November 1, 1973, and who is again stopped for speeding and a summons is issued. Now despite the timing of coming to court, the magistrates must disqualify in the absence of mitigating circumstances, since he has had two endorsements in three years. However, if the summons is not returnable until after 1974, or if he is able to delay the hearing, or does not produce his licence, as is often the case, he is able to obtain a clean licence and therefore does not appear to be subject to the totting-up provisions. The Amendment would have the effect that the period after the licence free from endorsement could be obtained would be increased, so that it is not until a year after the totting-up licence has expired that such a licence can be obtained. This is, as I say, a tidying up process which I hope the Government will accept. I beg to move.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We agree that in principle her argument has great force. But at the same time I must say that the initiation of any change in the law would be complex and therefore we would wish to give further consideration to these matters before deciding how the anomaly put before us by the noble Baroness might be dealt with. What we shall hope to do is to table a Government Amendment at a later stage to give effect to what is contained in this Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the noble Lord and perhaps I might at the same time congratulate him, without any presumption, for the way in which he is carrying out the very great task of piloting this Bill through the Committee. We admire and appreciate his efforts. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Weighing of motor vehicles]:
7.41 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 19, line 22, at end insert—
("Provided that any such regulations shall take into account tolerances applicable to the part or parts of the vehicle or trailer so weighed in relation to the gross plated weight thereof.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment has been largely fulfilled by Amendment No. 40, standing in the name of Lord Champion and his noble friends. It provides a way out of a particular difficulty. Both the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and myself are concerned, I think, not with the wilful overloading of a heavy commercial vehicle but with the possibility of accidents occurring because of overloading in the event of axle re-weigh loads being introduced. It seemed to me that one of the ways out of this difficulty would be to allow a certain tolerance on each axle, commensurate with the total gross plated weight of the vehicle. I have always been worried about the lack of attention given to the total gross plated weight of a vehicle. It has always seemed to me that this is the main criterion within the con-
418
text of road safety, as we normally understand it. If, on a three-axle vehicle, you add the total sum of each of the axles, you will not necessarily achieve the total gross plated weight. There are various technical reasons for this, for which I suppose the most common is what is called "axle wind-up"—that is, where the springs wind up as you approach a weighbridge and tension is directed down through the springs on to a particular axle, which could result in a false weight being shown.
Where there are exceptional loads—particularly steel, which tends to move, or grain which can get wet, especially if the sheeting on the tail end is a little short, and one is called in for a re-weigh, with an axle system the rear or third axle can easily be overweight, although the total gross weight of the vehicle is well within the permitted allowance. Therefore where there are mistakes in loading, load shifting or alterations in load conditions during the course of a journey, it would seem to be sensible to give some kind of relief to the driver (who is the first person to be prosecuted). Were we to have what I think the industry call "a due diligence clause", but what I should prefer to call a tolerance allowance or clause, on each axle weight, which must be related to the gross total weight of the vehicle, everyone could be reasonably satisfied. After all, nothing is completely finite and if, as is set down in the Bill, there are to be tolerances on the machinery to weigh, so also should there be tolerances on the goods to be weighed. I beg to move.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, we have really covered a certain amount of ground concerning this matter in our previous discussions. When this Amendment was put down we were not absolutely sure as to the purpose my noble friend hoped to achieve. As your Lordships will know, we are at this moment engaged in a very heavy argument with our European colleagues over weights of vehicles—and not only weights of vehicles but axle weights. It is a fairly regular occasion in your Lordships' House to hear speakers from all sides—and the same thing happens in another place also—exhorting the Government to stick to their guns and not to allow the weight to go above 32 tons and, above all, not to allow the axle weight to go above 10 tons.

419
If I have understood my noble friend aright, if the vehicle has four axles it is perfectly practicable for it to keep to the gross plated weight it is allowed to carry in this country (32 tons) with—shall we say?—a 6-ton weight on one axle, two 7-ton weights on the next two exles and then perhaps a 12-ton weight on the fourth axle. Where some particularly bulky piece of machinery is placed or where the bulk of the corn may be, as my noble friend said, having shifted from its original position. If that is the sort of thing he is asking the Government to allow, the answer must be a very firm "No". Not only are we fighting for a principle because we have made up our minds, but this is a question of the safety and the conditions of our roads. Once we allow axles weighing over 10 tons to become a possibility, we are going to open a very wide floodgate. All Members of the Committee will have heard the estimate that if we had up to 11-ton axle weights, this would cost us something over £200 million annually in extra road repairs. So if that is what my noble friend is asking for—that we should allow tolerances to go above 10 tons—I am afraid I must disappoint him by saying firmly that my right honourable friend is not prepared to consider that.
However, if my noble friend is putting the proposition that when a vehicle is weighed on the new dynamic axle weights that will be introduced, and when you are going over a weighbridge at a certain speed something happens to the load so that you get a slightly different reading each time (there is a phrase for this which escapes me for the moment) or if there is a Small deviation caused by a different way of driving, we might give some small tolerance—if my noble friend is asking for that amount of toleration, we might be prepared to consider it. But assuming that the purpose of his Amendment is the former case as I have stated it, then I should prefer him not to press this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am immensely grateful to my noble friend for his very forthcoming answer. I realise that he might have been put into a rather difficult position. I certainly would not wish to be a party to any Amendment which opened the floodgates to any great difficulties which Her
420
Majesty's Government might experience in dealing with the claims of their European colleagues. But I am concerned with the latter point that he mentioned. I should like to see in the regulations some tolerance of axle weights related to the method by which the vehicle is weighted. There is obviously a physical limitation in placing the vehicle upon the weighting device, and provided he can assure me that such regulations will embrace a tolerance on axle weights to take care of this factor I shall rest quite content.
LORD CHAMPION: I am bound to say that on the overall tolerance I think the Government are absolutely right in sticking to what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, has said; but I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made, and is now pressing on his noble friend to consider. As I said before, I regard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as being particularly expert on these matters, and I support every word he said in this connection—although I do not support him in what appeared to be his original contention—and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, to ensure that these points are further considered.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: If it is possible to meet my noble friend's wishes we shall do so. The sentence I was looking for was that the inertia forces stored up in the suspension of a vehicle cause some variation in the recorded axle weights if the same vehicle is moved over an axle weigher a number of times in succession. If that is the point at issue, the noble Lord can be assured that the extent of these variations due to natural causes on a properly maintained vehicle will be established by an extensive series of trials with axle weighers and a wide variety of vehicles held in conjunction with the Weights and Measures Inspectorate. The proposed regulations will then set limits of accuracy of recorded weights for enforcement purposes which would allow for this factor.
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH: I am most grateful to my noble friend who has put the matter so well for me. With his assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Reduction for trainee drivers of Minimum age for driving heavy goods vehicles]:
7.52 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: With permission perhaps we may discuss Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 together: they are very much on the same point. We are not at all happy about this proposal in Clause 14. We are of the opinion that permission to drive a heavy goods vehicle ought not to be given to anyone under the age of 21, despite the fact that 18 now seems to be regarded in law as the age of maturity for many purposes. The driving of heavy goods vehicles requires other qualities than the ability to cast a vote or decide what to do with one's property. We ought not to make any mistake about it; the driving of heavy goods vehicles in to-day's conditions on motorways, when pressures are on drivers to secure the maximum use of expensive lorries, and in their load deliveries, requires the use of very mature judgment on the part of the driver.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in an intervention in my speech at column 832 of Hansard of November 15, said:
"May I just reassure the noble Lord? It is a graduated process between 18 and 21, with a full training programme. If a person passes the requisite tests he will be able to drive lorries of gradually heavier sorts until he is 21, when he can drive the really heavy lorries."
I found that statement somewhat reassuring, but so far as I can see the process described by the noble Lord does not find expression in the Bill. Subsection (1) of Clause 14 seems to me to fall a long way short of restricting persons under 21 from driving unsupervised a heavy goods vehicle. I have read the appropriate part of Section 4 of the 1972 Act, and I realise that regulations under this addition to that section may be made, though they must not exceed in their intent the words in subsection (1) of this clause. I still feel, however, that the words in that subsection would definitely permit the making of regulations which would enable a person under the age of 21, having been through the prescribed course, to drive unsupervised a heavy goods vehicle. Our Amend-
422
ments are intended to have the effect of ensuring that no person shall hold anything other than a provisional heavy goods licence before he attains the age of 21. If he had such a provisional heavy goods licence he could—of course supervised—drive a heavy vehicle. I suggest that if the Government want to give effect to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare:
"If a person passes the requisite tests he will be able to drive lorries of gradually heavier sorts until he is 21",
then subsection (1) of this clause should specify the types of motor vehicle graduated for age of the trainee driver between the motor car, on the one hand, and up, through the intervening types, to the heavy goods vehicle, on the other.
If the intention is to restrict persons under the age of 21, then the Government should ensure that no regulations are permitted to be framed under this Bill which would violate that intention. Our Amendments to this clause would ensure the main purpose of the clause, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, by permitting the under-21-s to have a provisional heavy goods licence, but not a full licence until they attain the age of 21. If the Government really want the young person, after suitable training, to drive vehicles intermediate between the motor car and the heavy goods vehicle, the Bill should make explicit provision for just that, and for nothing more. I beg to move this Amendment which I think ought to be accepted by the Committee, having regard to all the responsibilities that fall on the drivers of these heavy vehicles.
LORD ABERDARE: I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that the assurances I gave him on Second Reading really do make sense. But his own Amendments would go very much further and would prevent the very scheme which we are trying to put into practice, because under his Amendments nobody under the age of 21 would be able to drive any form of heavy goods vehicle. In fact my notes tell me that the Amendments we are considering are clearly wrecking Amendments. But, knowing the noble Lord as I do, and that he would never wish to wreck anything, I regard them much more in the sense of probing Amendments.

423
I am sure the noble Lord agrees that the growing demand for heavy goods vehicle drivers adds point to the need for measures to improve both the quality and the supply of recruits to the industry. Detailed discussions have been held between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment and both sides of the industry. Agreement has now been reached on this training scheme which will provide for the recruitment and progressive training of young people from the age of 18 onwards The essential features of this scheme are, first of all, a proper training programme to which both employer and employee will be bound. Secondly, training, and driver training in particular, to an extensive syllabus under a properly qualified instructor. Thirdly, progression at yearly intervals from the smallest to the largest class of heavy goods vehicles. Fourthly (and this covers the point the noble Lord was anxious to establish regarding where the control was on what vehicle drivers of different ages could drive) strict control through the heavy goods vehicles drivers' licensing scheme. This is where the control comes in. Fifthly, no unaccompanied driving of vehicles with trailers, including articulated vehicles, below the age of 21, except for the small articulated vehicles for which the minimum age is already 17.
We are well aware of the greater chance that young drivers can be involved in accidents, and for this reason alone we should certainly not be proposing this age reduction unless we were satisfied that the proposed scheme, by providing the necessary framework for a full and proper training of young people, would more than counteract this tendency. Heavy goods vehicles have a better than average accident involvement rate and their record has improved in recent years following the introduction of various road safety measures, including the introduction of the Heavy Goods Vehicle Driver Licensing and Testing Scheme, and we should not wish in any way to throw away the benefits of that improvement.
If I may go into a little more detail about the actual scheme which has been agreed, I think this will probably go even further to reassure the noble Lord. It will be administered by a National Joint Train-
424
ing Committee for the road goods transport industry. Without going into all the details of the scheme, perhaps the most significant part is the way in which the progression is planned to take place from the age of 18 onwards. If the trainee has had at least three months' satisfactory experience in driving for the employer under a full ordinary licence for motor cars then he may take the Class 3 test at any time after the issue of the provisional trainee's licence, and the Class 3 test is one that covers the use of four-wheeled vehicles only. Otherwise, if he has not had this three months' experience of driving motor cars he cannot take the test earlier than three months from the date of issue of the provisional trainee's licence, and only after he has passed the heavy goods vehicle Class 3 test will he be permitted to drive Class 3 vehicles unaccompanied. So there he is at the age of 18 plus, once he has passed the test, able to drive the Class 3 vehicles.
Twelve months then have to elapse after he has passed the Class 3 test before he can obtain a provisional trainee's licence for Class 2 vehicles. These are the heavier vehicles with more than four wheels. So by this time he is 19 plus and then, after passing the Class 2 test he can drive these vehicles unaccompanied. A further 12 months then has to elapse, by which time he is well over 20, before he can obtain a provisional trainee's licence to drive the top class—the Class 1 vehicles. These are articulated vehicles. He may take the Class 1 test, but in this case he will not be permitted to drive vehicles in this class before the age of 21 years unless he is accompanied by a qualified driver. So that is the three-stage progression from the beginning of his training at the age of 18 until he reaches the age of 21 when finally, if he has passed all those tests on the way up, he will be allowed to drive the heaviest class of vehicles. As I have said, all this will be closely controlled through the heavy goods vehicle driving licensing scheme. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
LORD TEVIOT: With great trepidation I rise to intervene in this discussion because I have tabled Amendments with the noble Lord opposite. But on this Amendment I must support my noble friend because this deals with the question of young drivers aged 18 to 21 and the very great staff shortage. My noble

425
friend has outlined the scheme with great care, and I think it is necessary. I may he speaking entirely "out of school" but I gather that this Amendment is very much against the wishes of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I can see that point very well, but I will come back to it later.
As my noble friend has rightly said, with specialised training for heavy goods vehicles (and also Amendment No. 46, which deals with P.S.V. vehicles which, I think it is right to say, refers to Clause 15 as well as to the clause with which we are dealing) the drivers, when they reach the age of 21 will be very much better than other people who have had different experience. I am going to stick my neck out in this connection. The Transport and General Workers' Union operate a great service to their members by providing an insurance. If their members get into any trouble with the courts the union help their members by paying their legal expenses. One can look at the figures and see that between the ages of 18 and 21, the callow youth driving his private car is possibly showing off to his girlfriend, but if he is driving a heavy goods vehicle or a P.S.V. on which his livelihood depends it is a different matter. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, may refute this, but I think that the Transport and General Workers' Union might be very concerned if they had to pay high bills for these people. One sympathises with that and I put it to the Committee quite impartially. Your Lordships may think that this is not a very good course but I think that the training schemes, as my noble friend has suggested, should be tried out and perhaps after that the Transport and General Workers' Union can adjust their subscriptions for those between the ages of 18 and 21. I hope the noble Lord will not be offended by my putting forward this point.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the care that he has taken in considering these Amendments and providing the Committee with additional information that I am sure will be welcomed by them. I am bound to say at the outset that I was shocked that his advisers should even think that I was moving a wrecking Amendment. How dare they think such a thing! I would never dream of doing anything of that sort: I am too tame, too
426
mellowed. But we wanted to establish the point that the noble Lord has made. In this he is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who also has knowledge of the driving of heavy vehicles, although not necessarily goods vehicles.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that agreement had been arrived at about training. I take it that this agreement can be said to apply not only to the training itself but to every stage that he has mentioned up to the age of 21, when the full licence will be granted. If that is the case, then clearly I have little more to say. I certainly found the fact that the system of training is to be administered by a joint training committee very reassuring, and I am positive that my Amendment was worth while in order to get on to the Record what the noble Lord has said. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 22, line 5, at end insert—
("() In section 126 of the 1972 Act (instruction for payment to be given only by registered or licensed persons) in subsection (1) for the word "car" there shall be substituted the word "vehicle".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment may I again apologise for any imperfections there may be in drafting. I would ask my noble friend on the Front Bench if he will kindly pay regard to what I have to say rather than to what I have written down in the Amendment. In moving this Amendment, I should like to get away from what we have been talking about because when I raised this particular point during the Second Reading on November 15, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, said (at column 866): "It is not necessary." Later in that same column he went on to describe to me why it was not necessary, but I am suggesting that perhaps he misunderstood me, in that in this Amendment I am not seeking to concern myself at all with the 18 to 21-year-old driver or trainee driver whose activities and training are to be undertaken by a totally different body. I have not very much information about the constituent parties of that body, or about the syllabus of the course. My concern is with what we might call, in

427
educational parlance, the mature heavy goods vehicle driver. I am particularly concerned as to how this man receives his instruction.
It is well known that there are too few heavy goods vehicle drivers in the country. The employment ranks are wide open. Many men from many walks of life are moving into this sphere of occupation. The remunerations are extremely high. It is a good life. So we find there are applicants for instruction to get the Class 3, Class 2 and, above all, the Class 1 licence—for the really big, heavy lorry, possibly the transcontinental lorry, which adds excitement to the job. Hitherto, the Road Transport Industry Training Board accepted some responsibility for the training of drivers, but they have gradually moved out of this field. Now, their only participation is in the provision of trainee officer and heavy goods vehicle driving instructors within group training schemes. The Road Transport Industry Training Board also train a number of instructors.
It may well be that a commercial company who do not rank for grant may prefer to send a potential driver for instruction to a commercial undertaking. That commercial undertaking needs no approval from anybody at all. All that undertaking needs are men, current holders of a Class 1 H.G.V. licence. This is patently wrong. Only one third of drivers are trained through the Road Transport Industry Training Board scheme. I know that there is a certain amount of jealousy between the various training boards as to who shall train their drivers. The Road Transport Industry Training Board claim that they should train all drivers in road transport. The petroleum industry's board suggests they should train their own. Thus, we get these divergencies through which slip the completely commercial companies.
Section 126 of Part V of the 1972 Act, which deals with driving instruction, sets out quite clearly that:
"No instruction, for the giving of which payment of money or money's worth is, or is to be, made by, or in respect of, the person to whom the instruction is given, shall be given in the driving of a motor car unless the name of the person giving the instruction is in the register of approved instructors established in pursuance of section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1962…"
428
and so on. As I understand it, this means that no person who has not satisfied the Department of the Environment as to his technical or other abilities may give instruction in the driving of a motor car for money. He cannot set up a school and give instruction unless he is so registered, but this does not apply in the case of heavy goods vehicle driving instruction.
It was said at the time of the 1962 Act that there were two prime motives for the inclusion of this provision. One was that it was some protection to the consumer of driving lessons that he was not going to be taken (and no pun is intended) for a ride in these matters, but would be taught properly and would be brought up to the right standard to enable him to offer himself for examination; secondly, that there would be a road safety factor, in that he would have not only the mechanical ability to move a motor vhicle around but also the expertise that a fully qualified instructor could pass on to his pupil. This was accepted. But it is not accepted in the case of a heavy goods vehicle driver. This seems to me most peculiar. Indeed, it seems to me absolutely wrong in that, if the heavy goods vehicle and its pilot cause our environment so much distress, as apparently they do—and in another context I might contest that argument—then it behoves us to have the very best of people we possibly can. If one starts at 18-years-old and moves through the training scheme which my noble friend outlined, we may arrive at a 21-year-old or 22-year-old with the right kind of experience. But what about the 35-year-old to 37-year-old who decides to jump into heavy goods vehicle driving as an occupation?
However my Amendment is worded, the intention is that nobody may set up a school, whether it be grant-aided or otherwise, for the giving commercially of heavy goods vehicle instruction unless he is upon a central register, preferably the register of the Department of the Environment which can co-ordinate all the driving instructional activities of all the various and different boards and other interested parties, so that there may be a common examination, a common set of criteria that an instructor must satisfy before he is permitted to give instruction. It is of no use for a man simply to take a course of instruction and satisfy the whim of the examiner of the day in his

429
physical ability to move a vehicle around. This is just too easy. Driving heavy goods vehicles, Class 1, is a very skilful job, demanding a good deal of knowledge and a vast amount of experience of various and different conditions which can be passed to a potential applicant only through a thoroughly experienced person, experienced in the art of piloting a machine and in the art of instructing as well. It is for these reasons that I have set down this Amendment requiring a central register. I beg to move.
8.20 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I have listened with the greatest interest to what my noble friend has said on his Amendment, and although he prefaced his remarks by saying they were not going to have anything to do with his Amendment, they seemed to me highly relevant to what he put down as an Amendment. I should like to discuss the points with him later and in more detail than I understand the matter at the moment. So far as my information goes, at present the training of drivers of vehicles for industry other than motor cars is the statutory responsibility of the industrial training boards set up under the Industrial Training Act 1964, and the Board principally concerned, as my noble friend said, is the Road Transport Industry Board. Among its functions the Board sets standards for the training of vehicle drivers for industry, and much of its interest is with the heavy goods vehicles. The Board is the main training organisation for heavy goods vehicle driving instructors for industry through its own instructor training centres, and some 1,500 instructors have qualified in this way.
On a number of occasions the Institute of Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Instructors, or its members, have written to Ministers asking for the registration of heavy goods vehicle driving instructors, as my noble friend has to-night. We have frequently asked for evidence of cases where instruction has been provided by unqualified instructors, but so far this evidence has not been produced. If my noble friend can help me any further in this, perhaps we can discuss it between now and Report stage; I shall be very willing to listen to every-
430
thing he has to say. But as we see the position at the moment, we do not think that the inclusion of instructors of heavy goods vehicle drivers in the registration scheme can be justified on the ground that the present training arrangements are insufficient or inadequate. To include them would involve duplication of control, because it would mean having the two different controlling bodies, the registration scheme and the Industrial Training Board, without raising instructional standards, and would be wrong in principle having regard to the Board's statutory responsibilities.
There is just one other point about the register. The registration of car driving instructors is not only a matter of road safety and good driving practice. The register of approved driving instructors was also designed to provide a measure of consumer protection, by ensuring that learner drivers who pay for tuition get it from instructors who are properly qualified. In the field of commercial driving the industry is in a position to protect its interests through its links with the Training Board, and registration for the sake of consumer protection is therefore unnecessary. So my advice is that the Road Transport Industry Board particularly, and the other Industrial Training Boards, are the statutory bodies responsible for the quality of training. I should like, in view of what my noble friend has said, to have further discussions with him on this matter, if I may, because he mentioned one-third of drivers who, he said, were trained through this scheme and others who were trained outside it. This is something of which I am not aware, and if he would allow me to have conversations with him perhaps we could arrive at some satisfactory solution between us.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to my noble friend and will gladly accept his invitation to talk with him about these matters. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
House resumed.

  CURRENCY UNITS
  CURRENCY UNITS