Sitting of 20 December 1973

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

    Yorkshire Regional Land Drainage Committee
    Dr. Marshallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whom he has appointed to the membership of the Yorkshire Regional Land Drainage Committee.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): My right hon. Friend has appointed Major A. T. Bourne-Arton (Chairman), Mr. J. C. Cooke, Mr. J. P. Coverdale and Mr. A. L. West.
    Dr. Marshall: Is it not the case that the chairman of the committee is a former Conservative Member of this House, and Mr. Cooke is a Conservative member of the North Yorkshire County Council, while neither of the other two gentlemen mentioned has any connection with the Labour Party? Is it not clear that the Minister is using these appointments for party political purposes?
    Mrs. Fenner: No, indeed that is not so. The appointees have qualifications that are especially applicable. I was about to assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. West is Chairman of the Cottingham IDB, Mr. Cooke is the Vice-Chairman of the Went IDB and Mr. Coverdale, in addition to being Chairman of the River Foss IDB, is also an active member of the Association of Drainage Authorities.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend say whether our membership of the EEC will
    1580
    in any way affect the future appointment of members to drainage committees? Is there likely to be a co-ordinated EEC policy on the question of drainage rights?
    Mrs. Fenner: My answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's questions is "No". To that second, it should be understood that drainage forms part of the schemes within the Community.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since June 1970.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since June 1970.
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the cost of food has risen since 18th June 1970.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): Between 16th June 1970 and 13th November 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 46·2 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the latest increased figures are of an order of 50 per cent.? The reason why the right hon. Gentleman will not announce the percentage increase to the House today is that he is frightened to do so. He is waiting for the House to rise before the announcement is made. The right hon. Gentleman cannot blame this sort of price increase on the miners. He should tell his right hon. Friends that when we hear, this winter, about pensioners starving, we should have no more of this talk, as on the last occasion of the miners' industrial action, that pensioners are starving because of lack of heat. They are starving because they cannot buy enough food.
    Mr. Godber: Seldom have I heard a greater distortion of the facts. Certainly the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would never frighten me away from this House, nor would any of his hon. Friends. I find that his analysis of the situation is not borne out

    1581
    by the papers today. I was rather interested in the quotation from today's Daily Mirror, which the hon. Member may have seen. It says:
    "The survey … certainly does not give a picture of housewives struggling to make ends meet by buying cheaper foods."
    It shows that earnings have gone up again substantially more than retail prices in this period.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend familiar with the blatantly misleading and factually incorrect leaflet which has been distributed by the Greater London Co-operative Society? Will he refute, in particular, three of the incorrect statements in that leaflet? The first is that food prices have risen due to profits made by manufacturers; the second, that the Government have imposed taxes on food; and the third, that the Government have withdrawn subsidies. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a widespread survey carried out by Which? shows that the Co-op was neither cheaper nor offered better value in quality than any other store?
    Mr. Godber: I have seen the leaflet to which my hon. Friends refers. It is true that it is a completely inaccurate document in all the respects to which she refers. It is an utter distortion of the truth, and I am glad to have this opportunity of saying so.
    Mr. Cox: Is not the Minister aware that even the figures he has announced today will pale into insignificance as the new figures are announced in the coming months as a result of Government policy? Is he further aware that while he and his colleagues prance around this country blaming everyone for our problems rather than admit their own incompetence prices go up? Will he tell the House when, at long last, the Government will take action against prices, either by giving teeth to the Price Commission or by introducing subsidies on key foods?
    Mr. Godber: Again, this is completely inaccurate, and the hon. Member knows it. The facts are, as I have stated in the House many times, that the rises are due to world conditions, which cannot be denied. Those are the facts which I have given many times. I have said again and again that world food prices have risen. In the last three and half years since this Government took office, world food
    1582
    prices have risen by 77 per cent. During the six years that the Labour Party were in office world food prices rose by 6 per cent., but the price of food rose a great deal more than that.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country as a whole is spending only 19 per cent. of its income on food? Is he further aware that this is the lowest figure we have ever spent, and lower than in any other country in Europe?
    Mr. Godber: It is true that the percentage of income which the average earner and the pensioner as well spends on food as a proportion of income has been going down steadily the whole time and that it is now at a lower figure than at any time previously. This means that the purchasing power, in terms of food, is substantially better, even in the present situation, than it was when the Labour Government left office.
    Mr. Carter: In spite of what has been said on the subjects of price controls and food subsidies, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these measures could have brought industrial peace this winter? Would that not have been a very small price for the Government to pay in the end?
    Mr. Godber: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's view and I wish I could agree with it, but I cannot. The cost of any attempt to have held prices of food would have been so vast that it would have meant enormous increases in taxation. Indeed, over the last year food prices have gone up by an extent that would have meant another £1,500 million in taxes to equate that rise. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that this would have held the situation and been more than a mere palliative, he is deceiving himself. The Government, under phase 3, provided for threshold arrangements which will be triggered off as and when the retail price index rises above 7 per cent. That should give considerable help to the workers concerned.
    Mr. Body: Wheat is a key commodity in world prices. As we have been told repeatedly throughout this year that the world price for wheat is much higher than the EEC's price, why is it that right up until August this year the Community had to impose a levy upon imported

    1583
    wheat? Even in March the levy was over £20 a ton.
    Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is aware that while the world price is below the Community price the levies operate, but immediately the world price reaches the Community price the levies cease to operate. This is the function which operates within the Community and my hon. Friend is well aware of it. At present, no levies are operating because the world price is above the Community price.
    Mr. David Clark: The right hon. Gentleman earlier called the Daily Mirror's report on the national food survey to his defence. Will he read the rest of the report, which shows that we are eating less beef, lamb and pork than during rationing?
    Mr. Godber: We have discussed this matter many times. Perhaps I can explain it to the hon. Gentleman once more. The national food survey does not give the total consumption of meat. It gives the figures of food moving into consumption, which is the total figure. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know the figures compared with those of the rationing period. The total consumption of meat at present is 26·88 oz per head per week, compared with 19·37 oz under rationing. That is the true comparison. Whilst it is true that this year, particularly in the first half, meat consumption went down because of shortage of supplies, of which we all knew, it has risen again now, and there are good supplies in the shops.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what elements of cost increases will occur on corned beef, tinned fish and tinned fruit imported from Commonwealth countries as a result of new EEC tariff arrangements coming into force on 1st January 1974.
    Mrs. Fenner: Adjustments to the tariff on corned beef are made at the beginning of the beef marketing year in April. Supplies of canned fish and canned fruit from the non-associable Commonwealth will face the first step towards the CCT on 1st January. Supplies from the developing Commonwealth which have been offered association will continue duty free. Tariff changes are not necessarily
    1584
    reflected in retail prices; however, it is estimated that all the tariff changes due to take place on 1st January 1974 will result in an increase of only between ¼ per cent. and ½ per cent. on the retail food price index next year.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Lady explain why she reverts to a percentage figure? Is she not aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry quoted the figure last Monday as being between £20 million and £40 million? Does the hon. Lady not agree that that is the effective increase in prices for next year, which has nothing to do with world prices but is a tax on food coming into the country, the results of which will not even stay here for expenditure but will go direct to Brussels?
    Mrs. Fenner: But the results of which were estimated to be 2 per cent. per annum during the transitional period by both the Labour Government and the present Government in their negotiations to join the EEC.
    Mr. Marten: Will my hon. Friend, for the education of all of us, publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT exactly how she arrived at the figure she gave, so that we can check it and compare it with the figures that other people have got? Secondly, on the question of food prices generally, is it not true that the subsidy on sugar was removed this year and that from 1st January we could have quite a lot of taxes on foods? I hope that the Government will publish particulars of these taxes on food.
    Mrs. Fenner: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is, "Yes". The sugar subsidy was introduced last spring. It was going to be removed at the end of December last year, but because we were in the period of freeze in the first stage of the counter-inflation measures it was eventually phased out.
    My hon. Friend also asked me to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT how we arrived at the figure I gave. I remind him that in my main answer, before pointing out that this would result in an increase of only between ¼ per cent. and ½ per cent. next year, I said that tariff changes are not necessarily reflected in retail prices. It is thus very difficult to state how we did arrive at the conclusion

    1585
    I have given the House, but I shall attempt to produce our reasons in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does the hon. Lady not think it rather ironic that this Government have become party to a treaty that will increase food prices by between £20 million and £40 million in the year beginning 1st January when, at the same time, millions of workers are going to have their wages substantially reduced because of part-time work? Could not the Minister have repeated, in relation to these levies, what he said last week about putting butter into ice-cream—that he would be ashamed to go back to Britain if ever anyone said that that must be part of the policy of the EEC? Does the hon. Lady not think that the right hon. Gentleman might have used the veto, having regard to the difficult circumstances that we are facing on the industrial front?
    Mrs. Fenner: No, Sir. Of course, when they negotiated to join the EEC the Government did not know that there was going to be a fuel and energy crisis, partly outside our control and partly nationally inflicted. At the United Kingdom's request, the EEC has agreed to examine the CCT on foodstuffs for items where the tariffs might be cut or suspended in order to help counter-inflation.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will establish a separate food price index to cover the Christmas period.
    Mrs. Fenner: No, Sir.
    Mr. Mitchell: Why not?
    Mrs. Fenner: Because the food index measured prices on 11th December and will do so again on 15th January, and this covers the whole of the Christmas period.
    Mr. Goldingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the increases in the prices of bacon and of eggs since June 1970 to the latest available date.
    Mrs. Fenner: As the answer contains a number of figures I shall, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that when I was a child my Christmas treat consisted of oranges and nuts, but that this Christmas, due to the massive increase in prices, bacon and eggs will now become the standard Christmas treat for many children because their parents will not be able to afford to give bacon and eggs to them on any other morning in the year?
    Mrs. Fenner: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, and sharing with him a fairly spartan childhood, I have to say that what he has said is absolute rubbish. Bacon has risen in price between 21p and 29p per pound, and eggs have risen in price by 22p to 24p per dozen. [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, rises in both wages and pensions have exceeded the rise in the cost of living. So it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the British meal of bacon and eggs is a luxury.
    Mr. Jay: As the Minister persistently seeks to mislead the House by pretending that the Government are not responsible for a large part of the rise in food prices in recent months, will the hon. Lady say whether her right hon. Friend voted on Monday night in favour of the Government's order introducing a number of new food taxes?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, Sir, on the Import Duties (General) (No. 8) Order.
    Mr. Winterton: Is not it time that the Opposition showed some responsibility towards our farmers, who provide our food, and realised the increased costs with which farmers are faced? Is it not time that the British public realised the value that they are getting from the British farmer?
    Mrs. Fenner: The throughput in egg packing stations throughout the United Kingdom is down by 13 per cent. on last year. That is because low egg prices in 1972 did not cover producers' costs, and caused a cut-back in production. Cutting back production is no way of ensuring good value for money.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the hon. Lady tell the House, first, whether this constitutes a doubling of the price of eggs? Secondly, will she say why her right hon. Friend constantly quotes earnings and not wage rates, which are the

    1587
    relevant rates in this respect? There is a distinction between earnings and wage rates. Thirdly, in the light of what she has just been saying, will she say whether she is giving any consideration to something for which the farmers of Britain constantly ask, namely, a pegging—indeed, a subsidisation—of the cost of foodstuffs to them?
    Mrs. Fenner: On the first question, yes; it represents what the hon. Lady has said. Bearing in mind the explosion in the cost of animal foodstuffs, not even counting other costs, it is hardly to be wondered at. Earnings and wage rates are both relevant, but earnings are important, too, and I appreciate the hon. Lady's point on that matter.
    Following is the information:
    The following table shows the increases in average retail prices between 16th June 1970 and 13th November 1973, the latest date for which information is available.

    Item

    Change in Average Price (Money value)

    Bacon (pence per lb.)

    Collar

    + 21·3

    Gammon

    + 28·2

    Middle

    +25·6

    Back, smoked

    + 29·3

    Back, unsmoked

    + 28·2

    Streaky, smoked

    + 21·5

    Eggs (pence per dozen)

    Large

    + 22·4

    Standard

    + 23·5

    Medium

    + 24·3

    Source: Department of Employment Index of Retail Prices.

    Import Duties
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will remove all import duties or levies on food imported into the United Kingdom as long as retail food prices are above the levels of June 1970.
    Mr. McBrideasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now discontinue all import levies or duties on food imported into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Godber: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jay: As the removal of these taxes, which are the main cause of high food prices, would do a great deal to ease both the economic and the industrial situation in this country, may I
    1588
    ask why the right hon. Gentleman will not remove them?
    Mr. Godber: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman should persist in distorting the truth of the matter. He is wrong to try to mislead people in the way that he does. The total impact, with the increases on 1st January, amounts to less than 1 per cent. of consumers' expenditure on food. That is the true position.
    Mr. Boscawen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for lower food production, particularly of dairy produce, is the disgraceful way that dairy farmers in my constituency were treated by the Labour Government? Will he bear this in mind in the review that he is undertaking at present?
    Mr. Godber: I agree that the Labour Government treated all farmers disgracefully. I should not differentiate between dairy and other farmers. Since we came back into office we have been able to restore production, and the upward growth of production at home is materially assisting us at this time.
    Mr. McBride: Is the Minister aware that the Tory Government have added to the staggeringly high price increases of food since 1970 by 50p in the pound by passing the Import Duties (General) (No. 8) Order? Is he aware that this will make the bacon-and-egg breakfast and midday meal for many of our people recede further and unhappily into the mists of memory? Is he also aware that his refusal to discontinue all import levies or duties on food means that the British housewife will not believe him when he talks about prices? Lastly, will he dredge up whatever vestiges of honesty remain in him and tell the British people the truth about prices and stop wriggling and twisting and showing his incompetence when Britain labours under a staggeringly high food price burden?
    Mr. Godber: I have never wriggled or twisted, and I have always told the truth in this House. I have already given the figures for which we were asked regarding the actual increase in food prices. I shall now give the increase in earnings and pensions, which I think are strictly relevant. Against a food price increase of 46·2 per cent., there was an earnings increase of 48·7 per cent. and a pensions

    1589
    increase of 55 per cent. The true comparison is between the earnings index of 48·7 per cent. and the real cost of living as a whole, which is in fact only 33·5 per cent. That is the true situation. If what the hon. Gentleman says about housewives having such a difficult time is true, I must point out that they were having a much more difficult time when the Labour Government were in office. These figures prove it.
    Mr. Shore: We have had the first instalment this year of harmonisation towards the CAP, on 1st January we are to have the first taxes on a lot of Commonwealth imported food, and in April, if not earlier, we shall have the second instalment of our harmonisation towards the CAP. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he sought to postpone the increases which are to come into effect on 1st January under the CET and whether he resisted any proposal to introduce the system of levies as well as taxes on imported lamb?
    Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the degrees with which these measures have been introduced. Last month I put a proposal before the Council of Ministers suggesting that in the circumstances facing the whole Community it would be sensible to make some reduction in the Common External Tariff on food and on other items. This was not agreed, although there was agreement to consider whether something along those lines could be done.
    I did not seek any change in the transitional arrangements because these were agreed, and I did not think it right for us to re-open an agreement that we had signed on accession. But I repeat that the effect of the January increase is about ¼ per cent.
    Mr. Shore: What about the levies on lamb?
    Mr. Godber: I have included those in my global reply. I did not ask for changes, because these represented one of the factors relating to the acclimatisation of our system with the Community which had been agreed. Therefore, I did not think it was right to ask for any changes. I think that it will have very little impact on the cost of food.
    Mr. Handingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now remove all import duties or levies on butter and cheese imported into the United Kingdom from New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in pursuance of the counter-inflationary policy, he will now remove the import levies now charged on butter and cheese from outside the EEC.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 22nd November to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr).—[Vol. 864, Col. 464.]
    Mr. Handing: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the contradiction between the claim of his right hon. Friend that all food price increases are due to increases in world prices and the fact that the Government are bent on imposing taxes on imported food from the Commonwealth which increase the price? Who is right—the Minister or his right hon Friend? Or are they both wrong?
    Mr. Stodart: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that despite the levy butter is 7p a pound cheaper than it was early in 1972, and the price of cheese has remained almost constant, again despite the levies.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there are miners in my constituency who find it difficult to comprehend a situation where they are being denied a just wage on the ground that it would be inflationary, while the Government deliberately put up the price of food by imposing taxes? Will the Government now stop lecturing the miners and put their own house in order?
    Mr. Stodart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to me how he can say that we have put up the price of food when, as I have said, butter has come down in price and cheese has remained level.

    State Veterinary Service
    Miss Fookesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he

    1591
    will make a statement on his examination of the State Veterinary Service.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now able to make a statement on the action he is proposing to improve conditions of employment in the State Veterinary Service so as to encourage recruiting.
    Mr. Godber: I am anxious to increase officers in my Department. Following a recent study by officials, various proposals are being considered in consultation with the staff association concerned and the Civil Service Department. These relate to the structure and management of the veterinary service, the nature of the duties undertaken by veterinary officers, and the opportunities for advancement in the service. I hope that as a result it will be possible to adopt measures that will make the veterinary service more attractive as a career.
    Miss Fookes: May I impress upon my right hon. Friend the urgency of this matter, especially in view of the British Veterinary Association's assertion that if there were a serious outbreak of disease, such as foot-and-mouth, the service would break down?
    Mr. Godber: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the position in the veterinary service. I want to see it resolved as soon as possible. I have had a number of discussions with those concerned. I hope that the joint working party that is considering the matter will come up with some helpful proposals. The veterinary service is part of the State Scientific Service and has to be considered in this wider context.
    Mr. Mackie: The Minister did not give what I should regard as a very satisfactory reply to his hon. Friend. Is he relying entirely on the joint working party? Has he no ideas of his own on how to improve the service?
    Mr. Godber: I tried to explain the position as it is. There is a problem here. Relativities within the Civil Service are important, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I want to find a system which will attract more people into the State Veterinary Service, to which I should like to pay tribute. Although the service is below strength, when we had the difficult outbreak of swine vesicular disease, those
    1592
    concerned put in a great deal of overtime and did a lot to help to overcome the problem. I believe they would do so again should the need arise.
    Mr. Morrison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern felt by farmers about this matter. Will he take note that what is causing grave concern to farmers and vets is the relatively high age range of the existing members of the State Veterinary Service? Will he therefore give special consideration to the need to increase the responsibilities of junior members of the veterinary service as an incentive to encourage more young vets to come into it?
    Mr. Godber: That is an extremely valid point, and I agree with my hon. Friend. We are looking into that matter.
    Regarding the number of recruits coming into the veterinary service as a whole, both State and private, the Swann Report should be coming out about the middle of next year. I hope that that will help and guide us on recruitment into the service as a whole.

    Dutch Elm Disease
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the spread of Dutch elm disease, what steps he is now taking under the Plant Health Act 1967 to restrict the movement of diseased logs from the south of England to the north.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend is considering urgently whether powers should be sought under the Plant Health Act 1967 to control the movement of diseased logs from one area to another. I cannot at this stage add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) on 22nd November.—[Vol. 864, c. 1536–7.]
    Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that that is why many of us are complaining about this matter? What has been done in the last month for the Minister to make up his mind? What hopes does he have of preventing the spread of this disease if this delay continues?
    Mr. Stodart: We are trying to see whether a worthwhile scheme can be worked out whereby the spraying of logs

    1593
    with insecticide before they are moved can be policed or monitored. It is not an easy thing to do.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that this disease has become so prevalent in the South-West that it is quite impossible to identify and to fell all the diseased trees? Will he consider further measures to try to bring this about?
    Mr. Stodart: I do not think that I can go back on the statement that I made to the House. We must, sadly and regrettably, admit that we lost the battle on Dutch elm disease.

    Tree Planting Year
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Forestry Commission's contribution to the "Plant a Tree in '73" campaign, with particular reference to supplies of trees the commission has made available to tree nurseries and the public.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Forestry Commission has undertaken a number of special amenity planting projects throughout the country, many of them in co-operation with local authorities. The commission has also donated substantial numbers of plants to schools, and wherever possible it has complied with requests to buy plants from its surplus stocks.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that reply. As the "Plant a Tree in 1973" campaign has been a very great success, will my hon. Friend realise that it must now be a continuing process and that we must plant some more in '74? Will he give an assurance that the Forestry Commission will make even more supplies available for the public to plant?
    Mr. Stodart: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the inspiration that he has given to the tree planting campaign. I can tell him that 90,000 trees have been donated to schools and about 70,000 trees for projects carried out in conjunction with local authorities. I shall certainly draw the attention of the Forestry Commission to what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall do anything I can to support his wishes.
    Mr. Hamling: Is the Minister aware that the Department of the Environment sent to every hon. Member, in a large envelope, a circular about planting a tree, and that this constitutes a great waste of public money? The Minister ought to encourage his fellow Ministers to see that public money is saved as well as trees.
    Mr. Stodart: Perhaps the fault lies in the fact that that material is a product of wood pulp.
    Mr. Cormack: Would not the best contribution that my hon. Friend could make to the English countryside be to keep alive in '75 and beyond our English elm trees? Will he think again about the capitulation which he has recently announced?
    Mr. Stodart: It was not a recent announcement; it was something which had to be faced, because there is no known treatment for Dutch elm disease other than the individual injection of trees, and even that is by no means really established as a cure. It is not a method which is practicable for all the trees in the country.

    Wines
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek powers to control the quality of the lower-priced wines sold in Great Britain.
    Mrs. Fenner: No. Existing and projected legislation at national and Community level should provide the consumer with adequate safeguards on the composition and labelling of wine. It is not my function to intervene further by limiting the range of qualities available to consumers.
    Mr. Cronin: Has the hon. Lady's attention been drawn to a report of a comprehensive nature recently published in the Sunday Times, which indicated that a substantial proportion of wines sold to the British public are of unduly poor quality, undrinkable, or fraudulently labelled? Will the hon. Lady use her influence on the wine trade to persuade it to put its affairs in better order?
    Mrs. Fenner: Like the hon. Gentleman, I read that criticism in the Sunday Times colour supplement with great interest. But that criticism no doubt reflects to some degree the preferences of

    1595
    the individuals who wrote the article. Provided that certain minimum compositional and hygiene requirements are met, and provided that wine is correctly labelled—
    Mr. Carter: It is not correctly labelled. Get it right.
    Mrs. Fenner: Under the Food and Drugs Act wine has to be correctly labelled. The draft Community regulation on the description and presentation of wine is likely to be finalised in the fairly near future, and the proposal in that regulation, which spells out fairly stringent labelling requirements for wine, has been generally welcomed by consumer organisations in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marten: When shall we be debating that draft regulation?
    Mrs. Fenner: The draft regulation is not yet ready.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on discussions in the EEC Council about reform of the CAP.
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards reforming the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Godber: We had a general preliminary discussion of the Commission's report in the Council of Ministers on 19th and 20th November. This was followed by a fuller exchange of views about the Commission's proposals for individual commodities in the meeting on 10th and 11th December.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the reform proposals make any difference to the present high level of food prices in this country and to the food taxes which are now imposed on food imports?
    Mr. Godber: It is too early to say what will eventuate from these discussions, which will be long and detailed and will be involved also with discussions about prices within the Community for the forthcoming 12 months. These are the matters which we shall be discussing in the next two or three months.
    1596
    I could not speculate on the outcome, but in my interventions on these two occasions I have made clear the United Kingdom's opposition to one or two factors which we think are wrong in the Commission's proposals.
    Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend say what is the definitive date by which we have to reach a decision on the question of sugar? Also, may I say that when he gets down to discussing the question of sugar I hope he will bear in mind that, although the undertaking is to import 1·4 million tons from the Commonwealth sugar-producing countries, that will not be regarded as satisfactory on the Government side of the House unless exports from the Common Market are restricted in the light of world conditions?
    Mr. Godber: The definitive date when decisions on sugar will have to be taken is February 1975, not February 1974, and I do not expect that we shall get down to serious discussion of the major issues on sugar for some months yet. There will be consideration of the 1974 Community price level of sugar, and that will have to be dealt with in the general price consideration for 1974. But the matters to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention are the ones which will be decided before February 1975, and in relation to those I made the Government's position quite clear in the detailed debate on this subject a short time ago. I do not think that I can usefully add to what I said then.
    Mr. Shore: Are we to understand from what the Minister has said that not only in these preliminary exchanges have the Government not put forward proposals for removing the CAP from a number of commodities, like sugar and rice, which it at present covers, but, worse still, that it is now actually being proposed that the CAP should be extended to mutton and lamb, so that they would be subject not merely to the food taxes of 1st January, which are duties and tariffs, but to the levies of the CAP?
    Mr. Godber: It is perfectly true that I did not oppose the existing Community régime. As regards sheepmeat, I have said that the United Kingdom would be prepared to consider a sheepmeat regulation if it were prepared in a form which would meet the requirements of the

    1597
    United Kingdom, both as a major producer, being the largest producer of sheepmeat in the Community, and also as a major importer, being also the largest importer of sheepmeat in the Community. If we are to have a sheepmeat regulation, I attach great importance to having one which suits our requirements. I said that I would not be prepared to agree to one unless and until it did that. But if we get one which suits our requirements, I see no reason to resist.

    Farm Subsidies
    Sir Robin Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the hill cow, hill sheep, and winter keep subsidy schemes.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: As my right hon. Friend said in his statement to the House on 22nd November, the general effect of the decisions recently reached in Brussels is to confirm our ability to continue paying these subsidies on broadly the same lines as at present.
    Sir Robin Turton: I am sure the whole farming industry will be very glad to hear that announcement, but is my hon. Friend aware that there is uncertainty about the winter keep scheme, and that in view of the escalation of feeding stuff costs it is very important for farmers in hill and marginal lands to have long-term assurances on this subject?
    Mr. Stodart: I can only repeat that we have reached a position where we feel able to continue paying the subsidies broadly as they are at the moment. Although the winter keep scheme in England differs from that which operates in Scotland, as my right hon. Friend will know, I have no reason to suppose that either scheme will run into difficulties.
    Mr. Mackie: Will there be any gap between the two schemes, as there was between the two horticultural schemes?
    Mr. Stodart: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that existing support will continue until the new directive comes into force.
    Mr. Fortescue: Does my hon. Friend agree that decisions of this kind are made in Brussels by a Council of Ministers consisting of eight Ministers of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend,
    1598
    who is the only one who is also a Minister of Food? Will he therefore accept that a very heavy responsibility falls on my right hon. Friend in protecting the interests of the consumer in these matters?
    Mr. Stodart: I think that my right hon. Friend has discharged those responsibilities admirably.

PATRIOTISM
Mr. Wyn RobertsQ1. Mr. Wyn Roberts asked the Prime Minister if he will make the encouragement of patriotism a concern of his administration.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend being kept fully aware of the disruptive activities of the followers of another kind of "ism" who are intolerant of patriotism, especially in the trade unions? Also, is he being kept fully aware of the Communist contribution to the present confrontation between the Government and the trade unions, and of the Communist plan announced as early as last autumn to have as many as 5 million workers involved in industrial action as a New Year's greeting to the Government and the country?
The Prime Minister: The media have given publicity to the statements to which my hon. Friend has referred, and to that extent I have full information about them.
Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister try to direct his back benchers to stop seeing "reds under the Ted" in the present crisis? Does he agree that, unlike the Tory Government of a previous generation, patriotism has become the first refuge of a scoundrel, and will he stop perverting love of country for his own peculiar short-term aims by trying to bring public criticism down upon the heads of miners and other industrial workers in strife, who are good servants of this country?
The Prime Minister: The view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not that held by many trade union leaders who come to see me and discuss these matters.
Sir Gilbert Longden: Is the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) aware that it is not only those on this side who see reds under the bed? Has his attention been drawn to Mr. Frank Chapple's remarks, in his union journal "Contact", that the moderates of the unions have allowed the Left to make the running for far too long?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have read what Mr. Frank Chapple had to say, and of course he made the point very clearly. But he is not the only trade union leader who has done that. Tom Jackson has done it, and so have many others.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Prime Minister, particularly at this time of the year, refrain from lending any cover from his own great office to the idea that the line of patriotism is drawn straight down this Chamber? Will he allow that half of the nation which largely supports the Labour Party is just as likely to stand for this country in peace or war as any of those yappers from the back benches opposite?
The Prime Minister: That is not a line which I should ever have dreamed for a moment of drawing, as I think the right hon. Gentleman, who knows me very well, will agree. Of course, a line like that cannot be drawn. The great majority of people in all parties in this country are, in my view, patriots.

MIDDLE EAST OIL
Sir J. Langford-HoltQ2. Sir J. Langford-Holt asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of his special adviser on the transport of Middle East oil.
The Prime Minister: I have made no such appointment, Sir.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an appointment was made about 15 years ago by Mr. Harold Macmillan, when we were in a similar position with regard to oil, and that we have since also had bodies such as emergency committees? Today, we find ourselves in a very similar position. Will my right hon. Friend indicate how we can make sure, within the shortest possible time, that we shall never again find ourselves in this position?
The Prime Minister: I recollect, like my hon. Friend, that Mr. Macmillan appointed an adviser on the transport of Middle East oil, and that, if I recollect correctly, was after the Suez Canal had been closed. The problem which we are facing today is of a different nature. The problem today is not the transport of oil; it is the limitation in the quantity of oil by certain Arab countries.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question I put in the debate earlier this week, which his right hon. Friend did not answer. Does the Prime Minister regard the
"firm assurances from important oil-producing countries".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October 1973; Vol. 863, c. 38.]
which he reported to the House as still valid and binding?
The Prime Minister: Certain Arab countries gave us those assurances, as I told the House. They are endeavouring to carry them out. As for quantities, as I have already told the House, we were working on the basis of the economy expanding at a 3½ per cent. rate of growth in 1974. The figures used by the Arab Governments are those of the current year and to that extent, therefore, it produces a problem. The countries to which I referred are trying to deal with the problem because by various means we have drawn it to their attention, but they obviously prefer the details not to be discussed in public.
Mr. Wilson: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman to say more on this than he wishes, hut he must be getting daily figures of loading from the Gulf. Will he say whether those daily figures bear out 100 per cent. the assurances he reported to the House on 30th October.
The Prime Minister: From the particular countries which gave us those assurances, that would be the case.

USSR (OFFICIAL VISIT)
Mr. AdleyQ3. Mr. Adley asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his forthcoming visit to the USSR.
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will have seen from the communiqué published after the visit to the Soviet

1601
Union by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I hope to take up the Soviet Government's invitation in the coming year.
Mr. Adley: I realise why my right hon. Friend has had to postpone his visit to China, but will he ensure that before he goes to Russia he rearranges the date of his visit to China, because I suspect that the Chinese Government are putting more store on his visit to China than the Russian Government are on his visit to Russia?
The Prime Minister: No date has yet been considered with the Soviet Government, but I welcome the improvement in relations which has taken place between the two countries. Mr. Gromyko has accepted an invitation to come here in 1974, and I look forward to going to the Soviet Union in the course of the year. As for China, I have been in communication with Mr. Chou En-lai about the possibility of a future date.
Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Prime Minister represent to the leaders of the Soviet Government the fact that there is widespread support in the House and outside for the security conference in Geneva, in the hope that it will lead to firm proposals linked to the Vienna Conference on reductions in the numbers of troops? Will he make clear that the people who have worked for years for this security conference would be gravely disappointed if there were not also success in the Third Commission, which deals with human freedom and the increase in free communications between people in East and West?
The Prime Minister: These were the precise matters considered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Podgorny during my right hon. Friend's visit to Moscow. In particular, he emphasised the last point of the hon. Member's question, with which we in the Government are in complete agreement.
Miss Joan Hall: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) about human freedom, will my right hon. Friend, when he next meets the leaders of the USSR, raise with them the rights of minority religions in Russia to prac-
1602
tise their faiths, because, although the Jews have hit the headlines, there is another cruelly harassed minority, namely, the Baptists?
The Prime Minister: We are able to discuss these matters, as I have just mentioned, in the context of the security conference and the Third Commission because our two countries are taking part. It is not possible for us to interfere in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, but at the same time my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary thought it right to point out to Mr. Gromyko that the policy pursued in this respect, although entirely a matter for the Soviet Union, has an impact outside Russia, and particularly on public opinion here.
Mr. Lipton: The Prime Minister keeps talking about what he is going to do in the coming year. Will he have time to visit both China and Russia before the next General Election?
The Prime Minister: I hope to have time to visit both China and Russia in 1974.

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE
Mr. Sydney ChapmanQ4. Mr. Sydney Chapman asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment with regard to work on the National Exhibition Centre.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Chapman: As good public transport communications and ancillary services are crucial to the success of the National Exhibition Centre, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new British Rail station at Bickenhill and the new air freight terminal at Birmingham Airport will go ahead as planned and will not in any way be held back by the recent announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the cut-back in public expenditure?
The Prime Minister: I realise the importance of the two matters mentioned by my hon. Friend. Representatives of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry will be meeting the representatives of

1603
the National Exhibition Centre very shortly to discuss the timetable in the light of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Mr. CarterQ5. Mr. Carter asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to address the next meeting of the NEDC.
Mr. Norman LamontQ8. Mr. Norman Lamont asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to attend a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall be taking the chair at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council tomorrow.
Mr. Carter: Before that meeting takes place, will the Prime Minister tell the House with what moral authority he can ask the TUC and the unions to abide by the provisions of stage 3 when on 5th September 1966 he publicly and openly urged the TUC and the trade unions to undermine the then Government's prices and incomes policy?
The Prime Minister: What I urged at that time was that this was a matter which should be discussed at the conference. I have never in any way denied the right of the TUC or the CBI to argue with me or any other member of the Government about these policies. As I have constantly told the House, there have been 18 months of discussion about this. I had further discussion yesterday evening with the six TUC representatives of "Neddy" about these policies, and, of course, I am ready at any time to argue these matters. I am sure that I shall be able to continue the discussion tomorrow at the "Neddy" meeting.
Mr. Tom King: At that meeting will my right hon. Friend be saying how many workers have now accepted agreements under phase 3? Can he give the latest figures to the House today?
The Prime Minister: Just on 3 million have so far settled under phase 3 and have informed the Pay Board.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sure that the Prime Minister would be the last person to wish to mislead the House
1604
over the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) concerning his message to the TUC in 1966. Will he take a little time over Christmas to look up the precise text of what he said to the TUC and publicly—and perhaps on a future occasion in the House—correct the misleading impression which he just gave, I am sure inadvertently?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it was a misleading impression, but I am prepared to look up the text of the statement I made at the time. It was a party conference which the then Prime Minister was attending and it was obviously a matter on which it could pass resolutions and urge these upon the Government.
Mr. Wilson: The Prime Minister has got even that wrong. It was not a party conference, and I was not due to attend it. It was a TUC congress, and if he will look up the actual text he will see precisely what he said. For purposes of greater accuracy I shall gladly supply him with a copy if he wishes. It is not what he said to the House this afternoon.

CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
Mr. AtkinsonQ6. Mr. Atkinson asked the Prime Minister what further meetings he has planned with the TUC and CBI.
The Prime Minister: I saw representatives of the TUC yesterday and I hope to meet the CBI again soon.
Mr. Atkinson: When the Prime Minister met the TUC leaders last night did he discuss with them, or does he intend to discuss with them in the future, the possibility that if the constituent parts of the TUC gave an undertaking that they would not seek wage increases over and above phase 3 he would try to bring to a conclusion the dispute the Government now have with the mineworkers? Is that the situation for the Government?
The Prime Minister: The discussion last night centred almost entirely on the question of the three-day week, how it would be organised, the consequences for industry, and so on, before the "Neddy" meeting tomorrow. The point raised by the hon. Member was not specifically put to the TUC representatives, but they made

1605
it plain that they were in no position to give any such undertaking, and in fairness to them this has always been their approach throughout the discussions we have had. They have always said that they are not in a position to give an assurance of that kind.
Mr. Redmond: Has my right hon. Friend ever discussed with the TUC and the CBI the question of recruitment to the mining industry? How many new recruits have come into the industry so far this year? Is it right to say that over 50 per cent. of them are miners coming back to the industry?
The Prime Minister: I cannot give my hon. Friend the total recruitment figure, but 85 per cent. of recruits to the mines were adults. That is 35 per cent. higher than the figure for the last six months of the previous year. One of the difficulties about recruiting younger people is the increase in the school leaving age. We have seen a considerable increase in the proportion of adults returning to the mines. About 70 per cent. of total recruitment is of people who were previously miners.
Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has given the House the impression, by previous answers—and perhaps the House has been given the same impression today—that the decline in the number of people in the pits is due principally to the overtime ban. Does the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that there is hardly a pit in the country which has not been short of miners, not for weeks but for months, and even years? What does he think will be the effect on the mining communities—the only places from which the country will get new miners—if he carries through confrontation to the point which he has seemed to indicate in all his previous replies?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must be exaggerating. Why is it that the number fell by 185,000 during the administration of the last Labour Government? Why were many men made redundant? Special arrangements were made for redundancies, and this Government continued with those arrangements. In fact we improved the arrangements.
1606
When the Government are carrying through a policy which has been approved by Parliament and enacted—the code has been approved by Parliament and nearly 3 million workers have registered under that policy and accepted it—why, because one group of workers opposes it, are the Government causing confrontation? Nothing can be further from the truth.
Mr. Woodhouse: When the Prime Minister next meets the President of the CBI, will he ask him whether the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in representing him as having advocated a policy of price control without wage control?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to this matter. The President of the CBI has drawn attention to the fact that he made no such statement. It was twice suggested that he made such a statement by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The President of the CBI says that he made no such statement. In fact, he set out all the possible options which the CBI, the TUC and the Government could consider. One of those options was the one put forward by the TUC, namely, that there should be price control and no incomes policy. The President of the CBI has always rejected that option in all the talks which have been held.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) did not sound convincing to me. At a Conservative gathering the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said that the Government were engaged in a struggle with the coal miners and the train drivers. Does that represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows the position perfectly well. The Government are standing firm by stage 3. If there is a group in the community which opposes the Government's policy, any confrontation which may result is not the responsibility of the Government. I have constantly made it plain that the Government do not want confrontation. The railwaymen's dispute has nothing to do with stage 3. ASLEF

1607
is in conflict with two other unions as well as the management.
Mr. Wilson: Does the Lord President's statement represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government—yes or no?
The Prime Minister: If the railwaymen and miners insist on carrying through their policies, that must mean a struggle not with the Government but with the whole country. That is the position.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, EALING
Mr. Batsford Mr. Batsford (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the fatal rail accident between Ealing Broadway station and West Ealing station on Wednesday evening, 19th December?
The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I very much regret to inform the House that at 5.37 p.m. last night an 11-coach passenger train from Paddington to Oxford was derailed when travelling at speed between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing stations. Ten passengers were killed and 53 injured, eight of them seriously enough to be still detained in hospital.
The House will wish to know that I have received a message of sympathy from the Queen and Prince Philip which, at Her Majesty's request, I have passed on to the Chairman of the British Railways Board. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also sent a message to the Chairman. I know that the House will join with me in expressing most deep sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed and with the injured.
The police, fire and ambulance services were on the scene within five minutes of the derailment. I should like to acknowledge the magnificent way in which they and the voluntary services carried out the work of rescue. It is also right to mention with gratitude the immediate help given by drivers from local depots; they have called off their non-co-operation for the time being in order to get things straight as soon as possible.
I am not able at this stage to inform the House of the cause of this tragic
1608
accident, but I understand that neither vandalism nor the recent repairs to the track at this point were any part of the cause. One of my inspecting officers went to the scene last night; the Chief Inspecting Officer will be holding a public inquiry as soon as possible.
Mr. Batsford: I should like to be associated with my right hon. Friend's expression of sympathy with the relatives of those killed or injured. I join with him in paying tribute to the wonderful work of the police under the direction of Commander Payne, and the other rescue services which acted so promptly. I pay tribute to the residents of Craven Avenue and neighbouring roads in my constituency who did such a wonderful job and gave such great assistance in the rescue.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the steel construction of the coaches and the buck-eye couplings prevented what might have been a greater loss of life? Will he give an assurance that those whose houses and gardens have been damaged as a result of the accident will receive some form of compensation?
Mr. Peyton: I should be grateful if my hon. my hon. Friend would give me some particulars regarding his last point. I am sure that the House will note what he has said with warm agreement and approval. It is hard to exaggerate the prompt way in which the voluntary services, the police and railwaymen of all grades took action to relieve suffering as soon as possible.
Mr. Mulley: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the right hon. Gentleman's expression of deep sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed or injured. I place on record the Opposition's acknowledgment of the work of the public services and the volunteers who turned up promptly and efficiently. We acknowledge the action of the many railwaymen concerned. Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what process of inquiry will follow? Will there be a public inquiry? Will the report be published? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an indication of the approximate timetable of those events? Further, will he confirm that there is no connection between the accident and the railway-men's industrial dispute?
Mr. Peyton: I gladly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance which he seeks. There is no connection between the present non co-operation on the part of ASLEF and the accident. The inquiry will be held in public as soon as possible. A report will be published.
Mr. Woodhouse: On behalf of a number of my constituents who were on the fatal train, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his expression of sympathy and join him in thanking the rescue services, which played such a magnificent part last night? May I also thank my right hon. Friend for the assurance that he has just given to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), which otherwise I would have asked him to give, that there can be no possible ground for associating last night's catastrophe in any way, directly or indirectly, with the consequences of the current industrial action?
Mr. Peyton: I am sure that all those concerned will note with appreciation what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Molloy: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Bats-ford) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on the way in which the police and the ambulance service responded so superbly to this terrible accident?
May I inform the House that very late last night and in the early hours of this morning ordinary people came to the scene in an orderly manner, offering assistance and even offering to take victims of the accident to their homes in Reading? Councillors and aldermen meeting in the Ealing Town Hall abandoned the meeting and, with the deputy town clerk, charwomen and porters from the town hall knuckled to and made a remarkable contribution. It is just that sort of action that has made this country great.
When the inquiry is under way, will the right hon. Gentlemen ensure that there is full discussion? A grievous situation like this seems to bring out the best in the British people. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to find other means than disasters to bring out this superb expression of humanity towards each other?
Mr. Peyton: I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. On this occasion there has been a wonderful display of kindness and compassion by everyone concerned. I also share his reflection that it takes an agonising disaster like this to make people behave towards each other with humanity.
Dr. Vaughan: I, too, should like to be associated with the sympathies that the House sends to the relatives and to the people who have been injured I thank the Minister for his statement. I understand that the 10 people who were killed and the majority of those who were injured come from my constituency or the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor). I hope that the Minister will be able to come back to the House with information about the inquiry as soon as possible after Christmas when the House resumes. Lastly, may I add my tribute to the way in which the accident services functioned? The speed with which they coped with the situation was magnificent.
Mr. Peyton: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said and assure him and the House that there will be no unnecessary or avoidable delay in bringing the inquiry to a conclusion.
Mr. Bidwell: May I join the Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) and my right hon. and hon. Friends in praising the maginficent public response of all those who were concerned in coping with the accident—the railway workers, the public services and the people who ran out from their houses to do what they could?
It is the rarity of railway accidents that causes so much attention to be given by the House to one that occurs, and makes headline news. As the inquiry will be the usual and traditionally exhaustive one, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite it as much as possible, because there has been a local history of vandalism on this part of the line, as a result of which there is apprehension and rumour?
Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department pay attention to the aspect that theories are proffered by the Press on

1611
the cause of the accident? Although we in the House are restrained from making deductions about the cause of the accident until we have evaluated the facts, the Press are free to make deductions.
Mr. Peyton: As I said in my original Answer, there is absolutely no reason to attribute this accident to vandalism, and I am happy to repeat that assurance. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that this accident attracts great attention because of its rarity. One would wish on such an occasion to have in mind, as the hon. Gentleman obviously has, the extraordinarily good safety record of British Railways.

CHILEAN REFUGEES
Mrs. Hart Mrs. Hart (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will delay the threatened immediate deportation of seven Chilean refugees until firm offers of university places can be made to them.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. Carr): These seven people did not present themselves as refugees or students but as visitors arriving from France. They expressed a wish to stay here for a month or two. In subsequent examination by the immigration officers they were specifically asked whether they sought asylum and they said that they did not.
They were, therefore, properly considered under the Immigration Rules relating to visitors and under these rules were in my view properly refused permission to enter.
Under our Immigration Rules visitors who present themselves at our ports without any entry clearance and are refused entry have no right to remain in this country in order to appeal but do have a right of appeal exercisable from abroad after their departure.
In accordance with usual practice, I shall not enforce their departure until I have carefully considered the representations which I have received from the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members; but I think I should tell the House that in my view the normal Immigration Rules must prevail with these seven people as with everyone else.
Mrs. Hart: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's assurance that he will give further time to consider this matter. I appreciate that these people arriving from Chile present difficulties in terms of our normal Immigration Rules. Does the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciate that people arriving from Chile present themselves on our shores in effect as refugees?
The seven who came were all academics, graduates who had been working as civil servants in ministries under the Allende Government. When they arrived they had no contacts and the question of transferring them from visitor status to the status of people with places in universities—[Interruption.] If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches do not care about the fate of people who are being persecuted in Chile, the least they can do is to keep quiet.
I appreciate the problem of the Immigration Rules in this case, but I ask the Home Secretary whether, in terms of the assurance that was given to some of us by the Foreign Secretary and by himself a little later, special consideration may be given to people arriving from Chile? Could it be made normal practice, when people arrive from Chile seeking visitors' visas, for a little more time to be given and for consultation to be undertaken directly with those who know the immediate details about them before a final decision is made? That would be of great assistance.
Mr. Carr: First, two weeks of very careful consideration at ministerial level were given to this case. Secondly, these people arrived not from Chile but from France. They did not arrive from Chile where they were being persecuted. They had got away from where they were possibly being persecuted, they had got to France, and they arrived here from France. We specifically took the trouble to ask them—not in a moment of hurry or turmoil—whether they wished to be considered as refugees. They specifically said that they did not.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many genuine applicants for entry into the United Kingdom who have a right to come to the United Kingdom are delayed in coming to this country because of bogus applications?

1613
My right hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the House who have experience of immigration matters will be aware of this fact. Therefore, does the Home Secretary agree that the House and the country will take note of the fact that the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and her colleagues are prepared to advocate the bending of the rules in cases which suit their own particular interests?
Mr. Carr: My concern is to apply the rules in a fair, firm, but compassionate manner to all people, from wherever they come. In one or two cases I have already taken account of compassionate circumstances. Before ministerial decision was made in this case—and I emphasise that the final decision was taken at ministerial level—particular inquiries were made to see whether there were any special compassionate circumstances. Only the previous day I had found a case from one part of Chile where there were special compassionate circumstances, and I took a different decision. But the seven people to whom the right hon. Lady referred did not come from Chile; they did not claim to be refugees; and there were no compassionate circumstances.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Home Secretary repudiate those of his Conservative colleagues who urge that no civilised treatment should be afforded to those who come from Chile because they happen to have been associated with the Allende régime? Secondly, will he give the House an assurance that no representations were made to his Department by the Chilean Ambassador urging the Government not to allow these people into the country? Finally, can he say to which country these people will be returned, if he decides to take such a course?
Mr. Carr: If I may take the last point first, I must tell the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) that no representations were received by the present Chilean Ambassador on the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests. These people presumably will go back to France, from where they came. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, if and when I hear such suggestions from any quarter of the House I shall deny them. I have not yet heard such suggestions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House kindly indicate his present thinking on the issues that the House may be debating in the first week after the recess?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): May I give the House the business which may take place when we return:
TUESDAY 15TH JANUARY—Supply (8th allotted day).
The Question will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and on the Civil Vote on Account.
Debate on a motion to take note of reports from the Expenditure Committee.
WEDNESDAY 16TH JANUARY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
THURSDAY 17TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Companies Bill.
FRIDAY 18TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. Wilson: This business statement, unusually, is not to be taken seriously. It represents no more than the doodlings of the Leader of the House about what we may be debating, and events may mean that the priority of debates will be entirely different. My only question, which I hope he will take seriously—he is, after all, Leader of the House—is this: is he aware that the House as a whole hopes that he will have a very happy Christmas?
Mr. Prior: That is certainly the most pleasant question I have ever been asked during business questions. I should like to respond and to wish the whole House and you, Mr. Speaker, a happy Christmas.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend has indicated the date of the Second Reading of the Companies Bill. What is now the position about the Green Paper on worker participation and the projected debate thereon?
Mr. Prior: I hope that the Green Paper will be available fairly early in the new year, after which the House will wish to have time to debate it.
Mr. Swain: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate in the not-too-distant future Early Day Motion No. 116.
[That this House believes that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been grossly negligent in the way he has handled the refusal of Clay Cross UDC to implement the Housing Finance Act of 1972; suggests that the Minister should have sent in the Housing Commission in July 1972 as requested by the Council at Clay Cross; considers that as a consequence of his refusal to act he has penalised the 11 members of Clay Cross Council for something that the Secretary of State should have done in the first place; and believes that the Minister should be compelled to make a statement in the House and apologise to the 11 members for his neglect.]
That is a serious motion because its effect is that the responsible Secretary of State has been criminally negligent in not sending in the Housing Commission for a period of 14 months. Therefore, he has neglected everybody in Clay Cross and, above all, encouraged the very people whom that mob on the Conservative benches have been condemning. Will he find time to discuss this urgent motion? No doubt Conservative Members could be in the Smoking Room during the period of the debate.
Mr. Prior: No, Sir. In a less fraternal mood than that in which I replied to the point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I must totally reject the terms of Motion No. 116. I do not consider it right to debate these matters while the issues involved are before the courts.
Mr. Swain: They are not before the court. They are finished.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before any ministerial decision is reached about the massive nuclear programme to be undertaken by the CEGB, he must take account of the fact that there is widespread anxiety that any decision must be preceded by the publication of a Green Paper and a debate in this House? May we assume from the fact that this matter does not feature in the first week's business after the Recess that no decision will have been taken by that time?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry dealt with this point in his speech on Tuesday evening, and I have nothing to add. I shall see that the additional points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) are brought to the Secretary of State's attention, but I have no knowledge that an announcement will be made as soon as we return after the recess.
Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when we return, the debate on public expenditure will relate to the White Paper on public expenditure? Will he further comment on the undertaking that in normal circumstances there would be a debate following the publication of the White Paper, with a further debate in the Budget proceedings? This matter is particularly important because the Government are resting largely on public expenditure cuts as the main instrument of their economic planning. As a result it will be more necessary than normal to examine the implications in a public expenditure debate.
Mr. Prior: The debate to be held when the House resumes is not a debate on the White Paper on public expenditure. I hope to arrange that debate shortly afterwards. It will be before the Budget, and I hope that it will be shortly after the first week the House resumes.
Mr. Idris Owen: Will my right hon. Friend accept the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and recognise that there is grave perturbation on the serious question of nuclear power? Will he assure the House that there is no evidence to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will come to the House only when the decision is made? Will he accept that grave problems are involved and that the nation desires a full debate before any decision is made about the purchase of light water reactors from the United States?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is well aware of the anxiety on this matter in the House and indeed the interest that is taken in this subject, and he has on several occasions dealt with it. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said—

1617
namely that no decision has been reached. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the strong views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen).
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite anxieties expressed in business questions last week on the prospective decision of the Minister of Transport Industries in respect of the SELNEC PTA Piccadilly-Victoria rapid transit scheme in the greater Manchester area, the Minister this evening will indicate, in reply to a Written Question, that he is giving what has been interpreted as a qualified go-ahead to this scheme? Will he confirm that the Minister's decision means a go-ahead to the scheme, and will he explain that this is a crucial decision which has not been announced to the House?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend is answering two Questions today, one from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and the other from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler), and I think that it would be wrong for me to go further than to say that the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) will have to await the answers to those Questions.
Mr. Fowler: Can my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance that there will be an opportunity in the new year to debate the Government's policy on crime? May I remind him that it is now more than 18 months since the Criminal Law Revision Committee reported and that that very important report has been debated virtually everywhere, apart from in this Chamber?
Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety and of the number of times that he has raised the matter of the report. I hope that we shall be able to find time for a debate. My hon. Friend asked for a debate in the new year. I hope that it will be possible fairly early in the new year.
Mr. George Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware of the large number of recommendations of the Procedure Committee outstanding which have not yet been considered by the House? May we have some indication about when the
1618
right hon. Gentleman will be able to squeeze in those recommendations?
Mr. Prior: I should like to look into that, but I cannot see an early opportunity for a debate on these matters.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that there are certain rumours that the order is about to be laid concerning the Kielder Dam, may I ask my right hon. Friend once again whether it will be before or after Christmas? He will be aware that I am very grateful to him. However, I should like a Christmas present.
Mr. Prior: Nothing would suit me better than to be able to give my hon. Friend a Christmas present. However, I have no further news beyond that which I gave her last week. I have done my best, and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to see that the order should go through as quickly as possible, and I shall remind my right hon. Friend of his undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
Mr. Elystan Morgan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use all his powers of persuasion with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to get the Agricultural Price Review statement made as early as possible in the New Year and, if possible, in the very first week of our return? Is he aware that there are grave apprehensions in the agriculture industry about the £500 million-plus increase in production costs suffered this year and that this is the most astronomic increase in the history of British agriculture?
Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems of the agriculture industry, as I am. The £500 million increase in costs is an indication of the cost of world supplies this year. However, I do not think that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement as early as our first week back. I know that he is keen to bring the Price Review to a satisfactory conclusion as early as possible, and I will convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to him.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look again at Early Day Motion No. 24, and will he bear in mind that by the time that the

1619
House comes back after the recess, if we are to have a chance to debate the withdrawal of check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal, these will have been withdrawn already for some 11 days? Will my right hon. Friend try to do something to assist the travelling public?
[That this House calls upon the British Airports Authority and British Airways to retain the check-in system at the Cromwell Road Terminal at least until the rail link to Heathrow is open for passenger use.]
Mr. Prior: I believe that certain statements are likely to be made in another place, but I should like to check again on the views expressed by my hon. Friend and, if necessary, to write to him about them.
Dr. Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time soon after the recess for a debate on the Report of the Departmental Working Party on School Transport?
Mr. Prior: That report has only just been published, and it is too early yet to think about a debate. In any event, I should not be able to find time in the immediate future.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. Mr. Davies. Statement.
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware that we have an excessively crowded programme this afternoon, and I wish to refer the Leader of the House to a matter concerning London Airport which is of very urgent importance—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do my best during business questions, and I try to call almost all hon. Members who rise immediately after the business statement. However hon. Members have a habit of rising subsequently with the result that, if I were to call everyone, business questions could go on for ever. I think that we must move on now.

EEC MINISTERIAL MEETINGS
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on meetings of the Council of the Eurapean Communities since my last statement a fortnight ago. There have been two meetings of Finance Ministers and one each of Foreign, Agriculture and Social Affairs Ministers.
External trade agreements have been concluded with India and Brazil. There has been further consideration of agreements with Mediterranean countries and with those former members of EFTA that have not acceded to the Communities, and of Community adherence to the International Sugar Agreement; work on the simplification of Customs procedures is to be pursued; the improvement of the CAP was discussed, as was a programme for consumer protection; the Community budget for 1974 was finalised at a level slightly lower than in the current year but within the total figure the Social Fund has been increased by about £19 million—45 million units of account—as already agreed.
This week's meeting of Foreign Ministers was dominated by the problems of energy and the Regional Development Fund. No agreement was reached but the Council agreed to resume the discussion not later than 7th January next year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave a good deal of information on these matters to the House at Question Time yesterday.
Finance Ministers agreed a series of measures defining the content of a second stage of Economic and Monetary Union to apply from 1974 on: A resolution on the move to a second stage was also broadly agreed but since it included references to the setting up of the Regional Development Fund and the work to be undertaken on energy matters, it was deferred until those issues were settled.
The Council has agreed on a programme of action in the field of industrial and technological policy, in accordance with the decision taken at the Paris Summit. The Commission has been charged with submitting draft Directives.
Social Affairs Ministers agreed on a programme of action to be embodied in

1621
a Council Resolution. The programme represents a major stage in the development of the Community social policy envisaged at the Paris Summit.
Mr. Peter Shore: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, cheerless though it is.
Before turning to the major matters of energy and the regional development fund, which are rightly singled out as the most important matters under discussion, may I clear two preliminary points with the right hon. Gentleman?
In relation to the trade agreement with India, can he say whether he has managed to secure a no-change position in the British tariff on imported Indian tobacco and on Indian jute manufacturers—and, incidentally, I hope that the jute position will be the same for Bangladesh?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any agreement has been reached, in the talks on the International Sugar Agreement, on the major principles for changing the common agricultural policy in relation to sugar which both sides of this House agreed following our debate a month or so ago?
Turning to the heart of these discussions, may I first ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is that the German Government, at this very late stage in the talks on the Regional Development Fund, have apparently put forward figures which are so much lower than those which had previously been discussed and well below the level of the right hon. Gentleman's anticipation up till only a few days ago? Is it because this is a retaliation against the very unforthcoming British position on the medium-or short-term response to the oil crisis facing Western Europe? If it is, does he think that by refusing to agree to a draft regulation by the Commission to furnish statistical information on oil supply in Britain, by vetoing this proposal, he will persuade the Germans to open their purse and make the money available?
Why is it so important to this country that we should have a large Regional Development Fund? Is not the first reason the need felt to offset the crippling and disproportionate payment this country has to make to the CAP and the dispro-
1622
portionate size of the CAP in the totality of Community expenditure? Is it not the case that even if the whole original Commission proposal, which now seems far removed from the possibilities of acceptance, were to be agreed, the budget for the next three years of the regional fund would be no more than 3,000 million units of account as against the more than 12,000 million payment under the CAP?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman now consider that it would have been far better for this country to have taken on these serious matters long before the Treaty of Accession was signed and to have secured for this country proper terms so that he would not now have to try to persuade, from a position of appalling weakness, other countries to be generous to this country?
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is seriously at fault on his last point. We have always held, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have believed, that the appropriate way to deal with imperfections within the Community—if imperfections there are, and I do not dissent from that—is to handle them from within. We still firmly believe that this is right, that the right way to deal with problems of improvement of the Community's activity is as a member. I have little doubt that that conclusion is correct.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's specific points, I can inform the right hon. Gentleman on the precise details of the Indian agreement—but suffice to say now that the arrangements entered into for unmanufactured tobacco and jute from India are wholly satisfactory and meet our requirements and those of the Indians. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman precise details separately. It is my firm expectation that similar arrangements as those entered into with India will be negotiated with Bangladesh.
The right hon. Gentleman inquired about the rate of work developing in considering the Commission's CAP proposals. This will continue for some time. The matter requires much discussion among agricultural Ministers, but I sincerely hope that by the time we come to consider agricultural questions, such as the level of agricultural prices,

1623
next year, these matters will have been satisfactorily dealt with.
The principal point on which the right hon. Gentleman concentrates is the whole question of the regional development fund and energy. He is right; these were clearly the dominant issues, as I said in my statement. I do not believe that the German reaction to the Commission's proposals was dictated by a desire for retaliation. That would not have been logical in the circumstances, since at the Summit meeting in Copenhagen it was quite clear that the Germans, like all other members of the Community, were well satisfied with the conclusions reached at the Summit. It would therefore be wrong to imagine that there was a feeling of resentment which the Germans sought to carry through to the regional development issue.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Germans' reaction was both disappointing and, in some ways, very surprising at that stage, in view of all that had gone before. It was perhaps dictated more by considerable anxiety about the evolution of the European economies generally and the German economy in particular, in the light of the clear implications of energy costs for all those economies.
On the question of effectiveness to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—on the energy problem as against the regional problem—the right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to imagine that the proposals before us were simply confined to providing information. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear that he had promised that in any case information would be forthcoming to make the work go forward. Action on this included setting up a high-level committee with the task of operating something in the nature of at least a guidance service on the terms of energy use in the Community.
The requirement for a major regional development fund is not Britain's alone—far from it. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, well before our membership of the EEC, it was not only included in the Treaty of Rome, as a major requirement but was specifically regarded as one of the principal
1624
issues at the Paris Summit meeting in October 1972.
The reason is that it is realised that it is not just in Britain but in practically every country that there are major regional disparities which militate against the social evolution of the Community and against the possibility of attaining an economic and monetary union of the kind which the Community has in mind. The requirement to achieve a major regional development fund applies to the Community as a whole, and is not restricted to a single country or even to three countries.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the relationship of the figures now being considered to the total figures involved in the CAP, I agree with him that there is still a great contrast. It is one of the objectives that the fund, when set up, should not merely be large at the outset but should progressively become greater and greater because it has to meet a major problem in the Community. It is to that purpose that the Government will be arguing in the course of the ensuing meetings.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is not it obvious that a project as big as the regional development fund is likely to be attended by much haggling and argument? As West Germany now holds more than half the total financial reserves in the Community, is it not also clear that Germany's reservations are not due to a shortage of money but perhaps to Cabinet disputes which are likely to be resolved as soon as the German Cabinet realises the strength of feeling on the matter in this country?
Mr. Davies: It is undoubtedly true that the German Cabinet is very concerned about the future development of its own economy and the economies of other member States in Europe resulting from the cost of oil. The German Government equally is deeply concerned at the thought of being perhaps alone in resisting the institution of the regional development fund on the kind of scale which the Commission has proposed. That should be a powerful factor in influencing German thinking on the matter. I hope that by the time we resume on 7th January—if that be the date—there will be a possibility of reaching agreement.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the assurances which he gave to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), there is considerable Press speculation to the effect that the German position represents a German response to the British attitude on energy sharing in the Community? Will he make that point quite clear?
Secondly, what I find difficult to understand is that the German position came as such a shock and surprise. Everyone knew that the Germans were unenthusiastic about the regional proposals because of the burden which these would lay on them, but no one understood that the position which the Germans would finally take up would be so hard. Has there been dialogue and contact with the German Government in recent months to the developing attitude in Germany to this matter?
Mr. Davies: Despite Press speculation, I do not believe that the position taken up by the German representative at the Council meeting earlier this week was the result of a feeling of resentment against any British attitude on the energy front. On the contrary, I do not believe that at that stage it was a vital issue in the Germans' mind, in view of the decisions taken at the Summit. Regarding the degree of surprise expressed at the German reaction, the hon. Gentleman has instanced the point. I can assure him that there has been continuous discussion. But the inadequacy of the German approach was something of a surprise to us and other members.
Mr. Powell: Do not my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government feel the humiliation of asking the Germans and other nations to put up a little more money to enable us to help our own regions and our own people?
Mr. Davies: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend about this matter. The Community is an organisation which requires inputs, support and contributions of all kinds from its members and offers advantages to its members. Nothing would be further from the truth than to imagine that in this respect we are holding out a begging bowl. We are concerned with a major feature of Community policy, the setting up of a proper
1626
regional organisation and policy in the Community to ovecome what is a Community-wide problem. We are concerned with that, not with seeking to extract a few extra Deutschemarks.
Mr. Judd: Does the Minister appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members are deeply concerned about the lack of detailed information about arrangements with India and Bangladesh? Does he realise that there is growing anxiety about the progress of negotiations on the generalised scheme of preferences and the implications for the relationship of the EEC to the Third World as a whole, which many right hon. and hon. Members believe is becoming an increasingly important and sensitive major political issue? Can he guarantee that we shall have full and detailed statements before irrevocable steps are taken in those directions?
Mr. Davies: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the fullest information will be given on the arrangements entered into with India and Bangladesh and on the Community's GSP arrangements as from the beginning of next year. I think that when the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to study both those matters he will not be dissatisfied. In fact, the GSP constitutes from the Community's point of view a big step forward overall in relation to the interests of the developing world.
Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend has spoken of India and Bangladesh. Would the Government support the accession of other Asian Commonwealth countries or former Commonwealth countries to the external trade agreements? With regard to the question of regional assistance, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Community is very much a matter of give and take, and that the United Kingdom provides a great deal of industrial and technological expertise to Germany in various joint collaborative ventures in which we are engaged?
Mr. Davies: The identity document which emerged from the Summit meeting at Copenhagen made specific reference to those countries which are broadly classed within the framework of the Declaration of Intent under the Treaty of Accession. The intention has been expressed, and is reiterated, to seek with

1627
those countries agreements which are favourable both to them and to the Community. I think that the Indian agreement is the first such case. Bangladesh, Pakistan and other countries will be involved. Malaysia and all those countries will have a major interest in the GSP scheme.
As for the counterparts to the Regional Development Fund, I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The enormous advantages which Germany enjoys in her external trade as a result of membership of the Community, not least in this country, should not be forgotten either.
Mr. Jay: As the Government are threatening to withdraw from our development areas regional employment premium payments, which are now running at £90 million a year, will the Minister give a firm assurance that he will not accept a lesser annual payment than that from the so-called regional fund?
Mr. Davies: To set the record straight, the present Government, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on many occasions, have done nothing but to follow the precise intent stated by the former Government on the REP. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point is very pertinent. But I can assure him that it is not the Government's intention to vary what they have already said on the subject of the REP.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Whilst one can understand German feeling about the regional fund, as they are maximum contributors and minimum beneficiaries, is not that exactly the British position in regard to the common agricultural policy? Is not the logic of the position, therefore, that a further initiative should now be taken for a more realistic and radical appraisal of the common agricultural policy than has so far been envisaged?
Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has always made it clear that he regards the report of the Commission on the improvement of the common agricultural policy as only a first step, and that it should be followed by a progressive review of the policy as time goes on. I do not think that there can be any doubt of the Government's intentions in that respect.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will certainly call the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but I hope first to have a chance to call some other hon. Members from the benches behind him.
Mr. John Mendelson: Does not the Minister realise that there is a widespread feeling throughout the country that the whole policy he is pursuing is breaking down and coming apart in every possible way? Will he not take the House of Commons properly into the Government's confidence and meet that expression of feeling throughout the country? Does he recall that in the summer, also just a day before the House adjourned he told the House and the country that he had been informed about a supplementary budget for the common agricultural policy, amounting to £33 million, only eight hours before he agreed to that supplementary budget? Would it not have been wiser not to be so hasty in paying out from the funds of this country for the common agricultural policy but to hold back on it and say, "Let us see what happens to other policies, like the regional policy and the social fund, which might be of some slight benefit to this country"? Will he now say that he will re-cast the Government's policy on these matters and make a new start which will make it quite clear that unless other countries live up to the expectations of the Government we shall not pay into those funds to which we have been committed?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I believe that the Government will achieve from the membership of the Community the objectives which they sought I equally believe that on the narrower, immediate question of the constitution of a regional fund the intention we have expressed will be realised. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's views.
At the time of the supplementary budget to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I pointed out that it was not a departure in budgeting of the kind to which this House is accustomed, in that it simply reflected policy decisions which had been taken previously, and to which the House was privy.
Dame Joan Vickers: Yesterday I was in Paris discussing with the Germans and

1629
others the question of regional policy. Does not my right hon. Friend think that as the Germans destroyed so many of our cities, including the city of Plymouth, it is only right that they should pay some compensation now?
Mr. Davies: It would be a great pity if the purposes and future of the Community were to be established on the basis of compensation and recompense for past matters. The Community is constituted as a forward-looking organisation seeking to devise a better, more secure and more prosperous order in Europe. That is certainly the basis on which I bend my mind when seeking to achieve our objectives.
Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister realise that his continued optimism about the eventual outcome of our association with the EEC is most surprising to anyone who gives deep thought to the position? He repeatedly comes back and turns defeats into victories. Is it not humiliating, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, that he and the Foreign Secretary have to be there with their begging bowl at a time when massive British investment, as Le Monde reported yesterday, is being made in Brussels and in France in particular?
Would it not have been better if those massive British investments which have been put into the EEC had been put into our own regions—and then we would have saved the right hon. Gentleman the trouble and humiliation of having to go almost on his knees to get a fund which the Government promised the British people they would get when they took us into the Common Market?
Mr. Davies: I do not think that I should add to what I said earlier on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman's outburst does no credit to himself or, indeed, to any of us. The fact is that there is no question of a begging bowl and I should like very sharply to reject that suggestion.
Mr. Body: As my right hon. Friend will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House yesterday afternoon—that there was a plan to make the Common Market into a free trade area—will he tell the House now
1630
who are the authors of this plan, whether the plan has the support of M. Pompidou, and on what grounds can this principle of a large free trade area be reconciled with the principle of Community preference? Finally, is my right hon. Friend aware that, if this plan is likely to come about, even I, who have not been backward in my views about the Common Market, will at last be reconciled to the advantages of the European Community?
Mr. Davies: I do not know where the thought of the conversion of the Community into a free trade area has emerged. It certainly is not to my mind a likely project. Perhaps it is an interpretation of the thought that a free trade area is a minimal part of the existing plans of the Community itself.
Mr. English: In the light of the Chancellor's statement, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he asked permission in Brussels to cut by 10 per cent. that portion of our public expenditure which results from our entry into the EEC?
Mr. Davies: I am not clear about the precise part of public expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman refers. One of the issues which the hon. Gentleman will have noticed was involved in my statement was that referring to the budget, which he will have noticed is less this year than it was last year. Perhaps this is what he meant.
Dame Irene Ward: As regards this controversy which has arisen over the Regional Development Fund, had there been any indication previously that this might be the attitude of West Germany, or does my right hon. Friend think that it is some sort of Cabinet controversy in that country, taking the sort of line that we sometimes do—put something out to get something over?
As my right hon. Friend has not been in the House of Commons for all that long, may I ask him whether he is aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) stated many months ago to me personally and publicly that he would do nothing for the regions, so I wipe him out?
Mr. Davies: There was never any real doubt that the Germans were markedly

1631
less enthusiastic than ourselves on the subject of the establishment of a Regional Development Fund. What constituted the surprise was that they should have proved as reticent as they were.
I have been aware of the reluctance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to consider the problems of regional policy, even nationally, as being one warranting major effort by the Government.
Mr. John Morris: Would I be right in assuming that the proposed figure of £1,250 million for the Regional Development Fund is the Government's sticking point—or, if it is not, is the Commission's £1,000 million the sticking point?
Mr. Davies: I think that I would be unwise to negotiate across the Floor of the House in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that I should.
Sir Gilbert Longden: As the common agricultural policy, until its terms can be renegotiated, which we all hope will be soon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—my right hon. Friend will be well aware that I have from the very start hoped that the common agricultural policy terms would be renegotiated. Since it places a heavy burden upon our country, is it not rather surprising that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including two right hon. Members, should denigrate my right hon. Friend's efforts to get something for the regions from the regional policy? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the large majority of hon. Members who are normally on this side of the House are behind him in his efforts and wish him well?
Mr. Davies: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I absolutely agree with him. There has never been any doubt at all that the Government had firmly in mind the improvement of the common agricultural policy, but they believed most substantially that they would do that much more effectively—and it looks as though they will, from inside the Community—than from outside.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) mentioned the generalised system of preferences, but this was not mentioned
1632
in his statement by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that this agreement has to come into force from 1st January, that it was contained in a draft regulation placed before the Council of Ministers by the Commission, and that if it were to be adopted it would mean that handicrafts, edible coconut oil and jute would be disadvantaged in terms of entry into this country from ex-Commonwealth territories, whatever the general effects may be as outlined in the right hon. Gentleman's reply?
Mr. Davies: The only reason it was not included in the statement was that, broadly speaking, the Council had dealt with it previously. I referred to it in the last statement that I made to the House. There are a number of small points to be clarified before it is finalised. That will be done before 1st January. What one should be concerned with is the overall balance of benefit of the GSP scheme. That I believe from the Community standpoint is very satisfactory.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one aspect of these combined negotiations at Copenhagen and Brussels which still mystifies me and, perhaps, some others?
It is suggested, as I understand the Minister's statements today and the reports which have been made, that to deal with the derisory figure that has so far been offered for a regional fund the sanction—if that is the proper word—which the Government propose to use or to invoke to secure alteration by 7th January to this state of affairs is to hold up the discussions or the procedures agreed in Copenhagen about the energy arrangements.
If it is true, as my hon. Friend suggested, that that agreement in Copenhagen is solely an agreement by a committee reporting on statistics, then it is not a very formidable deterrent. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If, on the other hand, the agreement in Copenhagen is a further and more far-reaching arrangement about energy, which might touch not merely immediate matters but such major matters as the future disposal of oil supplies from the North Sea, that would be vastly different, and I presume that the Government are opposed to proceeding with such discussions as that.

1633
Therefore, I hope that the Government will not be entrapped into having to agree to what they objected to at Copenhagen about energy because somebody comes along with a slightly better figure on the regional account.
In view of these considerations, which are of the highest possible importance in our present circumstances for the future of this country, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an absolute assurance, without any qualification whatever, that neither in Brussels nor at the Summit, nor anywhere else, will any agreement be made by Her Majesty's Government affecting the long-term disposal of oil supplies from the North Sea or the Celtic seas to this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that no commitment whatever in any form, or any undertaking which might lead to a later commitment, will be made without the House giving the authority to the Minister to do that? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate—I hope that he does—that it is on that clear understanding that any discussions on this matter should take place with Governments in Europe?
Mr. Davies: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely not part of the Government's intention in any way or form to alienate the advantage of
1634
interest in oil from the North Sea or Celtic Sea.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the occasions that we have statements from the right hon. Gentleman regarding meetings in Europe, could you, Mr. Speaker, consider expediting the reports from Committees of this House so that we might deal with those statements more in keeping with the need to ensure the right of right hon. and hon. Members to have a more suitable and adequate discussion of such matters?
Mr. Speaker: I will have regard to what the hon. Gentleman said. The length of time that I allowed on supplementaries today is some indication of my view of the matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  PET ANIMALS ACT 1951 (AMENDMENT)
  Sir Ronald Russell, supported by Mr. Burden, Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Harold Gurden, Sir John Hall, Dr. Shirley Summerskill and Mr. John Pardoe, presented a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951; And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th January and to be printed [Bill 59].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SIR THOMAS GEORGE BARNETT COCKS, KCB, OBE
  4.42 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
  That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Thomas George Barnett Cocks, KCB, OBE, on his retirement from the Office of Clerk of this House, the expression of Members' deep appreciation of the distinguished services which he has rendered to this House in the conduct of its business during the last forty-three years, and their gratitude for his unique contribution in disseminating British practices and procedures.
  This motion in the names of the Prime Minister, the Leaders of the Opposition Parties and myself, taken as it is in the shadow of sombre events and changes, provides us with an opportunity of reminding ourselves of happier aspects of the House which do not change and our dependence on the devoted services of the permanent Officers of the House and in particular on the long and honoured line of Clerks who have over so many years—indeed over several centuries—served Parliament so well.
  Sir Barnett himself has reminded us in the past about the time when he first entered the Clerk's Department in 1931, at a time when the Stationery Office still issued sharpened quills to the House and when we used to burn 80 tons of coal a week in the winter. He spoke of having been taught his parliamentary practice by men who had been here in Gladstone's day—the tradition recorded by Hatsell, Erskine May and Campion. Sir Barnett has kept the best traditions of the House alive and growing, but I do not think that he would wish me to lay too much stress on the traditional side of his services to the House. I recall with pleasure an exchange he once had, during evidence that he was giving to a Select Committee on Procedure, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) about new procedure for electing a Speaker. The hon. Lady queried whether it would not be a big change to alter a procedure dating back to 1300, to which Sir Barnett replied, a little tongue in cheek, I suspect:
  1636
  "The Clerks usually are rather revolutionary in their outlook. They would have no objection to a change however drastic."
  Nor has Sir Barnett confined this willingness to change to such minor matters as his advocacy of getting rid of wigs, gowns, and other nineteenth century formalities. On far more fundamental points he has been willing, like his predecessors, to look to the interests of parliamentary Government in its widest context. In 1949 he was one of the original Clerks to go to Strasbourg. He has created a manual of procedure for the Council of Europe and WEU. He is the author of an authoritative handbook on the procedures of the European Assembly.
  Important though Sir Barnett's services to the future and to other parliamentary institutions will, I am sure, prove to have been, however, I think it must be with reference to his past services here that I must conclude. For more thon 40 years in the Clerk's Department, and for 12 years in the exacting post of the Clerk of the House, he has given authoritative, impartial and invariably courteous advice to hon. Members of all parties. He has been a great source of procedural wisdom in day-to-day business as well as in evidence to Select Committees and the revisions of Erskine May.
  Sir Barnett has always been helpful to the Front Benches, although I fancy he has, quite rightly, been biased in favour of the individual Member. Obviously this is right, and the back benchers have special reason to be grateful to him.
  This is essentially a personal occasion on which the House pays its tribute to a dedicated public servant. Beyond this, however, as we wish him a long, happy and active retirement in the company of his wife and family, we recognise in him a great tradition of public service to this House—a tradition which he so ably represented and which he hands on, enhanced, to his successor.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition I have been asked to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends very warmly with the motion. We wish, too, Mr. Speaker, that you will convey to the Clerk of the House on his pending retirement the deep

  1637
  appreciation and, indeed, the affection of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  There are two parts to the motion. One refers to Sir Barnett's duties as Clerk of the House in the more domestic sense. The latter part refers to his contribution to the wider study of the institution of Parliament throughout the Commonwealth and the world. On the first part, all my hon. Friends on the back benches have found in Sir Barnett Cocks a very willing helper and counsellor on matters of procedure, when asking him to connive at or approve of what was afoot. He has lent his wide experience and knowledge of procedure and the possibilities of procedure of this House to private Members, who had their own private schemes, to make the most of their opportunities. We always look for that in a Clerk of the House. We have regarded the Clerk as a friend and counsellor as well as the Clerk of the House itself.
  On the second part of the motion, it is appropriate to say that Sir Barnett has not only been an Officer of the House but one of the most persuasive and convinced exponents of the institution of Parliament. He has not only a strong feeling of affection for the House but a deep understanding of the social change brought about through a representative Parliament in a free society.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of his works on the parliamentary institutions both here and in Europe, but the Opposition noticed with particular appreciation the sort of thing that Sir Barnett did in 1952, when he wrote, in conjunction with a former Librarian, a book entitled "The People's Conscience", when he gave us a description of the work of Select Committees of this House in the nineteenth century, investigating some of the deeper inequalities and shortcomings of society at that time. He was editor of the Erskine May 18th Edition in 1971 and has in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, here and overseas, lent his wide experience and knowledge to his opposite numbers and other colleagues from Commonwealth Parliaments on matters of procedure and practice in this House.
  Now that Sir Barnett is to be released from the fatigue and restraints of service to this House, I am sure that it is our wish that he may be moved to tell us
  1638
  more about the parliamentary institution as he has seen it for the last 43 years. Those of us working here, engaged in the political and parliamentary struggle, probably do not always appreciate the real significance of the institution of Parliament. I believe that the institution of Parliament has to be defended in a world which is not creating new parliamentary democracies and where many of those that exist are losing ground in the face of deep-seated forces for the overthrow of representative government. I look forward to seeing from Sir Barnett a freer expression of his views of the institution of Parliament.
  I am not in favour of retirement. I believe that retirement is one of the few opportunities in life for looking forward. It is not until one reaches that stage that one takes stock of life and says, "What can I now do for the rest of my time?" I am sure that the whole House wishes the Clerk of the House a long retirement and a fruitful and happy time, one in which we can look for further wise comments and counsel on the work we do in the House of Commons.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: It is with very great pleasure that I associate my right hon. Friends with the gratitude we all feel to Sir Barnett Cocks for his very long and equally distinguished period of service to this House and wish him and Lady Cocks a very happy and fruitful retirement. As with the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I hope that retirement will not preclude Sir Barnett from pursuing matters literal and political, which we shall study with very careful attention.
  The Clerk of the House has perhaps the unique distinction of being the first official with whom a Member comes into contact. He has very great power because it is not until he has successfully delivered the oath that we are entitled to draw our salaries. He himself has to take an oath
  "to make true entries, remembrances, and journals of the things done and passed in the House of Commons."
  It is daunting to think of the millions of words and the hundreds of thousands of motions which Sir Barnett has truly recorded for all time. One can only hope that he showed discretion in sub-editing.

  1639
  The duty of the Clerk of the House is to assist Mr. Speaker and advise Members on the proceedings of the House. From that, one might aduce that Mr. Speaker requires no advice and Members no assistance. But I suspect that both are required and I know from my own experience that both have been freely given.
  We want not only to thank Sir Barnett for his very great courtesy and his expertise, but to thank also all the Clerks who serve with him and are part of the team. I particularly remember the memoranda of the evidence, both written and oral, which he tendered on highly intricate points of law to the Select Committee on Procedure and which were always a very great joy and experience to read.
  I must here declare an interest. The Boundary Commissioners were kind enough to include the town of Bideford in my constituency, which happens to be Sir Barnett's birth place, and I have reason to believe that he will repair there with some frequency in future. Whether he will do that on a sufficiently permanent basis to be enrolled on the electoral register, I do not know. But even if that were so it would be improper for me to ask him what his intentions might subsequently be. However, as far as I am concerned, unlike the rest of the House, I shall from time to time have him locally available for me to receive first-hand advice on parliamentary matters, and I must warn him that on his retirement I intend to avail myself of it.
  Today, we thank a very distinguished and loyal servant of this House. We thank him for what he has done and wish him and Lady Cocks a very happy retirement. He takes with him the good wishes of the whole House.
  4.54 p.m.
  Sir Robin Turton: I must admit that when I decided, seven years ago, not to seek re-election the last thing I expected was that I would outlast the Clerk of the House. Therefore, it puts me in a difficult position. Looking around me, I see that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and I represent the sole survivors of what one might describe as the "pre-Cocks era" of Parliament.
  1640
  But I would like to add my tribute to the services that the Clerk has given to back benchers and to Chairmen of Committees during his service in the House. Sir Barnett has always marked that service by exceptional courtesy.
  I have had more intimate experience of him because, Mr. Speaker, in spring 1959 one of your predecessors sent Sir Barnett, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and myself to Ghana to present a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly. I found there that Sir Barnett was very helpful in dealing with some of the peculiar informalities to which we were subjected.
  As we advanced to present the Chair in the Ghanaian National Assembly, we were led up by the Assembly's Serjeant at Arms, who had held similar office in the Ghanaian constabulary. As we advanced near the Table—I was following immediately behind Sir Barnett—I heard a whispered order, "About turn, quick march", and whereupon obeyed. But it is somewhat difficult when one is in close single file, as Sir Barnett, I and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, were to retire from a Chamber in such circumstances. I inquired what was wrong when we got outside, and the Serjeant at Arms explained that he had forgotten the Mace. We then started the procession all over again. This was one of the informalities of the occasion which I have not previously reported to the House.
  The other informality has already been reported by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East. After Sir Barnett, the right hon. Gentleman and I had delivered our message of presentation. Dr. Nkrumah and his Cabinet dashed down from the Government benches, picked up the Speaker's Chair, put it on their shoulders, took it up to the dais and thrust Mr. Speaker into it in a rather rougher manner than that in which you, Mr. Speaker, came into the Chair of this House.
  I should like to pay tribute to the way in which Sir Barnett, in his capacity of Clerk of the House, has helped the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in all the work that it does, particularly in the very nice and informal way in which he and Lady Cocks have entertained delegates at the seminars in their own

  1641
  residence here in the Palace of Westminster. It has made them the friends not only of the British Parliament but of Members of Parliament throughout the Commonwealth.
  Like the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I hope that when Sir Barnett retires he will give us a little bit more than he has given us in the dusty pages of Erskine May. He knows more about the law of contempt than, I believe, anyone else in the country. It is a subject of which the House is, I often think, in some submissions to you, Mr. Speaker, woefully ignorant, and I think that we could learn a great deal from an explanation of what the law of contempt really is from the hands of Sir Barnett.
  Finally, in the very difficult position which faces the House in the reform of procedure, it would be a great gain to us if he would tell us how we can so reform our procedure as to get more effective debate in Parliament and at the same time discharge the increasing responsibilities thrown on us from our entry into Europe, so that we can compress these debates into parliamentary time, fitting them into the ordinary timetable—perhaps a timetable which is not so prolonged as it is at present.
  I wish Sir Barnett and his lady wife many years of retirement.
  4.58 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I wish to refer particularly to Sir Barnett Cocks' work for the Council of Europe. In a European international parliamentary assembly, inevitably the procedure is predominantly Continental. There are only two parliaments in the Consultative Assembly which have the Westminster system—the United Kingdom and Malta. Yet many of the best features in the procedure of the Consultative Assembly come from our House and are British.
  It is to Sir Barnett, as the Leader of the House mentioned, that we owe the manual of the Assembly. It is short and extremely pleasant and easy to read. I read it from cover to cover on holiday while lying on golden sands washed by the Mediterranean—something I have never attempted to do with Erskine May. It is very much to our credit that an
  1642
  eminent Englishman like Sir Barnett Cocks has been able to help Continental Members of Parliaments by giving the best from this country and mixing it with the best of their own.
  I know that I speak for all those who have had the task of organising the debates in the Assembly of the Council of Europe—whether Belgian, British, Danish, French, Italian or Swiss—in thanking Sir Barnett for what he did behind the scenes to make easier the development of international multilingual parliamentary debate.
  5.1 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I should like to add my good wishes and thanks to Sir Barnett. Recollecting the past, I think that he entered the Clerk's office in the same year as I entered Parliament. Therefore, it is a great pleasure to be here today to add my thanks and to extend good wishes to him.
  We have been served marvellously by Sir Barnett. I think that he and the other Clerks of the House are the only people in this place with whom I never really had any arguments. At any rate, Sir Barnett has always been a good friend and adviser to me.
  I think we all recognise that as Clerk of the House Sir Barnett has extended the contribution and service that he has rendered to the British Parliament to much wider spheres of activities during the time that I have been a Member of the House.
  From time to time I have travelled about the world and spoken of our parliamentary system. It has always been a great pleasure for me, when I have tried to outline our procedure and the basis from which it stems, to say that the Clerks of the House, and Sir Barnett in particular, have played a fundamental part in our procedure. I doubt whether any country in the world owes so much of its parliamentary system to the basis from which the Clerks operate.
  I am delighted to be here today to wish Sir Barnett and Lady Cocks a very happy retirement. I hope that he will write his memoirs or in some other way give us further advice. It is both a sad and a delightful occasion to add my

  1643
  words to the tribute that the House of Commons is paying to Sir Barnett today.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), as usual, made a most felicitous statement when he referred to the support that Sir Barnett had given to back benchers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are particularly interested in parliamentary affairs would wish to be associated with that statement.
  I, too, have a small story that I should like to tell. A former Leader of the House—I regret to say a former Labour Leader of the House—once developed the technically correct but nasty habit of laying procedural motions five minutes before the House rose on the night before they were due to be discussed. This made it somewhat difficult for hon. Members to put down amendments to them. But the Clerk solved this difficulty admirably. First, he drafted the motion concerned for the Leader of the House and then, for those who wished to put down amendments, he drafted the amendments so that they all appeared the next morning and could be discussed.
  In this and in many other ways Sir Barnett Cocks has always taken care, as he always put it, to try to serve every hon. Member, whether a Minister or back bencher. We all recognise and appreciate that fact.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved, nemine contradicente,
  That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Thomas George Barnett Cocks, K.C.B., O.B.E., on his retirement from the Office of Clerk of this House, the expression of Members' deep appreciation of the distinguished services which he has rendered to this House in the conduct of its business during the last forty-three years, and their gratitude for his unique contribution in disseminating British practices and procedures.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
5.5 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Tuesday 15th January 1974.
As is the usual practice, Mr. Speaker, it may be for the conveniece of the
1644
House if I listen to the debate and reply at the end.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I hope that the House will not pass the motion until we have had an assurance about the position of the disabled and people in need of social services—those with problems of mental health, for example—as a result of the crisis in power, energy and the economy.
Recently we had a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which went some way towards relieving the problem of mobility for the disabled. Unfortunately, it did not go far enough. Because of the way that petrol is being organised before rationing, the disabled who are getting about by using their own disablement vehicles or are being ferried by family and friends, will find mobility during the Christmas period more important than at other times, but may find themselves housebound because petrol stations will not be open.
If we are to rise without this matter being resolved, may I ask whether the Secretary of State will come to the House tomorrow and announce emergency plans for certain regional or district depots where those in need of transport because of their disablement can be assured of petrol supplies?
The Prime Minister announced that petrol rationing would not come in before 1st January. Therefore, I presume that if petrol rationing is to come in immediately after 1st January the House will be recalled. But we must resolve the uncertainty for local authority social service departments during the Christmas recess.
Unfortunately, the Government drew up their list of priorities from the 1959 list with the result that they made a bad judgment between social services organised by local authorities and those organised and run by voluntary organisations.
Form P.1 will enable voluntary associations with special schemes for the disabled and chronic sick to get extra petrol supplies. But the social service departments which, since the Seebohm reforms, have had a large number of additional statutory responsibilities placed upon them, are not entitled to apply for extra petrol on Form P.1. If this matter is

1645
not resolved before we recess for Christmas, directors of social service departments in many boroughs will be considerably concerned about their important statutory services should petrol rationing be introduced early in the New Year. Of especial importance is the liability upon local authorities for the mental health officer, who at weekends and after 5 p.m. has placed upon him statutory responsibilities in case of acute mental illness. He may then be, because of the crisis, unable to fulfil his obligations, with all the consequences that that may entail should a mental breakdown occur in those hours.
On the same theme I have had representations from the Brent Council of Social Service. Those representations have also been sent to the Department. I have had representations from the National Council of Social Service about the way in which it will be very difficult in the coming few months, if the present situation continues, for it to fulfil its obligations. The Jewish Board of Guardians, for example, may have to entirely step down from some of its very responsible social service work.
Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will deal with these matters so that the House can be satisfied or, alternatively, give an assurance that before the House rises some of these problems will be solved.
My last point is of great concern to us all. The Government's pronouncement of the three-day week, which will affect electricity and heating supplies, will have a tremendous effect upon the social services of local authorities for the elderly. If there is one time of the year when the elderly should receive maximum consideration it is over the Christmas period. A three-day week for the social services departments of local authorities, involving the whole problem of meals on wheels, home helps and the ancillary services for the elderly, will mean great difficulties. I am confident that they will brilliantly seek to overcome the difficulties and that in spite of the difficulties, somehow or other the meals will get through and the home helps will arrive, and that we shall not be faced with the problem of putting elderly people into geriatric wards of hospitals merely because the economic crisis does not permit the community to do its job.
1646
These are matters of urgency. If the House were to rise for the Christmas Recess without resolving these difficulties, we should be retiring for our own enjoyment but with a heavy responsibility on our hands for a large number of people who are in need, although a relatively small section of the community, being very much in the cold for a cold Christmas.
5.12 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall be brief, in order to keep the debate as short as possible. We are going on a Christmas Recess against one of the worst economic backgrounds that we have ever experienced. Firstly, there is a genuine anxiety among a number of small businessmen, shopkeepers and hairdressers about flexibility of hours and working and the allocation of electricity. It is up to my right hon. Friend and the Government to think very carefully as to how best these small businesses, shops and industries can be helped, simply by allowing a degree of flexibility in the orders.
Secondly, it is very difficult for people who run small businesses to know exactly what they ought and ought not to be doing. Many of us have received letters and delegations on this subject. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully the means of dissemination of information from the Government down to the ordinary shopkeeper. I know from experience that if a shopkeeper tries to obtain information over the telephone, he seldom gets a reply as the telephone line is engaged. He also has no means of checking whether he is acting within the framework of the law.
These are matters about which people want to know. First, they want to be allowed to give their views as to how they could run their business using the same amount of power but in a more practical and an economic and better way. Secondly, they want a system whereby they can rapidly get advice on what they ought to do and how best their ideas on flexibility could be met under the existing regulations.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: The House should not adjourn without considering the statement issued

1647
today by the Minister of Transport Industries on his reconsideration of the Greater Manchester passenger transport scheme.
The Leader of the House will be aware that throughout this Session hon. Members on both sides of the House, from the whole of the new Greater Manchester, have been pressing the Minister to make a statement on this vitally urgent matter. It is not simply a matter which affects my constituency. It affects 2 million people who live in what is the most populous conurbation outside London. For seven years the South-East Lancashire/North-East Cheshire Passenger Transport Executive has worked with the Ministry of Transport in preparing plans for the development of an efficient passenger transport service in the Greater Manchester area, which would include a tunnel linking the northern and southern railway termini of the city. The Minister accepted the cost-benefit analysis of the passenger transport authority. The grants for the research were made during the seven years. But in the summer the Minister announced that grant would not be available to start the work on the scheme in 1974–75, as had been anticipated.
There has been a tremendous outcry from the whole area, from industry, trade unions and local authorities. The Minister for Transport Industries met representatives of the Passenger Transport Executive and promised to reconsider the decision. Today I received a reply to a Written Question at 4.30 p.m., with a statement by the Minister in which he gives a very confused decision, a decision which he ought to have made more orderly so that questions could have been put upon it. He said:
"The appraisal of the scheme has taken many months. It is costly and the economic rate of return, particularly on the tunnel, is low."
This planning has been taking place not simply by the SELNEC Passenger Transport Executive, the plans being then handed over to the Ministry during the summer. The planning, and the costbenelit analysis that went with it, has been worked out with the Ministry throughout the seven years. I deny that the cost-benefit is low, as I have no doubt that the Passenger Transport Executive will deny it tonight.
1648
The Minister went on to say,
"By the time a start could be made on such a project, however, the new system of transport grants proposed in the Local Government Bill should have been introduced It will then be for the Greater Manchester Council to consider what public transport investment should be included in the Transport Policy and Programme which they will have to submit as a basis for grant."
The Minister also said that
"the merits of the scheme do not in themselves justify making additional resources available to Manchester".
In view of the vast amount of information that the Minister has received and the almost unanimous support—I except the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) in this matter—of local authorities, Members of Parliament and business interests in the area, to the effect that this was necessary and urgent, I do not believe that the Minister's reply is acceptable.
Mr. Robert Redmond: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me. I must point out that, so far as the industry of Bolton is concerned, it would very much like the Pic-Vic line. If, however, it was given a choice between the Pic-Vic line or route 225, a most important link, it would choose route 225, which gives industry a very good method of getting goods to Liverpool. That is the view of local industry. I support what my right hon. Friend the Minister has done. He has put the decision in the hands of local authority, where it belongs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Before the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) continues, I should like to say to him and to other hon. Members that speeches on an occasion such as this ought to refer constantly to the motion why the House should not rise from tomorrow until 15th January. Hon. Members should argue their case around that matter rather than producing the merits of a case, because, after all, we might not consider that business anyhow between now and 15th January. It would be better to keep as near as possible to the terms of the motion, otherwise we may be engaged on this matter longer than the House would wish.
Mr. Marks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing that out. But there should be an oral statement

1649
by the Minister and a discussion of this question before the House rises. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Bolton, West referred to his community which is part of Greater Manchester, but he will agree that his point of view is an exceptional one in that area. Therefore, I should like to ask the Leader of the House to give us some assurance that, if it is not possible to debate this matter before the House rises, there will be an early opportunity to do so in the next Session.
5.30 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: This is the first time since 1955 that I have risen to speak on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, and I do so now because I have been unable to discover what is to happen to the work of 12,000 men in my constituency. The defence budget is to be cut and, although I raised this matter in the debate the other day, I still do not know how many days they will be able to work, what work they will be given or even whether there will be any employment. I gave my right hon. Friend notice that I would ask for more information today, and since then two other matters have been brought to my attention.
There is a lot of light industry in my area, and unless it is given some consideration it may be finished, but it is very difficult to get a satisfactory answer in the House or the DTI. There are approximately seven factories in an area which have been told they must work on the last three days of the week, but the shops will be open on the first three days of the week. As most of these factories employ women, the managements are wondering how they will be able to keep their employees because the women will need time off at weekends. I have been in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry. I was told, to my astonishment, that it has no power over the rotas which are arranged by the electricity boards, which have said that the local people and the chambers of commerce should get together. That was done but without success, so I got in touch with the manager of the South-West Electricity Board who advised me that the order has not yet been published. But, strange to say, he added that in any case it is not possible to change the rota even though the order has not yet been published.
1650
Then there is the question of what happens if we die in the near future. I understand that undertakers have to work 24 hours a day seven days a week, but they are wondering what will happen if the coffins cannot be produced. There is a possibility that there will be hundreds of deceased persons and not enough coffins for them, with all the attendant complications. This is a very important matter, and unless there is an answer today it will be necessary to ask Parliament to be reconvened so that we do not have this very difficult problem among others on our hands. I hope that I shall get an answer on those points, and I hope that I shall be told what will happen to the people in the employment of the dockyard, what will happen about the factories and whether they will have a right of appeal which they do not have at the moment, and what will happen if we die between now and the time Parliament resumes.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On the last motion we discussed some of the qualities of the House and the present debate is one of the three great safeguards in parliamentary procedure, the other two being consultation before legislation and no taxation before representation. We are now concerned with what is technically known as grievances before Adjournment, and I do not wish to support the motion now before the House until the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House has had an opportunity to reply to some points of which I have given notice.
Much has been said about the difficulty in which Parliament finds itself. As a relative newcomer here, I feel that the machinery is less wanting than the way in which we sometimes use it, which is probably true of any human organisation. We always try to change the machinery when we ought really to look more frequently at the way we use it. I wish to draw the attention of the Lord President to three matters on which he should offer some explanation to the House.
For the last three or four weeks during business questions I have pressed points related to the general scheme of preferences and to the discussions going on about draft regulations of the EEC. Indeed, together with my hon. Friend the

1651
Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and supported by 100 hon. Members, I have tabled Early Day Motion No. 88 on the subject. That motion asks that the Lord President should find time for a debate before a final decision is made, but I do not want to go into its merits now, because this afternoon I am concerned with procedure.
A fortnight ago, the Lord President kindly said that he would look into the matter and see whether it was physically possible for this House to have a debate before a final decision was taken. Last Thursday, he said, as reported at col. 666,
"As regards the improvements for the Community's generalised preference scheme, this is a continuing process with no final deadline."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 666.]
But, as I think he knows, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, replying to the debate last Monday, said quite specifically, as reported at col. 1081,
"The GSP scheme generally will come into force on 1st January."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1081.]
Furthermore, the Lord President will have heard his right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for European Affairs replying a few minutes ago to a question of mine. He said that the new scheme will come into force on 1st January and that final details are being ironed out, but that the main decisions have been made. In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West, he said that he did not think he would be dissatisfied with the result.
I feel that the Leader of the House should have been frank and admitted that we had no time for a debate, that the matter had already been decided elsewhere and that it was inappropriate for us to discuss it now. But instead of that he made a statement which was quite contrary to what we heard in this House on Monday, and to what his right hon. Friend said only a few moments ago. I am quite prepared to accept that there is a fault in my reasoning, but the onus is upon the Leader of the House to explain what has gone wrong. He read last week what I think was a prepared statement, and there may have been a mistake.
This is not the only time that there has been a difference of opinion between members of the Government in the state-
1652
ments which they have made in the House. Consistency in statements is of fundamental importance to the confidence which hon. Members have in each other and which the public has in this House. If we spend all our time checking what has been said by members of Governments, of whatever party, we shall be in grave difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said in a debate on food prices earlier this month
"No tariffs on food items have yet been imposed or increased under the common external tariff as a result of EEC entry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December 1973; Vol 866 c. 99.]
We are quite prepared to accept that, but a few days later we were told by the Under-Secretary of State to the Department of Trade and Industry that the present rate on beef was introduced on 30th April last. He went on:
"The reason for repeating the duties and many others in which there is no change is simply to have a complete consolidated order, but that does not affect the issue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1084.]
In other words he implied, and for all I know it is true, that food tariffs on beef already exist. That matter was not cleared up at the time.
This may seem a small matter, but tax on food, which was the subject of exchanges across the Floor of the House earlier today, is a matter of great importance to the British public. We shall be in considerable difficulties if Ministers make what appear to be conflicting statements and if a definitive statement, in this case made by the Parliamentary Secretary, is called into question by another Minister. I gave the Leader of the House notice about this matter and asked him to clear it up before we adjourn for the recess.
Some of the difficulties we have been experiencing over EEC matters partly arise because the House has not had time—or rather the Lord President has not seen fit to allow time—to debate the Select Committee report on procedure for EEC regulations. It is a year since we joined the Common Market, yet we have been unable so far to match our procedures with those of the EEC. My views about the EEC and the merits or otherwise of joining it are well known, but irrespective of any view we may take, it

1653
is the duty of the House to make sure that the necessary machinery is in position and ready. It should have been in position on 1st January 1973. Since we have not debated this Select Committee report and since we have not decided to take action, the machinery will not even be there on 1st January 1974. A year has passed and we have not even tried out some of the recommendations of the Select Committee. That means we shall be in increasing difficulty not only in connection with ministerial speeches but also on statements such as that made today.
Therefore we should not rise for the Christmas Recess until the Lord President has said why he has not found time for the subject. This sort of thing calls into question the efficiency and prestige of this House. It was quite rightly said during our discussion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House that we have one of the best systems of democracy in the world. It is not the system which is at fault but the way in which we use it. Unless the Leader of the House expedites debates on these procedures, history's verdict on him will be that he did not serve the best interests of the House and its democratic processes to which we pay tribute.
The good name of this House is bound up with this. Our procedure must not only be good, it must be seen to be good. The fact that we have not debated this matter, and the consequent difficulties of that, mean that we are not seen to be doing our job. I hope the Lord President will tell us what he intends to do about it.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: Some of us feel that we should not rise at all for the recess and there are others, perhaps not in the House, who think that we should rise and never come back.
My views are not as extreme as that. Before the House rises, or if that is not possible, perhaps by coming back a few days early, we should try to fit in a two-day debate on the national energy situation. I appreciate that there was a debate on the fuel control Bill the other day. Also, there was a two-day debate this week. But the House has never done what the nation wants, which is to recognise that a new situation has developed
1654
in the Middle East and that as a nation we are likely to be desperately short of energy for a number of years.
It is of great importance to the nation that hon. Members, many of whom know a great deal about the subject, should have an opportunity of putting their ideas together and deciding what sort of policy we should be pursuing. This is not something we can put off until later on in 1974. It is a desperately urgent matter.
We should have had a two-day debate by now on the sort of priority we attach to North Sea oil exploration. That debate would have given us an opportunity of discussing whether it was feasible to derive oil from shale, as some people suggest, and whether it is possible to produce oil from coal. We should be able to find out whether the Government were considering doing what is already done in the Republic of Ireland on a large scale, which is to use peat for the generation of electricity. In the Republic half their electricity supply comes from turf.
Since the miners began their go-slow a new situation has developed abroad. The threat existed when the miners began their dispute, but since then it has materialised and as far as we can see we shall be pinched for overseas oil for many years, and we must discuss the sort of rôle we envisage for coal as a provider of our national energy requirements in the next five or ten years at least.
I would be prepared to come back at any time, possibly excluding Christmas Day and Boxing Day, but I should not like to come back on the date proposed—15th January—to find that in our absence the limits of phase 3 had been stretched, cracked or broken in the process of securing a settlement with the miners. So, while I should like to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment do his utmost to secure a peaceful solution to our industrial disputes, I should be most disappointed if this involved stretching in any way the framework of phase 3 and making a special case for the miners which the nation could never afford.
I should like the House to have more time this Session so that there can be clarification by debate or by a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the statement which he issued on Monday. The action which my right hon. Friend

1655
took, whilst less energetic than some of us expected, was a step in the right direction. My right hon. Friend said that he wanted to achieve economies totalling £1,000 million or £1,200 million by cutting back public expenditure. On Monday he said that he was looking to local authorities to achieve that reduction by a 20 per cent. cut in capital spending across the board.
My right hon. Friend, whom we admire so much in his present capacity, may decide that it will be possible to have such a debate before or after Christmas. If the Chancellor gives the House a little more detail on exactly how the cuts will fall on local authorities, I shall press him to give a clear undertaking that the freezing of the much-needed health centre programme shall not continue and shall not be involved in the 20 per cent. cut.
This summer a vigorous programme of new health centre construction, which was so vitally needed in rural areas, was suddenly and without warning frozen by the Government. That was a great disappointment. Many hon. Members accepted that the moratorium must continue until the end of the year. We were given an undertaking that the health centres which should have begun construction this autumn or winter would have priority the following year. I want an undertaking from the right hon. Friend that the 20 per cent. cut which he is asking local authorities to make will not apply to new health centre construction. For those reasons I should like the House to sit a day or two longer.
5.42 p.m.
Sir John Rodgers: I take up one of the matters which has been put before the House in the hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can take action whilst the House is not sitting. I take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers)—namely, the hardship which small firms will suffer under the three-day working week. It is not my intention to debate whether a three-day week is or is not the right thing to do. There is no doubt that many small firms will suffer badly from the imposition of a three-day working week. Some of them will face bankruptcy as a result.
1656
The present situation is that a firm will receive a letter stating that the factory will be allowed to work on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday or Thursday, Friday and Saturday. That has happened to a small firm in my constituency. The owner has built up a business from scratch. He employs 35 women. Nearly all of the women are married. They now work from Monday to Friday. He has been told that they must now work on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It is almost impossible for that staff to work on a Saturday because of the demands of their children and husbands.
To compound the felony, the businessman to whom I have referred has been told by the trade union that he will have to pay time and a half on a Saturday even if the women do not work. I plead for more flexibility. I ask that some organisation be set up immediately so that there shall be a court of appeal. A man faced with that situation should be able to put his case before a tribunal. He should be able to ask a tribunal to allow him to operate on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays rather than Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that the present situation cannot wait until 15th January. I hope that he will give an undertaking that he will mention the matter to the relevant Department, whether it is the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Employment, so that some machinery can be set up whereby the smaller firms, which will definitely suffer more than the large firms, shall have a court of appeal. There may be good reasons for their having to work on the days which have been chosen, but at present the position has not been explained to the people concerned. They are worried, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that the Government, while the House is in recess, will consider the matter as one of extreme urgency.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I support what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) has said in opposing the motion. I have had numerous representations made to me by my constituents. They have been raising their voices in apprehension about the

1657
three-day working week. It cannot be doubted that the details so far disseminated by the Government have been obscure. I am bound to tell the Leader of the House that there is a widespread feeling in my constituency that the three-day working week is the creature of the obduracy of the Prime Minister. It is thought that it is designed to pillory the miners. As Dorothy Parker once said, he is
"trapped like a trap in a trap.".
Many of my constituents have seen me or have written to me about the three-day week. They say that it will create just the sort of consequences, and particularly for the smaller firms and small factory owners, to which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks referred, and which have been postulated by some hon. Members. It is thought by my constituents that in its wake will follow substantial unemployment or at least short-time working for some considerable time to come. It will produce a terrible pressure on the wage packet of the ordinary worker.
I have been asked whether the three-day week has been introduced to maximise inconvenience because of the haphazard and chaotic way in which the zoning has been undertaken. The Government seek to say that the Electricity Council is responsible. However, a number of my hon. Friends saw the Minister concerned. He said that he assumed responsibility for the situation. Whatever the position might be, my constituency and the borough in which it is situated—namely, Hackney—has been zoned for working on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) referred to working mothers. There are many women who work in my constituency during the week so as to make it possible for their families to live decently. They are now being asked to work on a Saturday, which they will find almost impossible to do.
Mr. John Page: They will be able to have a holiday on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr. Davis: In fact, they will be working very much less than at present. Further, there are a large number of Orthodox Jews in my constituency and
1658
throughout the borough, and especially in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). During the winter months they are unable to work beyond three o'clock on Fridays. They will not be able to work on Saturdays. For them there will be a one-and-a-half-day working week. I am told that the Moslem community is concerned about working on a Friday. I made these representations to the appropriate Minister and I received a somewhat brusque message from his Department yesterday—"Sorry, no relaxation". I was not asking for a relaxation but for flexibility and a variation of the hours. The Minister has fudged the issue.
What consideration has been given by the Department to local needs and priorities? So far as I can see, a totally haphazard situation prevails and in this respect the Minister has abdicated power. Adlai Stevenson said that while power corrupts, lack of power corrupts absolutely. The Minister might bear that in mind. By that token this Government are absolutely corrupt.
Local authorities have had totally inadequate guidance about the effect of the cuts, particularly in the health and social services. Boroughs like my own in stress areas suffer most. They are progressive local authorities which accept responsibility for the provision of decent social and welfare services. They spend a great deal of money on essential functions which provide the means whereby the lives of the poor, handicapped and deprived can be made a little more dignified and pleasant. These are the authorities that will be the first to be penalised.
Yesterday in his wind-up speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer was less than frank in dealing with local authorities. When he said:
"The rate support grant will be reduced only in line with the savings in expenditure and if, like the rest of the public sector, the local authorities reduce their current expenditure in accordance with the Government's request, that will not lead to one extra penny on the rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1470.]
That is a lot of rubbish. What about the vastly increased interest rates that local authorities have had to shoulder over the last few months? What about

1659
the ordinary effect of inflation? What about local government reorganisation that will impose enormous new burdens on local authorities? The choice that the Chancellor presents to local authorities is to cut back on the provision of essential services or to increase the rates. If local authorities increase the rates, the Chancellor says that the electorate will know who is responsible. The bluster and threat expressed by the Chancellor last night are no substitute for a clear direction to which the House is entitled before we adjourn.
Stress areas like mine cannot wait to obtain guidance and directions. Assurances are needed about dilapidated estates that require urgent refurbishing. For example, the GLC in my constituency is dedicated to the provision of £600,000 for the Kingsmead Estate. The work needs to be done, and the local authority needs assurances about it.
How shall we be able to recruit new social workers in the current climate of inordinate difficulties? Already there are tremendous shortages in all the social services departments, yet people are desperately in need of health and social workers. The Government have calculated that responsibility for their own misdeeds can be passed on to local authorities. That is discreditable, cheap and a tremendous injustice, but it is a characteristic of this monumentally stupid Government. I hope that the Leader of the House—although I very much doubt it—will give me some assurances on the critical questions I have raised.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. John Page: The House certainly should not rise until statements have been made on a number of subjects relating to electricity control procedures. I hope that on these urgent matters my right hon. Friend will either answer this afternoon or tell us that one of his right hon. or hon. Friends will answer tomorrow or before Christmas. These are matters which have been mentioned to me by individual constituents in connection with businesses. I also have to declare an interest as a director of a company that is concerned.
I wish to raise three major questions. The first two concern the division of the working week into two groups—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday,
1660
Friday, Saturday. Unlike the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who struck a carping attitude, I wish to congratulate the Department of Trade and Industry and the Southern Electricity Board office at Reading on the way they have handled the difficult emergency situation. The way in which the staff make decisions on the telephone, followed almost immediately by confirmation, and are neither discourteous nor muddled, is an example of what civil servants in contact with the public can do when they roll up their sleeves. I am glad that the Minister responsible for the Civil Service is present. He may take that as a bouquet for some of his officials who, no doubt, he will be seeing before Christmas.
I have received from the Rayners Lane Chamber of Commerce and the Pinner and Northwood Chamber of Trade in my constituency representations to the effect that they are extremely worried. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of all retail business is done on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Only about one-quarter or one-third of the business of a shop is done in the early part of the week. I was telephoned yesterday by a shopkeeper in a small shopping parade in my constituency who said that if the shopkeepers work on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, using electricity all day, the parade will become a dead land. Once a shop or an area loses business, it is difficult to get it back.
I have spoken to Ministers about this and I know that it is under consideration, but a way must be found to make the division of the week fairer. This could be done by allowing some shops to open on six or seven days a week in the mornings and others to open on six or seven days a week in the afternoons. In that way the division of the week would be much more equitable. I ask my right hon. Friend, who is one of our grass roots Cabinet Ministers, to appreciate that this is a genuine worry to shopkeepers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) said, we simply cannot wait until 15th January to learn whether rotation of the three-day working week will be allowed in industry. Most industrial undertakings have an arrangement with their employees that their working days are from Monday to Friday. An undertaking which works on Thursday,

1661
Friday and Saturday is under two major disadvantages. One is that Saturday is a voluntary working day and there might therefore be vast absenteeism on Saturdays.
Secondly, if people go to work on a Saturday they will probably have to be paid time-and-a-half until lunchtime and double time after lunch. This means that, if they are on a three-day week, they will have to be paid for four days. The electricity situation may cause employers to divide the week among various workers and factories, and the electricity boards will make cuts in areas which are not working on a certain day. If the emergency continues for, say, more than two weeks, the Government should change the situation to allow for two weeks' late turn and two weeks' early turn working. I do not think that such an arrangement would be too complicated for the switchgear equipment, but if the arrangement went on for more than two weeks workers on late turn would find themselves in a disadvantageous position.
Thirdly, I wish to refer to a matter which may not be as important as other matters in the present emergency but which I regard as a matter of some urgency. Since the Minister for the Civil Service is present, he may be able to put the situation right immediately by getting on the telephone and starting things moving. The Secretary of State for Employment yesterday spoke about reconciliation. What I am now seeking to do is to stop the anger and disgust that is felt in my constituency against the vindictive and callous attitude of the miners. Unless something is done about the situation, relations within various communities will be jeopardised.
I was telephoned this morning and was told that an order had been sent out to the effect that no Christmas parties should be held this year in the evenings at telephone exchanges and offices. In the South Harrow office the staff have arranged to have a party tomorrow night, with a band and all the rest of it. I checked the position with the electricity board officials, who told me that there was no reason why that sort of activity should not be regarded as recreational. I see nothing unpatriotic about holding a party in an office as against holding a party in an hotel.
1662
I have contacted my right hon. Friend the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications. I understand that the Post Office Board has considered the matter and sees no reason why office parties should not be held but has requested that, if possible, they should take place in daylight hours. In the London area—the same thing may have spread to other areas—this has been taken as a directive that parties should not be held. I hope that a decision has been made on this matter.
Mr. Prior: There is no regulation or rule on this matter. I imagine—I am now speaking off the cuff—that the Post Office is asking all its employees to cooperate in saving electricity, which is only to be expected. I repeat that there is no regulation on this point and that there is nothing to stop those parties going ahead. In view of the hard work carried out by the Post Office staff, they should be allowed to hold their parties, but I hope that they will save as much electricity as possible.
Mr. Page: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I shall pass on his remarks to the telephone manager's department and I am sure it will be helpful. I hope that before 15th January an announcement will be made about any possible change to Summer Time. I know that a decision in this respect might be unpopular in the North, but I believe that in the South of England there is everything to be gained by an extra hour's work in daylight.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: One of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) would have been solved if I had been given a more satisfactory reply to a Written Question I tabled to the Home Secretary on 29th November asking the Government to introduce Summer Time. That would have saved the hour to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I notice that the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has tabled a motion on this subject, and I have no doubt that he will seek to refer to it if he has the opportunity to do so later in the debate.
The House finds itself in some difficulty in respect of the work now taking place in New Palace Yard. The Select

1663
Committee on House of Commons Services—of which I can see only one member present, namely the Leader of the House—finds itself in a difficult situation in terms of its last report. When that report came up for approval, it was rejected by the House. Consequently the surfacing of New Palace Yard is still in abeyance. Does the motion that we are now debating mean that the Select Committee cannot meet before the House resumes in order to come forward with a new and better recommendation than that which the House rejected—in my view rightly—a week or so ago?
There are many unsatisfactory features about the underground car park but I wish to refer to only one. A report submitted to the House a year or so ago stated that a car park would provide space for over 500 cars, at an estimated cost of £1.3 million. The last figure I have been able to elicit from the Government shows that the cost of the car park will be exactly double that figure, and indeed that that will not be the final figure. With all the delays that will occur, overtime and other difficulties which have been encountered, I should not be at all surprised if the eventual cost of this wretched project approached a figure of £3 million. At a time when the public are being asked to make all kinds of sacrifices, when local authorities are being asked to cut expenditure and when Government policy is aimed at saving petrol and dissuading car owners from bringing their cars into central London, we are spending anything up to £3 million for the purpose of attracting more cars into central London at a cost which has not yet been finalised.
I hope that we shall have clarification of the situation from the Leader of the House so that he may set at rest some of the serious doubts felt by the general public about the whole project, which contradicts everything the Government are asking the general public to do. I apologise to the Leader of the House that because of a long-standing engagement I shall be unable to hear his reply, but I have no doubt that he will give this matter serious attention.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Burnaby Drayson: I am reluctant to agree to Parliament's rising for three weeks for the Christmas Recess without drawing attention to matters
1664
which affect my constituents and which I consider require immediate and urgent attention.
The first matter concerns the position of small garages in rural areas of my constituency in the Yorkshire dales. The garage owners obtain their petrol supplies in relatively small quantities of 1,000 gallons at a time. Although in the past they have been able to charge a slightly higher price for their petrol than that charged in towns and cities, they are not allowed under the present regulations to increase their price above 42½p.
I understand that in buying petrol in the small quantities in which garages of this type purchase it, they have to pay the supplying companies the maximum price, which is just a fraction under 41p. Many of them tell me that on a margin of that kind they will be forced to make a loss and that some of them will have to close their businesses. They perform a very important local service. If farmers and others living in rural areas are forced to go into nearby towns for supplies, they will use much more petrol than is necessary and they will not be saving fuel. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ask the appropriate Department to look into this problem and that it will be found possible to allow these small garages, where it is essential that they should stay in operation, to charge a premium above the price already fixed.
My second point relates to a matter to which I referred at the opening of this Session of Parliament—the position of our small dairy farmers and beef producers. They are having an extremely difficult time because of the increased costs of feeding stuffs. I know that the discussions on the Annual Farm Price Review have been brought forward and that we are likely to know the results sometime in February. In the meantime there is no firm assurance that farmers' incomes will not be cut. They have not even the assurance that in the new year they will have the increase of between 13 and 16 per cent. which has been offered to the miners.
We must not forget that the farming community is one which never contemplates strike action, and certainly farmers cannot work a three-day week, especially those who have to look after herds of dairy cows. Unlike the petrol companies, our milk producers cannot put up their

1665
prices, yet their costs have risen substantially in recent months. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that we need all the production that we can get from our land.
The gravity of the situation as it affects the small farmer is very well set out in a letter which I received only yesterday from the wife of a farmer. When I look at her excellent handwriting and at the clarity of her figures, I have the feeling that she must be responsible for the farm accounts, so she is well aware of the problems.
The lady writes:
"There is another matter which I feel may not be fully appreciated by those who deal with agricultural matters and which may have considerable impact on future food supplies. This is that many small—5 cwt.—cattle are being sold for slaughter. Farmers would rather take a poor price—£60 to £70—now than pay out money to feed the cattle to the normal weights. On Thursday Gisburn Market "—
which is one of the largest cattle markets in the North of England and is situated in my constituency—
"was full of this type of cattle and of dairy cows going for slaughter. The price of grain has risen again which threatens livestock farmers with another increase in feed costs. Is there any other industry which cannot increase the price of its products to cover costs and is regarded as behaving scandalously if it attempts to export?"
That is another point on which I hope we shall have an early reply from the Government—the ability of farmers to export cattle, especially culled dairy cows, to the continent of Europe, where the market for this type of cattle is so much better.
There should be a statement to reassure our farmers and to stop the premature slaughter of fat cattle and the reduction in the dairy herd due to forced sales because of the high cost of feeding stuffs.
I refer now to another matter which has been mentioned already. It concerns the possibility of flexibility in operating the three-day week. It applies especially where factories are on night shift. I am told that it will be far easier for them if they can start their working day at perhaps 7 a.m., go through the night and finish at 7 a.m. on Thursdays. The three-day working week should not be from midnight to midnight. There should be flexibility to take account of factories working night shifts or three
1666
shifts per day. When night workers are involved, in many cases firms have to arrange transport to carry them to and from work. If there could be flexibility about the hour at which the three-day week should start, it would be a great help.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. David Weitzman: I am glad to have an opportunity to say a very few words on the subject of the Christmas Adjournment. I am afraid that I did not have the privilege of listening to the many speeches which have been made already and to the many reasons why the Adjournment should not take place.
I am sure that it will appear monstrous to the general public, bearing in mind the state of affairs that we are in at the moment, that this House should contemplate adjourning for this considerable period. I know that many hon. Members, especially Government supporters, are tired, are exhausted and are looking forward to an opportunity to refresh their spirits. I have no doubt that even some of my hon. Friends are in that position. But at a time like this, with all the problems that the nation faces, surely this House should be in session. By all means let hon. Members get away for Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day, but what about the rest of the time?
We ought to know what is happening. We are told of the terrible crisis that has occurred, yet here we are contemplating going away from this House with hon. Members taking no notice of what is happening. I have no doubt that the Government feel that, with hon. Members away from this place, they can do as they please without being questioned in the House.
I am afraid that I did not have the benefit of hearing what I am sure were the eloquent, important and lucid remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). I understand, however, that he referred to a problem which exists in my constituency.
In the borough of Hackney there are many businesses carried on by orthodox Jews. During the winter months an orthodox Jew will close his business at 3 o'clock on a Friday afternoon and will not open it on Saturday. So devoid

1667
of understanding are the Government of the effect of what they ordain that they make an order which provides that in Hackney businesses shall be open only on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It means in effect that these businesses can be carried on not for three days but for only a day and a half. I am sure the Government must recognise that such a hardship should not exist. I have already made representations on this matter to the Minister and I hope that something will be done, even though we shall be unable to question the Minister about it during the recess.
Mr. Clinton Davis: My hon. and learned Friend is incorrect in what he says about the zoning arrangements. The businesses are required to work Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
Mr. Weitzman: The House has heard what my hon. Friend said. No doubt he has accentuated the point I was making.
I urge the Government to consider a point I wish to make about the miners' dispute. The Government have been told that the miners are not paid for their waiting time, which is considerable, before they go down the pit. In the dim and ancient past, when I was a young barrister, I undertook many cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. If a miner suffered an accident during his waiting time, he received compensation as the accident was regarded as arising out of and in the course of his employment. No doubt the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who is a member of the Bar, will acknowledge the correctness of what I am putting forward. If in those circumstances the waiting time was recognised as constituting part of a miner's employment, why on earth is there not a strong case for the Government attempting, within the ambit of phase 3, to increase the amount of money payable to the miners by paying for such waiting time and so provide an opportunity to settle the dispute?
There is a host of other problems which could be put before the House which would show the folly of the Christmas Adjournment. I hope in the circumstances that the Minister will recognise the importance of my remarks.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davis: I have never before opposed an Adjournment at Christmas or any other time. We should have a full day tomorrow we should be here next Monday and we should return on 2nd January
My first reason concerns daylight saving. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is antipathetic to the argument because he is an eminent farmer, and the farming community has, understandably, always been against the idea of daylight saving. However, it took me only 10 minutes to collect the names of my colleagues who follow mine on my motion on the subject. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) is in full support of the motion, together with a large number of his colleagues, and I could have got many more hon. Members to add their names to it. They include many who voted to return to the present position. I have always favoured the previous position and I be-live that the clocks should now go forward one hour. That is necessary if we are to get the maximum amount of working time out of the day. Only the farming community would be opposed to this. There would be no opposition in the whole of commerce and industry.
Sports organisations also greatly favour the idea. It would be of great assistance to football. The present power restrictions will mean exceptional difficulty for football and other outdoor sports. Daylight saving would benefit those sports; its immediate introduction would be a boon. It should be introduced before Christmas so as to be of considerable assistance during the holiday period and into the new year. I hope that there will not be a negative statement and that the Government will give an undertaking, through my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that the matter will be considered at Cabinet level before Christmas and a favourable decision taken.
Mr. Denis Howell: I speak for myself on this occasion. The Government are considering the request of the football authorities to suspend the Sunday observance laws to help sport, particularly football, which is in an impossible position. Sunday observance is a matter for Parliament rather than for the Government, but the suggestion of the hon. Member for Is

1669
of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) would mean that kick-offs could be at 3 o'clock for most games. This would go some way towards mitigating the disastrous financial situation of sports clubs. If suspension of the Sunday observance laws is not acceptable, the Government should consider the daylight saving proposal of putting the clocks forward one hour.
Mr. Rees-Davies: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter and on the Sunday Observance Acts. Emergency legislation would be needed to amend them and one or two other matters. It is no good waiting until the time when one hopes the emergency will be resolved. For that reason the House should return early in the new year.
I share the concern about the flexibility and clarity in the regulations. When they were introduced last Friday I was away in the north of England but I returned on Monday morning to find that bedlam had been let loose. I had inquiries from the horse racing industry, the greyhound racing industry, tractor drivers and a large number of constituents with factories, particularly those engaged in making cement and similar products. It is obvious that the Government had completely overlooked the fact that a large number of people have their own generators and have conserved their own fuel oil. I had meetings in the early part of the week at the Department of Trade and Industry and elsewhere about these grave problems.
Happily my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement, but it was impossible to put questions to him. He made the statement, which covered many subjects, between 9.30 p.m. and 10 p.m., and as he had influenza he vanished to bed afterwards. Consequently the statement was not clear. However, my right hon. Friend said that generators could be used, with certain arrangements for fuel, except for sporting and recreational purposes. This compounded the confusion. First, the horse racing situation was not clear. Weatherby's has its own generator and had set aside its own fuel. Publication of the paper on which all the events depend is essential to horse racing.
We have had an authoritative statement—although not confirmed in any
1670
way—that horse racing can continue and that Weatherby's will be allowed to use its generator and fuel. It cannot be seriously contended that the Racing Calendar is not for sporting and recreational purposes, so it seems to me to be an exception to the statement, although it is true that a registered newspaper is a commercial newspaper.
I turn now to the astonishing situation affecting greyhound racing. The industry not only has 42 generators, one for each of the tracks, but has sufficient stocks of its own fuel set aside to enable it to use them. The important fact, which has not yet been stated, is that it was directly as a result of the request of the Department of Trade and Industry in 1972 that it should install generators in case there was a fuel emergency that the industry spent nearly £500,000 to do so. It is now paying high interest on over £200,000.
It is an unattractive argument to say that floodlighting should not be used because it might create impressions in people's minds that somebody else was getting something they were not getting. That is not acceptable to the British people. If they were told that any outdoor sport which continued to use flood-lighting was allowed to do so only if it generated its own electricity and already had its own fuel supplies, they would understand that no one suffered.
The Government must give way on this matter and see that an industry which they have asked to behave in a decent manner to ensure that there will be no difficulties about fuel in the future, and which carries out the suggestions which have been made, does not thereby suffer the economic ruin that it will suffer if it has to close altogether in the next few weeks.
Mr. Denis Howell: The position is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has stated it, but it is even more incredible because only two weeks ago, when he announced the first ban on floodlighting, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister for Sport, urged people to use generators. As a result several clubs bought generators. They included Tottenham Hotspur, which spent about £20,000 on a generator and the following week was banned from using it. This incredible situation is causing difficulty. I do not expect the Leader of the House

1671
to be able to give us an answer, but as Ministers have asked sporting bodies to use generators, and as sport is essential to our national life, I cannot see why, if they are not taking electricity from the grid system, those sporting bodies should not be allowed to use their own resources, as they have been urged to do.
Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree, but I am not sure that Tottenham has had time to obtain the necessary fuel reserves. I draw a distinction between the person who has both the generator and the fuel reserves and the person who has only the generator. But some allocation of fuel oil should reasonably be given to people with their own generators.
That point exactly illustrates why the House needs to continue. If we were not sitting, such matters could not be put. Nowadays Governments are rather glad to see the back of the House of Commons rather than receive constructive suggestions from Members.
I have one important point, which I have discussed with a number of people, on the mining situation. We must all try to come up with possible solutions to the miners' strike—
Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is not a strike.
Mr. Rees-Davies: We must try to find a solution with regard to the miners' conduct.
The miners have been entitled to a 40-hour week since, I believe, 1947. They have a five-day week. Everything depends upon the maintenance of the pits during the weekend. A farmer with livestock has a seven-day week. Those in sport who play on their pitches five days a week must have someone to maintain those pitches at the weekend. A factory may work a five-day week, but it must be maintained over the weekend. I find it strange that nobody seems to have thought to negotiate with the miners that they should be prepared to give up the weekend to work, and should enter into a new contract. If they were invited to enter into a contract which included an obligation to work on Saturday or Sunday to maintain the pit, no one would dispute that they worked unsocial hours. That idea should be carefully considered.
1672
The miner has a hard working week of 40 hours in normal times. It may well be right to say that that is enough and that he should not have to do any overtime at the coalface. But no miner will say in all honesty that he does not owe a responsibility to see that the pit which is his livelihood—one might almost speak of the pit in which he lives—and the machinery he uses are kept in an honourable working state.
An hon. Member for a mining constituency said that the miners had not broken the law. I did not intervene, but I thought that there was something wrong. It was that none of us destroys the means of his livelihood. Although the miner may be doing nothing against the law, he is breaking something far more important to him. He is breaking down the very pit in which he earns his livelihood. When he does not take any action, but stays away, executive staff do the job that he should be doing. A matter of honour is involved, the honourable attitude of a working man who will always protect his pit and equipment and will see that he does his best.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same criterion to Members of Parliament, that of regular attendance and participation in the work of Parliament, so that we also may have an honourable outlook upon our work? Some hon. Members, far from playing a full part in maintaining their responsibility in the democratic parliamentary system, often absent themselves to obtain yet another living by another occupation.
Mr. Rees-Davies: That is a very cheap crack. I was trying to make a constructive contribution. It is a cheap and dirty crack to suggest that everybody should be a full-time Member of Parliament. It is not the view of my constituents or of the majority in the country that all hon. Members should sit here all day long doing just one job. People believe that the brains and intelligence of all the professions and all industry should be represented. Some of the best contributions from the hon. Gentleman's side of the House this evening have come from those who have outside occupations. I should not have given way if I had realised that we should hear a thoroughly dirty crack of that kind. I had thought, wrongly, that we were on the ball.

1673
It is no criticism of the Chair when I say that I was unable to take part in the debate yesterday and the day before to make the suggestion that I have just made. I was unable to do so because so many hon. Members wanted to speak. We should return here at the beginning of January and have what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) suggested, a two-day debate upon the energy situation. We should try to get together with a view to finding a way out of the miners' plight.
I have no intention or desire to suggest that there should be any whittling down of phase 3, but I believe that one day it will be necessary that when a miner signs an agreement, as he should do, setting out his working conditions, his working week—whether it be of 35 hours or of 40 hours—should incorporate a duty and responsibility to go in as and when required for purposes of maintenance.
To compensate a miner for that, he must be given a substantial increase in his emoluments, because he is thereby being asked to do as a permanent part of the terms of his employment something which it is reasonable to ask him to do only in return for a substantial reward. Along those lines an answer might be found.
Much the same is true in the case of the power workers, whom I regard as some of the best workers in the country. I have more sympathy for the power workers than for any other group of workers. In case of accident and emergency they have to be called out in the middle of the night. This is an unsocial aspect of their job and it should entitle them to something extra.
Next, what is to be done about ASLEF? This is the one union that everybody is against. Let the members stand up and be counted. We do not know who they are; we do not know their names and addresses. When we had an electricity strike in Kent, we found out who the people were and in a very short time the community persuaded them to return.
If the identity of these people were known, they would be unpopular. I believe that the men and their wives would recognise this, and in the national interest the men would return to work in the knowledge that they would achieve
1674
their purpose in due course. It is up to the national to act—to "Do unto others as you would they should do unto you."
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Michael Cocks: I oppose the idea that we should adjourn for a recess of this length because of the remarks the Chancellor made in the course of his speech last night. His remarks about local government expenditure were alarming and showed that the Government still do not appreciate the chaotic problems which have been caused bw local government reorganisation. We appreciate that Ministers have much to occupy their minds at present, but these are problems that will affect the everyday lives of people, and the problems are getting worse day by day.
Appointments have been made at chief officer and principal officer level at salaries far higher than existing ones. In some cases these appointments have been made for the same or less work. Questions to the Pay Board bring no response. The Pay Board has not sufficient staff to cope with the matter, though it is concerned about it.
What is happening in local government reorganisation is not a good example when restraint is called for from others, particularly the manual workers. These appointments are being made constantly. The Government should be seized of the problem. The numbers of staff lost to existing authorities are growing day by day. The ring fence system among local authorities means that there is internal cannibalisation and the best of people in existing authorities are often lured away by higher salaries. The three-week delay which will result from the proposed Christmas Recess will make the situation much worse.
The reorganisation is leading to duplication of staff and of resources. I shall not weary the House with examples of departments which, although whole areas of responsibility have been shared, are only a few short of the complement they previously had. It looks as though there will be a great deal of waste and extravagance which we can ill afford.
Time is running out on another matter about which the Government have been pressed, namely, the way in which the cost of the new authorities is to be met. My own county of Avon is concerned in this,

1675
as are Humberside and Tyneside. In these areas entirely new authorities are having to be established from scratch, yet we still do not know what measure of support is to be given by the Government to help with the acquisition of new buildings, new administrative machinery and new equipment. These serious problems are causing a great deal of concern in my area and in other areas similarly affected.
Local government reorganisation will be with us for some time. Things are happening which the Government should provide time for thinking about. In a month or two's time it will be too late. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about the length of the recess and perhaps bring us back early, if necessary. Let us get to grips with these problems, because they will affect the lives of ordinary people just as much as they will be affected by other and more national issues which are taking place at this time. I am sure that other authorities, like my own, would overwhelmingly support the idea of the Government giving more time and thought to these matters.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Stan brook: I, too, have reservations about the wisdom of our rising tomorrow and not returning until 15th January for reasons some of which have already been advanced. One other reason is the problem of the status of engineers and their right to practise in Europe after the end of this month.
This is a problem which almost by definition is urgent, because the situation in which we are at present placed—I say "we", although I am not an engineer, either chartered or of any other kind—is that British engineers who are chartered at this moment may as from the beginning of the new year be entitled to practise in Europe. But the others—they are the majority—will not be so entitled unless a formula is devised to enable us to put forward the type of standard, qualifications and equivalents to the Community which will admit engineers other than those who are at present deemed to be chartered engineers.
No doubt the House is aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping has been in negotiation with the various institutions and bodies concerned—the Council of Engineering
1676
Institutions and some other engineering institutions outside the council which are very closely concerned with the problem.
Today my hon. Friend told me:
"I have agreed with the Council of Engineering Institutions that mutual recognition within the EEC should be sought for all adequately qualified engineers whether they are in membership of the institutions inside or outside the CEI. For this purpose it has been agreed with the CEI that there shall be an extended register of engineers having these qualifications… My officials are continuing urgent discussions with the interested parties to this end."
That is all very well, but I believe that no further meeting is proposed of those officials with members of the institutions concerned before the end of the year.
We know that the negotiations with the EEC about the status of engineers will commence in the early days of the new year. It therefore seems to follow that the many perfectly well qualified engineers who are outside the Council of Engineering Institutions may lose their right to practise in Europe almost immediately the new year begins. This is a situation which I am sure the House does not desire. Therefore, it should surely be dealt with before long. The recess will not assist us in settling this problem.
I illustrate the problem by reference to one such institution which is not within the Council of Engineering Institutions and whose members, therefore, are not considered to be chartered engineers. I refer to the Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers. It has 6,429 members, 4.100 of whom are not eligible to be considered as chartered engineers and will not therefore be eligible to practise in Europe after the end of the year. It is one of the institutions outside the council. The council consists of 15 engineering institutions and at the moment they alone have the right to admit their members to the status of chartered engineer.
It would follow that the solution to the problem could be the admission of suitable institutions like the IHVE into the council on the same terms as those which are already admitted. But that is not the policy. The policy is to raise standards, as I understand it, and there is a sort of drawbridge which is being raised against engineers belonging to institutions outside the council. That is the way in which the dilemma

1677
arises for members of all such institutions—80 of them, comprising many institutions throughout engineering and many thousands of British engineers who are well qualified by any reasonable standard to be considered on the same level as chartered engineers.
What has been proposed so far by the council as the solution to the problem is that all those members of non-CEI institutions who already have chartered engineering status or a degree should be admitted. But the difficulty comes over the others, in the case of the Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers numbering over 4,000. It is suggested by the council that there should be a mature candidate's route. It proposes that those members of the institutions concerned who are over the age of 40 who have been more than 15 years in a responsible engineering job and can write a satisfactory thesis of 5,000 words up to degree standard should be eligible.
One does not need to examine such a proposition deeply to realise that it is an almost impossible requirement for any man over the age of 40, holding a responsible position, to attain a qualification of academic degree standard when he is already engaged full time in a job and has had great experience in his own industry without that basic academic degree qualification.
I ask my right hon. Friend to emphasise the urgency of the matter, because the solution surely is that adopted for the admission into the Council of Engineering Institutions of the Institute of Fuel, whose members were taken in as a whole by a screening procedure under which each one was able to register his experience and qualifications, a process which allowed membership of his own institution to be represented along with the representatives of the CEI itself, vetting each one for suitability and, if necessary, requiring, viva voce, some other form of test. Imposing a formula of the kind proposed seems to be another device for putting off the problem indefinitely and causing great injustice to many thousands of British engineers.
For that reason, I believe that it is wrong to adjourn unless this problem is considered in the urgent spirit which it demands.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I join the debate briefly to urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the dates he has proposed for the Christmas Adjournment. My first reason is the measures which the Government have taken to deal with the economic situation and the fact that those measures were taken without prior and proper consultation with industry, with the trade unions and, indeed, with this House. A huge number of difficulties have arisen and like most, if not all, hon. Members I have been inundated with telephone calls from worried employers and employees in my constituency who are concerned about the effect of the Government's regulations upon their livelihoods.
Already the regulations laid by the Government have been amended. Industry is bewildered at the flood of instructions and counter-instructions being issued. It is also concerned that, when it wishes to contact the Department of Trade and Industry, it finds it almost impossible to get a telephone line through to that Department. I have been informed that the Department itself is experiencing difficulty in contacting its own regional offices. If that is the situation, it is intolerable that the Government should be sending hon. Members away in the middle of this chaos. We ought to be able to be here to see Ministers across the Table of the House and put to them the very issues which are worrying our constituents.
Mr. Pavitt: Not at Christmas.
Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) says "Not at Christmas", but I believe the situation in terms of employment and in terms of the economy of the country to be so grave that I should not be opposed to coming here on Christmas Day itself if I thought that that would be of assistance to my constituents who are suffering such misery. I shall not bore the House with repetition of the many points which constituents have put to me. I choose merely one of the simplest brought to my attention only this morning concerning the hairdressing trade. Although hairdressing is not an essential industry, it has a place in society in the morale of our womenfolk who will carry the bulk of the burdens which are being

1679
placed upon us. In my constituency hairdressers are being told that they may operate only on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. But those are not the days upon which they normally do the bulk of their business. It is done towards the end of the week when hon. Members, like the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and others of her sex, wish to prepare themselves for whatever morale-building activities they will engage in in the latter part of the week. That is only a simple illustration of the chaotic situation that exists.
I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to say a word or two about the effect of the Government's regulations on the retail trade, and in particular the hairdressing trade.
One of the reasons that stung me into contributing to the debate was the speech by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I take grave exception to hon. Members coming to this House and sermonising to people who earn their living in a hard and arduous way in digging the coal from the bowels of the earth, men who are doing no more than confining themselves to a normal working week. It does not lie within the mouth of any hon. Member who is not playing a full-time part in the work of Parliament in any way to cast strictures or to sermonise those who face the sort of work that those in the mining industry face.
The other point I wish to challenge from the hon. Member's speech was his reference to announcing to the general public the names of those who are working a normal working week and banning overtime. I assume that the hon. Member hopes that the public might be so unwise as to terrorise them back to work. If we are to talk in terms of disclosing to the public all our interests, let us begin here and not go along with mealy-mouthed recommendations for other people which we have not the decency or courtesy to put in operation in respect of our own activities in Parliament.
One of the scandals, and therefore one of the reasons why we should not adjourn for the recess at this stage, is that the whole question of the declaration of Members' outside interests has not yet been dealt with by Parliament. It is a
1680
scandal that we do not have full declarations of all our interests. If we were to have such declarations, the public would be able the more adequately to judge our ability and our part in the democratic processes. Perhaps also it would deter some hon. Members from coming along with a lot of sanctimonious humbug about other people.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. James Prior: One of the most fascinating aspects of debates of this kind is that some of the many hon. Members who say why we should not go into recess, giving copious reasons, disappear before the end of the debate or were not present at the beginning.
We have debated a number of matters of considerable importance to our constituents, and one recognises at once that we do so at a time of national crisis But I remind the House that we are resuming one weék earlier than usual, and, if the situation is such that the Government think it desirable to recall the House earlier, I have no doubt that the necessary arrangements will be made through Mr. Speaker.
If there are hon. Members who have problems about their constituents which they feel should be raised during the Christmas period, I shall be in my office on Thursday and Friday of next week. I shall welcome any hon. Member who telephones and makes an appointment if he comes to see me, and I shall see that the views of his constituents are put to my right hon. Friends. Ministers will be on duty next week and the week after that and the week after that to make certain that as many as possible of the problems are ironed out.
The task set for us by the problems of the energy and fuel crisis are enormous administratively—indeed, of a size the country has probably never had before. Of course there will be difficulties and very considerable problems. We all wish that they could fade away, and of course they could fade away if the miners and the railway workers went back to full work. Then, although we should still have the problem of oil shortage, we could manage it and deal with it. The problem over the price of oil is again one which we could deal with. But coal supplies 70 per cent. of our electricity demand, and at the moment the stocks

1681
at the power stations are running down at about 1 million tons a week while they are getting about 40 per cent. less than their normal expectation at this time of year.
There are those who say that it would be all right if the Government were reasonable. To them I point out that already nearly 3 million people have accepted agreements under phase 3. Are the Opposition suggesting that those 3 million people would be content to see the miners now breaking through phase 3? I do not believe they would. I think that it would grossly unfair to them, and only the other day a trade union leader said,
"We have accepted a phase 3 agreement, but of course if phase 3 is broken we shall be back tomorrow for more."
That would result in inflation becoming rampant once more, as it did after the Wilberforce agreement last time, which resulted in the introducton of the statutory policy. The present policy will do more to improve the position of the miners relative to other people than perhaps any other form of incomes policy yet devised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) mentioned the unsocial hours provision. I assure him that in the offer made to the miners full advantage was taken of that provision. But I have noted what he said and I will see that his views are given immediately to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, together with any other views which may contribute towards a settlement of the dispute.
Settlement of the dispute is paramount in the interests of Britain and of all Members and their constituents who are worried about the effect of the three-day working week. Several hon. Members have raised specific points about the three-day working week. I will deal first with the general point that some firms are having to work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and some Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and the inconvenience that this causes to those who have to work late on Friday afternoon or on Saturday—which is a particular problem to certain of the orthodox Jewish community and also affects those employing large numbers of women who do not want to
1682
work on Saturday because of their children. These are all very great difficulties with which the Government and the electricity boards have had to contend.
Some hon. Members have asked whether these three consecutive days could be rotated. It is necessary at present to specify the days on which electricity can be used in order to ensure that, if load cuts become necessary, industry and commerce can have three consecutive days with uninterrupted supply of electricity. This is what industry asked us to do. It wanted three consecutive days with uninterrupted supply rather than what happened on previous occasions, when there have been full weeks working but interruptions of supply during the course of each day. On the other hand, the three days do have the disadvantages I have mentioned. We shall certainly keep under review the whole situation and consider whether, if circumstances allow, it will be possible to rotate the days on which the use of electricity is permitted.
Mr. Drayson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, by starting at 7 a.m. on Monday and going on to 7 a.m. on Thursday, with overnight working, one is using electricity not at a peak time?
Mr. Prior: I cannot deal with that problem off the cuff, but I will have it examined, and if my hon. Friend gets in touch with me I will see what I can do about it.
I turn now to the situation of the shops. I am happy to say that their position is rather better than some of my hon. Friends have feared, Food shops will be able to use electricity at any time and will be exempted from the provision of the order. Others shops will now be permitted to use electricity for part of every day, Monday to Friday, and all day on Saturday. In general terms, it means that they could use electricity during certain permitted hours either in the morning or the afternoon, Monday to Friday. However, if rota cuts have to be imposed they will fall in either the Monday to Wednesday or Thursday to Saturday periods, possibly during hours when shops are open. It is understood that many shops prefer that arrangement though it probably would not suit other users, such as industry. Shops which

1683
normally open on Sunday will be permitted to use electricity during certain hours. I think that is a help.
We are trying to be flexible, but we must save electricity. We have to save over 20 per cent. of normal demand each day. Over half of that has to come from domestic use and just under half from industry and business. We cannot do this without causing a great deal of inconvenience and problems. But the problems that this will create, however severe in the short run, are nothing compared with the problems that this country will cause itself in the long run if it does not get a sensible incomes policy and control over inflation.
Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are a large number of factories in Acton. He said that he wishes to save 20 per cent. of industrial and commercial use of electricity. Will he explain why he has not asked every unit of production to economise by 20 per cent., or more, and show that it has done so, rather than adopt the three-day solution which will have considerable industrial and social secondary effects and, from what I have heard in my constituency, will cause a reduction in production which would not otherwise take place?
Mr, Prior: It will certainly cause a reduction in output and production, and that we bitterly regret.
Mr. Spearing: Additional.
Mr. Prior: No one regrets that more than the Government. The suggestion put forward by the hon. Gentleman could not be monitored and we would not get the saving. That is why we must take this action.
I must put the hon. Gentleman right on one matter. We are going for a reduction in industrial use of 10 per cent., not 20 per cent. That will affect some firms more than others, because many industries must keep going—food processing and manufacture, and so on—and there are many other essential users whom we cannot touch at all. Where continuous processing is going on, the reduction will be 65 per cent. of normal requirements. In other cases, it is three days out of five days normal working.
Mr. Clinton Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is one of the nicest Members
1684
in this House. Therefore, I cannot accept that he believes in the claptrap that he is talking. What consultations took place to define the zoning areas? Were consultations undertaken with chambers of commerce in areas such as mine to determine whether there was a substantial orthodox Jewish or Muslim community that would be affected? What was done to define these issues?
Mr. Prior: The electricity boards have been assessing the situation since the last coal crisis. They thought that this was the best arrangement in the interests of the largest number of people. Of course, no system is perfect. This system is bound to mean an element of rough justice. Many people will be inconvenienced and will have to change their habits. We shall have to accept that situation during the emergency. It is no use people thinking that they can go on as usual. It is not "business as usual". Much as I regret it, the country will have to recognise that that is the situation.
Mr. Clinton Davis: And maximise the inconvenience.
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet asked about the decision that was taken on Summer Time. The Government have given most careful consideration to the balance of advantage and disadvantage in carrying out this change. The Electricity Council was marginally against making the change because it would increase the demand for electricity at the start of the day and add to the problems of power stations at that time in the morning. I think that, on the whole, industry had mixed feelings. It did not come down firmly one way or the other, but I think it was probably just in favour. I refer to industry south of the Midlands. Certainly north of that area no one wants the change to be made. Other industries, including agriculture, by no means considered it to be a major factor and did not want the change to be made. The construction industry certainly did not want the change to be made.
The Government had to decide whether the inconvenience and the problems associated with making the change would make a worthwhile improvement in electricity saving. We came to the conclusion, after giving the matter a great

1685
deal of thought, that the saving in electricity was so marginal as not to justify making the change.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the effect on football clubs. Being a keen football spectator, I ought perhaps to have taken that aspect more into consideration than I did. The fact is that we reached the conclusion that we should not make the change. The change is due to be made on 17th March, and I think that it is right to stick to that date.
I turn now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I realise that the fuel shortage poses special problems for the disabled. Garage owners have been asked to give priority to the disabled and other special categories. I understand that garages have been responsive to their needs. If individual disabled people are experiencing particular difficulties, I know that the DTI's emergency fuel office will make special efforts to resolve them. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman can contact me on Thursday or Friday of next week if there is further difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the meals-on-wheels service. If the cooking is done on commercial premises it qualifies as catering and is not affected by the three-day working rule and will be allowed electricity at any time. If the cooking is done on domestic premises, equally there is no limitation. I hope that the meals-on-wheels service will go ahead. The emergency provides an opportunity to large numbers of people to carry out voluntary work. I am sure that over the Christmas period and the time of the emergency people will carry out that voluntary work for which this country is properly renowned.
The hon. Member for Acton raised what I still think is a very complicated matter. Motion No. 88, in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and other hon. Members deals with the system of generalised preferences in the EEC. As the hon. Member for Acton will know, this scheme is in existence. It will bring substantial benefit to developing countries in 1974. Detailed implementation of it may, from time to time, require United Kingdom statutory instruments on EEC secondary legislation. The former can be dealt with
1686
in the usual way. A fully satisfactory way of dealing with the latter must await the consideration of the Foster Committee, as it has become known—the Select Committee on Secondary Legislation.
I hope very much that we can debate that matter very soon after our return. The hon. Gentleman will know—if he does not, I should like to tell him—that we were to have debated the matter this week, but because of the changing round of business to accommodate the two-day debate on energy and economic affairs, we put off the debate. We shall not debate it on the first week that we are back, but I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that unless something dramatic happens we shall be debating it on the second week that we are back. I hope that the House will be able to move to fairly quick decisions after that.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of tariffs on food items. No tariffs on food items have yet been imposed and there have been no increases under the common external tariff as a result of EEC entry. A change in the beef and veal duties is due at the beginning of the next beef marketing year, which starts probably on 1st April. So what my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have said is consistent. I have checked to see that it is consistent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked about the health centre programme. He has asked me about that previously during a debate on a similar motion. I am afraid that the cuts in public expenditure will apply right across the board, with very few exceptions. Much as we regret this, and although I shall ask my right hon. Friend to look again into my hon. Friend's particular problems in his constituency, these cuts will have to be indiscrimately applied right across the board, otherwise we shall not make the necessary reduction in Government expenditure.
Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whereas the £69 million cut in the hospital programme will be put back eventually, a health centre requires the co-operation of general practitioners and if not started will be very often gone for all time in this situation? Therefore, in

1687
making the adjustments in the £111 million in relation to the National Health Service, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services to pay special attention to the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough?
Mr. Prior: I certainly shall. I know that it will be the wish of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that any cuts which have to be made as the result of this are put back as and when possible. What we are thinking of is much more a rolling forward of the programme rather than a direct cut.
Mr. Marks: Where there is a 20 per cent. cut, for instance, in educational building and there are exceptions, such as special schools—which exception has already been announced—does that mean that the cuts in the rest of school building for primary and secondary schools will be more than 20 per cent. to compensate for that?
Mr. Prior Mr. Prior No, it means that my right hon. Friend is having to make a 20 per cent. cut, and if certain things are excluded other things may well be held back by more than 20 per cent. So that 20 per cent. is an overall cut.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) raised the matter of the SELNEC Passenger Transport Authority. I have noted what he said and that he is not entirely satisfied with the Answer that he received this afternoon, which was that provided such a total policy could be contained within acceptable estimates the Government would endorse it. What that means is that if, presumably, Manchester thinks that it is worth while spending the money on this scheme as opposed to other schemes, in time it will be able to do so. It will be up to Manchester to decide how to spend its money when transport investment is being considered, as it were, under the transport grant scheme that the Local Government Bill will introduce. I know the worry that exists in the Manchester area about this matter, but I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) had to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) was very worried about the position of the small dairy
1688
farmer and small beef producer, and about the premature sale of cattle. The livestock farmers are at present going through a difficult period. They are having to meet vast increases in the price of feedingstuffs, and the price of beef and of milk has not risen to compensate them for that. As my right hon. Friend has said, he will bring forward the date of the Price Review in order to help out as soon as he possibly can.
But I hope that my hon. Friend will convey this to his farming constituents. I believe that it would be the greatest folly if they did not hold on to their stock now. I am certain that the prospects for them are exceedingly good and that the prospects for farming are probably better now than they have been for a generation. Britain will need all the food that it can produce over the next 20 years or more. I hope that no farmer will be so foolish as to sell off breeding or other stock now which could be kept to provide more animals later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) asked about the extended register of engineers for recognition in the EEC. I thought that the Written Answer that he received today went quite a long way towards the point that he had been pressing for some while. My hon. Friend then moved on to such a narrow point that I shall have to have that examined and get in touch with him about it.
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) asked about the car park. The surface of New Palace Yard will now have to be reconsidered by the Services Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that it had been thrown out by the House. It was, but not by a very large majority or by a great many Members.
What always interests me is the number of times that I have been told that we must not have a debate on such an important matter as the car park late at night, because it is something which commands the great interest of hon. Members. But if one looks at the Division record one sees exactly how many hon. Members were prepared to attend the debate. I must declare an interest in that I was not present on that night, either.
Mr. John Page: I may have missed the point when my right hon. Friend was speaking, but will he say when the new

1689
arrangements about rotation for retail shops will be announced and whether they are to be effective from next Monday?
Mr. Prior: I suppose that I have announced quite a bit this afternoon, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will be making the order tonight. It will operate from 1st January. I shall have to seek further advice about what happens next week. I do not think that next week is a particularly serious problem, because the shops will not be wanting to open for all that amount of time next week. They have been more concerned with the period from 1st January onwards. My hon. Friend is hoping to make the order this evening, and he will give as full an explanation of the order as possible. If I may turn to one or two House of Commons points to end—
Mr. Michael Cocks: The last time I spoke on a motion for the Adjournment the right hon. Gentleman overlooked my question. I should be most grateful if he would reply this time.
Mr. Prior: Yes, I am sorry. The hon. Member for Bristol. South (Mr. Michael Cocks) spoke about local government reorganisation. I think we are finding that local government reorganisation is resulting in some local authorities greatly expanding the size of their bureaucracy. The Government take a pretty poor view of it, but that is as nothing to the view which my constituents take. I urge local authorities and local councillors to exercise the maximum amount of restraint in their new establishments. I know that my right hon. Friend is extremely worried about some of the establishments that he has heard about. The same remarks apply to some of the salaries granted for new jobs in local government, and, there again, I hope that local councillors will exercise responsibility at this time.
If the emergency situation persisted, we should have to ask the House to reconsider its sitting hours in order to economise in the use of electricity. I should wish to do this only after full consultation and a debate which would follow the laying of a motion. I would make a tentative suggestion that this would mean sitting in the mornings and rising in the early evenings. Naturally, we hope that the difficulties facing us all will be resolved by the time we return,
1690
but I thought that the House would like to have an early indication of the method which we are likely to recommend.
I should now like to say a brief word about Members' allowances. I have received representations during recent months from several quarters and have been pressed in the House to review the level of the various allowances which Members are able to claim. I undertook to give serious consideration to those representations, and that I have done in consultation with my colleagues. As the House knows, I am not unsympathetic in these matters and I fully appreciate that the cost to Members of spending a night away from home and, to an even greater degree, of secretarial expenses has increased sharply since the Boyle review. There is never a good time to consider these matters and the present is, unfortunately, singularly inappropriate. I am very sorry about this, but I must tell the House that we have decided it would not be right to raise the level of any allowances at the present time, nor indeed during this Parliament.
A number of suggestions have been put to me about salaries and there are others in a motion on the Order Paper. All of these lead me to the conclusion that the present system of payment and employment of secretaries needs reconsideration. I would suggest that the Boyle Committee be asked to look at this whole matter as part of its review in the next Parliament. I am afraid that that is not the sort of news I relish giving to the House just before Christmas, but I think it will be generally accepted as inevitable.
Perhaps I may mention another matter—supplementary petrol rations. Should it be necessary to introduce petrol rationing, arrangements will be made for Members to apply to the Fees Office for a supplementary petrol allowance for the purpose of carrying out their parliamentary duties. I will arrange for Members to have details of how to apply if this becomes necessary. Limits would have to be imposed, although what they would be I cannot say at this moment because they would depend on the basic allowance that was granted. In any case, I hope that hon. Members will use every opportunity to travel by train and so on whenever that is possible. Having said

1691
that, and having come to the point of departure—
Dame Joan Vickers: I asked my right hon. Friend a question about the dockyard, of which I gave him notice. There is to be a defence cut of £290 million. Is the dockyard to be allowed to go on working, or not? I asked that question the other day without getting an answer. I should also like an answer to my question about the coffins.
Mr. Prior: I apologise to my hon. Friend. It is a tremendous job to answer every question. The home dockyards will have to work a three-day week using electricity and two days without using electricity. The periods will have to be chosen in consultation with the local electricity board and may require working on Saturdays. I think my hon. Friend knows that. She will also know there are to be cuts in defence expenditure. I will talk to my right hon. Friend to see whether he can give further information as to how these cuts will fall on my hon. Friend's dockyard. I cannot say more on that point at the moment.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the supply of coffins. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anything that we have done because of the fuel shortage should affect the supply of coffins. Coffins are mostly supplied by very small firms who, up to this point at any rate, will not have been affected by cuts in electricity. Both this week and last week they have been allowed to work a normal week, so they should not yet have been affected. If problems arise I will have them looked into, and perhaps my hon. Friend will get in touch with me after the Christmas holiday is over. When I say that, I mean after Boxing Day is over.
That might be a suitable moment for me to end. It is usual at this time of the year for us to wish a happy Christmas to all the staff who serve the House so well. So I wish them a happy Christmas—I have already wished Members of Parliament a happy Christmas—and I wish us all a brighter New Year.
7.36 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after the right hon. Gentleman had spoken only because he was kind enough to mention to me earlier that he
1692
would refer to new matters affecting the House of Commons, which he did in the last few minutes of his speech. I shall detain the House for only a few minutes, because there is no point in my ranging over the whole debate or the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members are going away for Christmas under the most melancholy conditions that I can remember during my 25 years in the House of Commons, and there is naturally great anxiety and worry about many matters which will be raised by constituents in the coming weeks. Therefore, they have wanted reassurance and comfort on matters about which they feel uneasy. However, there are just one or two points which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned to which it would be appropriate for me to refer.
The Leader of the House has given us a hint of the possibility that the House may be asked to reconsider its hours of business. He was justified in doing that, though I am sure the whole House hopes that the conditions and circumstances which may give rise to any such proposals will be ended before the House returns on 15th January. We are looking forward to some movement towards conciliation and settlement of these industrial disputes. We are certainly not contemplating that the House and the country will have weeks and months of emergency, of deepening crisis, because of industrial difficulties which confront the nation at the present time. Nevertheless, the Leader of the House was justified in making that tentative reference to the possibility of changing the hours of business of the House.
The only caveat I would enter is that there should be no curtailment of the rights and privileges of the House. We are not asking for a reduction in either our hours of work or the amount of work we do. We must help to save electricity if conditions remain the same when we return. It is a little disturbing for the right hon. Gentleman to have his attention distracted by one of his hon. Friends at this moment. I was saying that we on this side could not agree to shortening the hours of Parliament at a time when the whole nation might be seeking redress for difficulties and grievances and wanting new measures to be taken to meet the difficulties which confront it. We must

1693
seek to save electricity, but we must preserve the full functioning of the House of Commons with its customary rights and privileges of debate. People may want the House of Commons to be working more rather than less during the difficulties of the next few weeks. The Leader of the House has promised consultation and a motion in due course, but there can be no three-day week for the House of Commons and this should be made very clear. After all, we are the Parliament of the Realm and we have an overriding public duty and responsibility to safeguard the democratic rights of the people and to be here to deal with problems and difficulties which may arise.
The Leader of the House referred to Members' allowances. This is a difficult matter. We are always diffident about discussing matters which relate to conditions and allowances for Members of Parliament. However, on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour Party I put to the right hon. Gentleman certain suggestions for the adjustment of Member's allowances which under the Boyle Report had their analogues in the structure of allowances payable to the Civil Service. I give one simple example. Members of Parliament who have a home and constituency outside London and who have accommodation in London during the Session are given a subsistence allowance which is related to a payment made in the Civil Service. That was clearly established in the Boyle Report. As from 1st January 1973 the Civil Service received an improvement of the London subsistence allowance from £5·25 to £5·75. We asked the Leader of the House to consent to a corresponding adjustment for the parallel allowance payable to Members of Parliament. I give that as one illustration. There is another relating to the provincial rate of subsistence.
Another problem which I raised with the right hon. Gentleman was the payment of London allowances and the area covered by them, which his predecessors said could be adjusted if they were then found to be inequitable. They have since been found to be inequitable and adjustment could clearly have been made. I am disappointed at what the right hon. Gentleman said, but we all understand
1694
that we cannot be furthering our interests at a time of grave national anxiety. I am bound to qualify that, however, to this extent. The country does not expect Members of Parliament in present conditions to worsen the basis of their efficiency and the performance of their duties. I do not believe that any member of the public would expect Members of Parliament to be placed at an acute disadvantage in relation to other servants of the State.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the allowance payable for secretaries. This is in an entirely different category. The Boyle Committee never thought that the allowance of £1,000 a year would be enough to pay for a full-time secretary. That was never contemplated. Now, of course, the allowance is even more inadequate, in view of current levls of remuneration, than when the Boyle Committee reported. Members of Parliament have not yet had the benefit of any of the stages of the counter-inflation policy. Nothing has happened to give them any additional resources out of which to pay for their secretaries under stage 1, 2 or 3. There is an early-day motion on the Order Paper which expresses the view of many hon. Members in that regard.
Not long ago the Government made sympathetic comments about the employment of secretaries. That was some time ago when we were debating the new Parliament building, construction of which is now to be deferred. Hon. Members are finding it increasingly difficult to retain the essential equipment for the performance of their duties in dealing with correspondence. They are unable to pay secretaries what is now regarded as reasonable remuneration for duties in the House which involve long hours, split duties and all sorts of uncertainties about their engagements and conditions of service.
The Leader of the House has reported the Government's judgment in this matter. The House has noted it. I must reserve the position of my right hon. and hon. Friends because I am not in a position to acquiesce in what the right hon. Gentleman just announced. I hope it will not be thought that I am intruding into a debate on grave matters with domestic issues of relative unimportance

1695
to the country, or that I am getting our debate out of perspective. This is the only opportunity I have of raising the matter, and had I spoken before the Leader of the House I should have been unable to comment on the matter.
For the rest, quite clearly we are rising in sombre circumstances. Whether public opinion and the pressure of events will bring us back earlier it is impossible to say. The Leader of the House may rest assured that the House would willingly come back at any date the Government thought right and proper to attend to our business before 15th January. We have quite rightly cut our recess short this year. We have the good news that the Leader of the House will be on duty in person, because many of us will be working in our constituencies and elsewhere and we shall be able to get in touch with him if we are in serious difficulty.
I believe that we face considerable disruption, chaos and confusion in the weeks ahead as a result of the new restrictions on the use of electricity. I sincerely hope that the social and industrial fabric will take the strain, but it will be a severe one. We therefore enter the new year facing a somewhat unpredictable future, but we sincerely hope that good sense will prevail and that the judgment of the Government and all those concerned with this grave situation will lead to a satisfactory settlement of the disputes which plague the economy and cause so much public inconvenience. I sincerely hope, too, that we shall return after the recess a much happier House of Commons than we leave it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn till Tuesday 15th January 1974.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT
7.49 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 1) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It will be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following motion,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
Mr. Page: The Local Government Act 1966, under which the orders are made, requires the orders to be accompanied by explanatory reports by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The reports are House of Commons Papers Nos. 47 and 48. They were duly laid before the House at the same time as the orders were laid. The orders and the reports deal with the two financial years 1972–73 and 1973–74. Under the Local Government Act 1966 the main grant settlement was made every two years, but the procedure was amended for 1973–74 by the Local Government Act 1972, and only that year was covered. The new arrangement is the precursor of the grant settlement which we are proposing in the Local Government Bill which is now before the House.
To deal with these orders is perhaps a little confusing. I shall try to put on record as succinotly as possible exactly what we are dealing with in each order and how it comes about. In 1970 we debated the Rate Support Grant Order 1970, which fixed the amount of grant for 1971–72 and 1972–73. The year 1971–72 was wound up by the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1972 which we debated last year. So this year in the (Increase) (No. 1) Order we are dealing only with the year 1972–73. Last year we debated at the same time the Rate Support Grant Order 1972, which fixed the amount of grant for 1973–74 only. We are now dealing with the increases necessary for that year in the (Increase) (No. 2) Order.
I had hoped—and I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath

1697
(Mr. Denis Howell) knew of my hopes—that it would be possible to publish before now a White Paper giving the details of the rate support grant settlement for 1974–75. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we had a White Paper printed. It has been delayed as a result of the expenditure reductions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday.
The debate, unlike last year's debate, is only on the increase orders. We are not debating at the same time the main Rate Support Grant Order for 1974–75. We shall conclude the main settlement as soon as possible after further discussions with the local authorities. In fact, those discussions started this week.
Mr. Denis Howell: Whilst that may be true, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the orders before the House, having regard to what the Government might do in terms of expenditure, have a consequential effect on expenditure in future years, and particularly next year's expenditure? Will he confirm that they cannot be discussed in isolation because, as the local authority associations are telling us, there is a considerable carryover into next year?
Mr. Page: No, the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The orders deal with the period up to March 1974. The No. 2 order deals with the increase in costs for the period up to the end of March 1974. Therefore, we are not dealing with 1974–75. It may be that when we come to November or December 1974 we shall be obliged to look again at the settlement for 1973–74—namely, that which we are discussing now. Perhaps a further increase order may then be necessary. Alternatively, we may be able to take a considerable amount of the increase which we would be making next November into the main settlement of this year.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind whether we can take more into account as we are starting off with new local authorities with a new main support grant order, despite the fact that we have been delayed a little. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have that well in mind. I cannot make any promises. It is a matter which must be considered
1698
and discussed with the local authority associations.
The orders before the House take account of increases in prices, costs and remuneration since last year. That is as far as they go. Each year the main grant settlement is based on expenditure reflecting the levels of prices, costs and remuneration which are current when the main order is made. To prevent the value of the grants being eroded by subsequent unforeseen rises in the level of prices, costs and remuneration, my right hon. and learned Friend is empowered by the Act to increase the grant if it appears to him that the effect of the rises in prices, costs and remuneration on relevant expenditure by local authorities is substantial.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: How does what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, which in normal circumstances would be welcome, square with what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as reported in HANSARD, on Monday when he talked about a reduction in the amount of grant previously envisaged for 1974–75? The right hon. Gentleman talked about an increase while the Chancellor told us that there will be a reduction.
Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will refer me to the column I shall endeavour to read it and to see exactly what was said. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quoting my right hon. Friend correctly, with respect. Perhaps he will quote the words in HANSARD.
Mr. Kaufman: On Monday the Chancellor said:
"These decisions on public expenditure will entail a reduction in the total of the current expenditure which was accepted by the local authorities in England and Wales in the recent rate support grant discussions, and a reduction in the amount of grant previously envisaged for 1974–75."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 964.]
Mr. Page: Of course, but the hon. Gentleman is entirely on the wrong track. We are dealing with the increase in costs, of pay and the costs of materials during 1972–73 and 1973–74. My right hon. Friend has called upon local authorities to make a reduction in their expenditure. That follows the settlement which had already been made. I call it a settlement because we had the statutory meeting between the local authorities and the

1699
Ministers. That had already been made on previous figures. Local authorities are now asked to reduce capital expenditure by 20 per cent. and procurement by 10 per cent. That includes goods and services and excludes pay and debt charges. That is for future expenditure in 1974–75. We are dealing with anticipated expenditure as increased during 1973–74.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to develop that matter, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to answer him in more detail towards the end of the debate if I, too, catch your eye. I cannot see that that matter is relevant to the increase orders dealing with the position only up to March 1974. The only options to the Secretary of State in making an increase order are either to make the increase order and to take into account all the changes in prices, costs and remuneration which have come about at the time when the order is made, or to decline to make an order. As the 1966 Act has been interpreted, those are the only options he has.
In 1968, the then Government took the option of not making an increase order. Apart from that, in each year an increase order has been made. There is no flexibility about this. The order has to be made taking into account all the cost increases, or no order has to be made. If the House accepts the provisions of the Local Government Bill now before it the Secretary of State will have a little more freedom in this respect.
I deal now with the No. 1 order. This is the third increase relating to the year 1972–73, the grant for which was originally settled in 1970, increased in 1971 and 1972 and is now being increased for 1972–73 for that period remaining after November 1972 of the year 1972–73. The main arrangements for 1972–73 are covered by the 1966 Act provisions, that is to say, the original settlement was made three years before the end of the year to which it relates. We have a third increase order for that year to take account of the pay and price movements in the five months November 1972 to March 1973 when that financial year ended.
The No. 1 order and the explanatory papers show that there was a net increase in costs between November 1972 and
1700
March 1973 on the relevant services of £12·9 million. The rounded figure is £12 million. The figures are clearly set out in the explanatory papers and in the order. In the No. 1 order the effect of the increases for that year is to add £6 million to the rate support grant for the year 1972–73, all of which is allocated to the needs element. With an increase of this sort one applies the formulae for the resources element and the needs element. In some cases it will come out as a division between the resources element and the needs element. In other cases it will be found that the resources element is sufficient even with the increase in relevant expenditure. In this case the formula applied the whole of the increase to the needs element.
The No. 2 order covers 1973–74 taking into account the net increased costs between November 1972 and November 1973. I need not go into the figures as the details are clearly set out in the explanatory papers, which show that the total net increase in costs of pay and material prices amount to £396·7 million. The final result of the No. 2 order is that, allowing for all the figures set out in the explanatory paper No. 48, the rate support grant is increased by £223 million. The order allocates the increase in the rate support grant between the needs and resources elements, and it allocates £30 million to the resources element and the remaining £193 million to the needs element.
Many of the detailed estimates on which these figures are based have been supplied by the local authority associations or the Greater London Council. Other estimates are provided by the Government Departments concerned and discussed with the local authority associations. Figures have been agreed with the local authority associations for these orders.
Almost invariably when an increase order is made some increase falls on the wrong side of the line. In this case it is regrettable, perhaps, that it has not been possible to take into account the increase awarded to the firemen and the increase which is under discussion for the manual workers. These matters have not yet been cleared by the Pay Board so they do not come within the definition in the 1966 Act of figures which have definitely been decided. The effects of

1701
these can be taken into account in next year's increase order, or we shall consider whether it is possible to take them into account in the main settlement order for 1974–75. I do not think that I need to go into the figures in detail. If any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen have queries on the figures and I am able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have the leave of the House to reply to the debate, I will endeavour to deal with the figures.
On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself I express our great gratitude to all those in the local authority associations and the Greater London Council who have co-operated in working out these figures. As usual with an increase order, the figures are agreed. Once one has accepted the estimates, the increase order is automatic. It is of great importance to the local authorities that we should take into account the increases that have occurred since the first estimates were made. That is what the orders do, and I commend them to the House.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the orders and for his appreciation of the part that the local authorities have played in co-operating with the Government. That is important, in view of what I shall have to say about the lamentable performance on other matters affecting local authorities, which contrasts with the courtesy and understanding always shown to local authorities by the Minister for Local Government and Development, who seems to have lost control of his colleagues in Government in their dealings with local government.
The Government's policy for local government lies in absolute ruins. Even before the events of the last two weeks there was utter confusion throughout the land about local government reorganisation. There have been created great new metropolitan areas, great new county areas, great new district councils, regional water authorities, new health executive councils and area boards. All that has been going on for the last two years and it is extremely expensive, as we warned it would be time and again in debating the Local Government Bill now
1702
before the House and the Local Government Bill of last year.
What have these new local authorities been doing? They have been appointing new officers at salaries the like of which have not previously been seen in local government. Top jobs have been filled at very high salaries and, now, these senior officers of the new metropolitan councils are busy recruiting new staff to fill the new departments. This is an inescapable consequence of the system. In any case it was bound to be an expensive burden for ratepayers.
That was the situation that existed even before the economic crisis, and the Opposition warned time and again about the costs. This is why we have opposed this form of local government reorganisation. But to all this confusion there will now be added the chaos of the Government's present economic policies. In considering cut-backs in essential services, it is inexcusable that the high costs of local government administration should be duplicated at the expense of the services provided, for this is the consequence of the Government's present action. It might still be cheaper to scrap local government reorganisation, even though it has already gone a long way. In the present crisis I believe that a feasibility study should be undertaken to examine the costs and the merits of local government reorganisation. The process has probably gone too far to reverse entirely at this stage, but I suggest that the situation should be re-examined.
Whatever the case about local government reorganisation and however far that has gone, I am certain that the Government should at once scrap their proposals for reorganisation of water undertakings and also the health service. The present emergency demands that, in the national interest, expensive duplication of administration should end forthwith. There can be no doubt that in the two services which I have mentioned, reorganisation has not yet gone too far. Some chairmen and top officials have been appointed, but their jobs can be put "on ice" for a time and this will save many millions of pounds.
There is growing evidence of concern among Ministers on this topic. We heard the Leader of the House a little earlier express concern about the duplication of staffing in local government

1703
reorganisation and the very high salaries paid to some of the new appointees. As an old local government man, I bitterly resent the outrageous threats which are now being levelled by successive Government Ministers against local government. The hysterical note that has come into Ministers' voices is to be deprecated. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has made a recent speech on the subject, and there have been comments by other Ministers, particularly by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was in an aggressive mood when addressing a recent conference of municipal treasurers.
Perhaps I may first quote the words of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment:
"It will be too soon to judge with certainty whether local government reorganisation will be more or less prodigal in its use of manpower, but some of the signs are disturbing. In many parts of the country we are getting reports that the new authorities, formed by amalgamations of four or five previous districts, are budgeting for a level of staff 10, 20 or even 30 per cent. higher than the combined total staffs employed by their predecessors."
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his remarks made what most of us regard as a considerable threat to local authorities, but that threat pales into insignificance when we examine the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House last night. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"If any local authority deliberately sets out to flaunt the national interest, if it deliberately sets out to pursue a policy counter to the request that we have made and the rates go up in consequence, the necessary steps will no doubt be taken to remind electors where responsibility lies. I would add this: such deliberate action could well call in question the continuance of the present system of local autonomy over current expenditure which also carries with it the duty to act responsibly." [OFFICIAL REPORT 19th December, 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1470.]
In my 18 years in the House I have taken part in many debates on local government matters, but this is the first time that I have heard any Minister in any political party suggest, on behalf of the Government, that local authorities are deliberately setting out, or might be setting out, to act against the national interest.
Mr. James Allason: Clay Cross?
Mr. Howell: I do not want to take Clay Cross in particular, because I am dealing with local authorities as a whole. There may be one or two local authorities which do things of which some of us disapprove. I am talking about the majority of local authorities, and it was about the majority that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking.
The House will know that there are no more responsible people in this country than the thousands of men and women who give a great deal of their time freely and voluntarily in local government to serve the country and their fellow citizens. Therefore, it is outrageous that those local government officials should be addressed in such terms by the Chancellor. It is monstrous that he should suggest that the whole freedom of local government spending programmes relating to capital or income might be called into jeopardy, and it will be bitterly resented in local government. Of course there are these duplications. Of course there are these expensive posts being created. Did not the Government think that this would happen, especially after so many of us had warned them month in and month out that it was bound to happen? Indeed, the Government wanted it to happen to a degree, though possibly not to the extent that it has happened.
It was the Government who created a two-tier system of local government which was bound to cause duplication. That is why we objected to it. What does the right hon. Gentleman think that the two-tier system is about? In a two-tier system with county councils and district councils, with metropolitan county councils and metropolitan district councils, the two kinds of councils have to speak to each other. It is not a case of one treasurer and one finance department. There are two. The metropolitan treasurer has to talk to the district treasurer. The metropolitan planning department has to talk to the district planning department. The county education people talk to the district councils about education matters. The same applies all round and goes through the whole of local government services. Everywhere two sets of officials have to be talking to each other, whereas if we had had the unitary system which the Opposition supported, a single official would be doing each job. The Government have created this duplication

1705
of machinery, and they have done it at a very high cost to the ratepayer, as he is bound to discover.
The speech yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of the most offensive, unjustified and repugnant speeches ever to be made by any Minister on the subject of local government. I hope that the Minister for Local Government and Development will have the courage to dissociate himself from it.
I come to another aspect of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was discussing. Not only was his speech repugnant but he was actively engaged in deceiving the House of Commons about the extent to which rates were bound to go up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had said that there were bound to be whopping increases for ratepayers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"I must tell the House that there is not one shred of truth in those assertions, and I will explain why. The rate support grant will be reduced only in line with the savings in expenditure and if, like the rest of the public sector, the local authorities reduce their current expenditure in accordance with the Government's request, that will not lead to one extra penny on the rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1470.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Inadvertently, I am sure, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of deliberately misleading the House. That is rather improper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reconsider that statement.
Mr. Howell: You put me in a very difficult position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always anxious to do what you ask. However, the previous day the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House that rates were bound to go up 7p. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot both be right. I had assumed that the Secretary of State was right the previous day—incidentally, I do not believe that his 7p is accurate since in my view it is likely to be nearer 10p, but that is another matter—and that in that event the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been wrong. If the Chancellor was saying this inadvertently—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is one thing to be mistaken. It is quite another deliberately to mislead the House.
Mr. Howell: I hesitate to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of deliberately misleading the House, but if he were accidentaly misleading the House by saying that there was to be no increase on the rates when the day before the Secretary of State for the Environment had said that they would go up by 7p, the right hon. Gentleman is even a bigger fool than I thought. Either he is a knave or he is a fool. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule authoritatively that he is not a knave, I must accept that he is a fool. He must be one or the other.
Mr. Allason: Is not there a slight difference between an increase in rates between one year and another and an increase in rates due to certain circumstances such as a cut in the rate support grant and a reduction in expenditure?
Mr. Howell: I do not think that there is, but to the extent that there is any validity in that point, I shall try to show that we cannot have the cuts which the Government are imposing on local government without considerable consequences upon the rates. I am trying to discover what Government policy is. Since I suspect that Ministers do not know, there is not much chance of the rest of us finding out.
I come to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Monday, 17th December, when making his original statement. He said that we were to have these mammoth cuts in local government expenditure and that it would be done without any unemployment of staffs in local government. I shall not burden the House with the quotation. I am sure that hon. Members will take it from me.
We are told that the astronomical sum of at least £180 million is to be cut off the agreed expenditure of local authorities next year. The right hon. Gentleman probably will put figures to the percentages that he gave us—20 per cent. off capital and 10 per cent. off most revenue items. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these astronomical cuts will be made without any unemployment and without putting up the rates one penny. That is Government policy. Those

1707
are the three authentic statements. It is a nonsense. It is unattainable.
By far the biggest portion of local authority expenditure cannot be cut because it is statutory. It means that we are discussing £180 million of cuts which cannot come out of the employment or payment of teachers if we are not to have unemployment and which cannot come out of the police service which is statutory. It means that the local government services to which these astronomical cuts can be applied are very limited in extent.
If we are to have no unemployment, what will happen is that, for example, the various baths departments round the country will sack no baths attendants, the attendants will continue to turn up at the baths, but there will be no money to heat the water in which members of the public might wish to swim. That is the sort of absurd situation in which local authorities will now find themselves. The area of choice available to the local authorities is extremely limited.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not resent a full debate on local government finance, but I am a little worried as to how far I may go in answer to the hon. Gentleman. I came prepared to put before the House simple orders increasing the rate of support grants settled some years ago by reason of increased expenditure in the past—increases in costs and such like. The hon. Gentleman is going into the future, about cuts in local government expenditure, and how they are to be brought about. If the debate is to be developed in that way I am only too happy to answer, but it will take a considerable time to answer a full local government debate.
Mr. Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an unusual year. In any normal year the right hon. Gentleman might be right, but this year the rate support increase order is providing the expenditure to establish new local authorities which will begin to operate next year. So this year, for the one and only time in the history of the House, the expenditure in the order has direct relevance to expenditure which local authorities should or should not undertake next year. It was because I
1708
had that point in mind that I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman at the start of his speech to get the point clear, although he did not agree with me.
Mr. Page: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the increase orders now before the House take the matter up only to the end of March 1974. The orders are relevant to the years 1972–73 and 1973–74. That is all that is before the House at present.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has to be allowed a certain latitude in this matter, in the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves, but the right hon. Gentleman will be entitled to reply to him on the points he has raised.
Mr. Howell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I now turn to what will be carried over, and directly relate it to the order. The local authorities contend that £164 million ought to have been added to the rate support grant orders, which must be carried over to next year's expenditure by ratepayers. This arises because the relevant expenditure increase for the year 1972–73 was £12 million and for the year 1973–74 it is £397 million. The local authorities say that grant offered by the Department of 58 per cent. of all local government expenditure for the year 1972–73 leaves a shortfall of £7 million, while on a grant rate of 60 per cent. for the following year there is a shortfall of £238 million. Therefore, the local authorities deduce that the ratepayers will have to find the difference between these two sums. It is a rather technical matter, but I am sure that the House will take note of what I have been informed by one of the local authority associations. That association puts the total shortfall at £164 million which must be carried over till next year.
To the extent that we fail to provide for the local authorities this year there is bound to be an increase in rates. I am told that a 1p rate produces around £60 million for the country as a whole. That being the case, the local authority associations are telling me—and I advise the House—that a 3p increase in rates

1709
is bound to be carried over to next year due to the shortfall in the expectation of the rate support grant order.
Mr. Graham Page: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me from which local authority association that information comes? I have told the House—and I would have to withdraw, if what the hon. Gentleman says is correct—that the figures in the orders were agreed by the local authority associations. I am surprised that a local authority association has advised the hon. Gentleman to the contrary.
Mr. Howell: With the customary courtesy practised between us I shall hand over the document to which I have referred. The right hon. Gentleman will see that it is from the Association of Municipal Corporations. He might care to get his officials to look at the document during the debate.
Mr. Allason: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a precept this year to act as a starter for the new district authorities for next year. What is the global figure which presumably should be set against the figure which the hon. Gentleman has quoted?
Mr. Howell: I do not know, but I think that it was on the basis of a 1p rate. No doubt the Minister can tell us.
I return to the question of staffing. A monolithic Department of the Environment has been established. Has the Minister found it possible to achieve the sort of economies of staffing and so on which are obviously desirable in local authorities? Three Ministries—the Ministry of Local Government and Housing, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works—were brought together in the Department. If, as I and most people suspect, it has not been possible to make substantial savings there—the signs are the other way round, and I do not necessarily complain about that—it is obvious that local authorities setting up a duplicated system of local government will not achieve the results which the Department has not been able to achieve.
We are in an unprecedented situation, which will have a tremendous effect upon local authority services, as my right hon. Friends said in the debate over the past
1710
few days. The country should be under no illusions about the situation. The Government are advising local authorities to make slashing reductions in many nonstatutory services. There will be enormous cut-backs in all our local authorities in adult education, training centres, social service departments, and the home help service, which is essential in helping the sick and the needy. The Government are advising local authorities to cut back also on day centres, miscellaneous community care services and meals on wheels. All of that is work to help the handicapped in our society. The benefits under measures put on the statute book by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), placing a statutory obligation upon local authorities to help handicapped and elderly people living alone, and to provide telephones and aids of different kinds, are to be drastically cut back because of the Government's economic measures.
It is worth putting on record what the Government have told the local authority associations. They have said:
"The Government accepts that to achieve these reductions would involve refraining from recruiting staff to make good wastage or to fill additional posts, depressing standards of maintenance and repair and increasing charges where possible. It also accepts that this could mean less frequent collections of refuse, reducing the hours of opening recreational facilities, increased delays in dealing with planning and environmental health matters, and some longer-term diseconomies."
There can be no doubt that what the Government intend as a result of their local government cuts is a substantial lowering of the standard of life and the quality of services for almost every citizen. It is not just for the ordinary citizen, who might be expected to take care of himself, but for the old, the needy, the sick and the handicapped. They, too, will have to bear the full brunt of the cuts.
That is one of the charges we make against the Government. There has been no attempt to get their priorities right, no attempt to have any priorities. There has been no selectivity about what the Government propose.
The deficiencies of the order are to be added to future orders. The Secretary of State for the Environment has now told us that he expects a minimum of 7 per cent. to be added to the rate bill next year, even though there will be a cut-back

1711
in so much of the service. My calculation, based on the best advice I can obtain, is that the Government have no hope of keeping the increase in rates down to 7 per cent. unless they are prepared to be much more active about the provision of finance in future rate support grant increase orders. This is because of the increased charges that local authorities are already facing and the higher wages and salaries, even under phase 3, that they will have to pay.
Next year, ratepayers will at one and the same time face a monumental decrease in the quality of local government services and a monumental increase in the rates they will have to pay for the deteriorated services. Those are the stark facts which local authorities and rate-payers have to face in the coming months.
I hope and believe that local authorities will try responsibly to help the Government in the national emergency. We on this side say that they should try, and we believe that they will. This is why I ask the Government to give a lead by cutting back where they can on new organisations which have not yet been set up.
Local authorities should make economies where they can, but they have a prime duty to look after the quality of life for the ordinary people. That cannot be cut back without disastrous results. We have said many times that that is what matters more than anything else to the ordinary people. It is often taken for granted, but essentially the services provided by local government are of that high degree of importance.
If at the end of the day it is found impossible to achieve all the contradictory aims and instructions of various Ministers, particularly of the Chancellor, we shall expect Ministers at the Department of the Environment to tell their Cabinet colleagues that they are asking for the moon, that it is impossible to have the cut-backs, to face the increased charges and to do all that without raising rates by 1p, which is what the Chancellor demanded. Those contradictions in Government policy must be resolved before the House debates the White Paper on local government finance which has been promised to us for so long.
I make no complaint about the Minister not having produced the White
1712
Paper although he promised it. Obviously with the country in a serious economic situation it would have made nonsense to have produced a White Paper until the up-to-date information was available for the House and for local authorities.
I hope that the Government understand the impossible position in which local authority treasurers find themselves. By now most treasurers in any normal year have done their sums, they have been able to do their estimating and have been able to advise their finance committees what the rate should be for the coming year. This year they cannot even start on that task for at least another month or two.
The choice which local authority officers throughout the country will have to make between various priorities and their attempt to conform with Government policy, such as it is, will make life almost impossible for them. To the confusion of local government reorganisation the Government have added the chaos of their situation on the economic front. The people who will have to bear that chaos are those working the machinery of local government and those whom it serves.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): I want to take this occasion to recall the contributions made by our late friend and colleague Martin Maddan to our debates on rate support grant orders. He specialised for many years in local government finance. He became an authority on the subject. We always looked forward to the contributions he made on occasions such as this. He brought to our deliberations extensive knowledge and the positive approach which he had to many subjects which came to his notice as a Member of this House. I am sure that I speak for Members on both sides of the House in paying recognition to the great service he gave to the House
I always look forward to these debates on rate support grant orders. I sometimes wonder why I do, but I always find something intensively interesting in the comments made on either side of the Chamber on these occasions, and I look back to the debates we had in the previous year and the year before that. It is interesting to see how the tale unfolds. On previous occasions my right hon.

1713
Friend has apologised for the fact that it was the third time he had to have an amending order to a rate support grant proposition. He is getting conditioned to having to do that, but we have not had an apology this year.
I am reminded that in 1968 the then Socialist Government were facing a serious economic situation but declined to make an increase order, and that meant that the local authorities had to bear the increased costs themselves. I make no comparison between the circumstances then and those in which we are today, but the fact I have just recalled shows between the one Government and the other a slight difference of approach.
I very much welcomed my right hon. Friend's reference to the White Paper. He referred to it in Committee on the Local Government Bill. I understand why it has had to be delayed. I know that it will form the basis of useful discussion on a subsequent occasion.
The rising degree of local government expenditure expressed as a proportion of total public expenditure has been of increasing concern to both sides of the House in recent years. That proportion has risen well beyond that of the Government. We have had for some time to consider ways and means by which local government expenditure can be contained. Although I would not express it in such harsh terms as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in that remark yesterday, was unfair to local government as a whole. The remark was not made in the context of the real problem of the extent of local government responsibility and of the degree to which local government expenditure is tied to Government decisions.
As the debate has continued this evening I have looked at the various services represented in the orders we are discussing. There is a series of substantial expenditures outside the responsibility of the Department to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government belongs. One wonders to what extent Government decisions are coordinated when demands are made on local government and when extensions and improvement of local government services are sought. Looking at the prob-
1714
lem in that context, I for one am conscious that local government is at a very grave disadvantage when so many of its decisions are taken by Government Departments, each, understandably, concerned with the extension and improvement of the standards of the services for which it is responsible. One is bound in that context to think of the overall effect on local government expenditure.
There is no doubt that, following the Redcliffe-Maud proposals in the early 1960's, local government in the main has introduced a greater degree of managerial capacity in the co-ordination of departments than there used to be. What it has done is to break down the departmentalism that we used to have extensively in local government and brought it together under a management group of chief officers representing the whole spectrum of services under local government control. In this way we have introduced managerial disciplines. One questions the extent to which this is possible in the central Government, with their tremendous number of Departments.
I much welcomed the centralisation of three earlier Ministries and their joining together within the Department of the Environment. We have seen substantial economies resulting in expenditure for which the Department is responsible in the new circumstances. But when one considers the pressures from other Departments—for example health and education—and the continuing demands for extension of services, although supported sometimes by large grants but generally under the rate support grant arrangements which provide 60 per cent. of the expenditure, one realises that tremendous sums of money are still to be found in the remaining 40 per cent.
In referring to central Government the criticism I direct is in no way a party point, but under successive administrations we have seen expectations created for local government services beyond the capacity of the country to foot the bill. This is the basis of a substantial degree of the problem in present discontents about public expenditure activities, whether by central or by local Government. Although we have the rate support grant of 60 per cent., it is a compounding of local government expenditure when the demands of central Departments are

1715
added to the proper expectations and aims of the locally-elected representatives in local government. To a great extent, the matter is open-ended in relation to local government finance.
Speaking of the capital accounts yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"As for capital expenditure, the Government have effective control through the machinery of loan sanctions, and this will be adjusted so as to achieve the required reductions in expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1469.]
If I thought that it were possible for the Ministers in all of these Departments to take the decisions on loan sanctions, I could see a way of controlling the issue of loan sanctions. I am speaking only from my own limited knowledge. But I feel that so many loan sanctions are passed by the Department itself and do not come from a political decision at all that when it has the proper departmental wish to extend its services, with the decision on loan sanctions coming back to it for adjudication and not to the departmental Ministers, we see that the question is open-ended. This also applies to the extension of services on current expenditure.
I hope that we shall have my right hon. Friend's assurance that the necessary political decisions in containing expenditures will be taken and that it will be found possible to make them effective. If decisions are left to departmental adjudication it will not be possible to contain the capital expenditure, which is so clearly necessary. I do not see this as just a requirement of the emergency situation with which we are faced. I have continually advocated that there should be a containment of local government expenditure.
I know that one is at once asked which services one would contain or curtail. It is a fair question, and one would need to look at each case on its merits. Last year, when I suggested that the library services should be carefully looked at, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) made some inappropriate interjection. But there are many ways in which the expectations which we have had are unrealisable in the short, medium and long term, and we must give these matters the political attention they require.
1716
It is in that context that I support the increase orders, but I hope that, when we have the promised White Paper, we shall see the Government's determination to bring a proper measure of decision taking into local government services and ensure that their expansion and their extension shall be seen to be properly within the compass of the ability of the country to foot the bill.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I went a good deal of the way with the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), but I fear that I cannot join him in his final remarks. I differ profoundly with him on that matter.
Those of us who have known the devotion of the Minister for Local Government and Development to local government have very great sympathy with him in the predicament in which he has been placed by the Cabinet. We know that Ministers in spending Departments like to protect their own Departments. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman's Department is carrying one of the most serious and severe burdens of the present economic crisis. We know that it is not his doing, but at the same time I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) in condemning utterly the approach of the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards local government and what it means to people who live in our great cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and I represent some of the most stricken areas in one of the greatest cities of the country, and in the orders and in what is to come there is naught for the comfort of the city of Manchester and naught, I fear, for the comfort of the other great cities of the country.
Six months ago we had a parliamentary by-election in Manchester. The Home Secretary paid us a brief visit. He visited part of the constituency of Manchester, Exchange and condemned what he saw. He expressed horror at the human jungles which he briefly surveyed. He was then appointed by the Prime Minister to deal with deprived urban areas, and I fear that the rate support

1717
grants which are being provided by the Government, let alone the prospect which the Chancellor has given us in two deplorable speeches this week, will do nothing to help the Home Secretary in assisting the areas such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and I represent. Already the only discernible effect of the Home Secretary's appointment has been his veto of a much-needed youth centre in my constituency.
I fear that, with the Chancellor's announcement, unless the greatest struggle is made by local authorities, the present Government will preside—I do not use these words lightly—over the murder of our great cities.
The new local authorities which will take office next spring, for which provision is made in one of the orders, have been given a totally impossible task by the Government. They are attempting to set up, with whatever criticisms we may make of the way they are doing it, machinery for the regeneration of our great cities. Instead, however, the cuts announced by the Government this week may mean the downfall of organised life in those cities.
So much is needed to keep the life of our cities going in a satisfactory way; so much is needed to put right what is seriously wrong with the life of our great cities; and so much money, organisation and work are needed to remedy the dereliction in constituencies such as mine. So much work and organisation are needed to ensure that new developments going on in our great cities are not only constructive but operate in human terms. So much organisation and money are needed to improve the environment of those areas of our great cities which are not being torn down and rebuilt. This is one of the most urgent problems of all in my constituency.
I have told the House on a number of occasions in debates such as this that my constituency contains some of the most deprived areas in this country. The degree of poverty in parts of my constituency can be measured by the census returns that hon. Members have received for their constituencies this week by taking three simple levels of affluence in an area. The national average of motor car ownership is 51 per cent. In my constituency it is
1718
25 per cent.—less than half the national average. In the country as a whole, only 17 per cent. of homes—houses, flats and so on—do not have exclusive use of all the basic amenities: hot water, bath, and inside water closet. In my constituency 41 per cent. of households do not have these basic amenities.
That is a measure of the poverty in my constituency that the money provided by the Government through the rate support grant should do something to pm right. In the country as a whole, only 11 per cent. of homes do not have an inside water closet. In my constituency, 27 per cent. of homes are in this unfortunate situation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the order.
Mr. Kaufman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to illustrate vividly the predicament in which my constituency is placed. Obviously, I apologise for having gone out of order. I trust that I shall now return within the rules of order, as I had intended to do all along.
On the finance which is available to it, Manchester City Council is obviously anxious to remedy the poverty which exists in constituencies such as mine. It does it by a huge building programme, though for financial reasons that programme will be cut back very severely next year. After having had an unrivalled building programme in proportion to its size, Manchester is now having to pull back very severely. It is heartrending that this should be so. But even the new estates which are to be completed, including the vast Longsight development in my constituency, will require amenities when completed. It is for the rates to provide those amenities and for the Government to provide their share of that revenue.
We are already falling behind. The youth centre in that new development, which has been forbidden, is one example. But it is not just the new estates, the estates which will turn into the concrete jungles which the Home Secretary so deplored when he came to Manchester, which require money to be spent on them under the provisions of these orders and in succeeding years. The older estates, which are falling into decrepitude, need regeneration.

1719
Only this week I received a letter from the Secretary of the Union Street Tenants' Association in my constituency. A lady there asked for a better outlook. She said:
"We have no playing fields, no proper shops. Soon the wash-house is closing down, so we will have nowhere to do our washing."
These are very elementary things for people to require. Finance is required to provide them. I deeply regret that the prospect ahead does not promise that that kind of finance will be made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, in giving the totally depressing and demoralising list of services which are to be hacked about as a result of the Chancellor's statement, mentioned services for the disabled. We have a particularly proud record in Manchester of help for the disabled. It is probably the best record of any great city in Britain. When the disabled ask me for something to be done, I have higher hopes in approaching our splendid director of social services than I have in approaching any other department of the city council. Whether it is ramps for wheelchairs, special amenities in the home, special taps for arthritics, and so on, or a telephone provided under the Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), all these things are very likely at present to be provided by the magnificent service of Manchester City Council.
I have a great foreboding that as a result of the Chancellor's announcement this kind of service, which is transforming the lives of so many disabled in Manchester, will fall into rack and ruin. It deeply depresses me to think that that may be so.
From where is the money to come for these services? How are even existing programmes to be maintained? Following the Chancellor's announcement on Monday I contacted the chairman of Manchester City's finance committee, Alderman Norman Morris. He described the outcome of what the Chancellor had told the House as "chaos and standstill." He said
"Practically everything that I can see is going to come to a standstill. Agreed contracts may have to be put off."
Regardless of what the Chancellor may have said on Monday, the chairman of
1720
Manchester's finance committee very bitterly and regretfully told me that he did not see how unemployment would not result from what the Chancellor had said.
The cuts in public expenditure which the Chancellor announced on Monday, and which he made sound painless, are indeed painless for the rich and the well-off. For the ordinary people, however, and particularly for the poor whose whole life and environment depend so much upon the services provided for them by their local authorities, life will not merely be made difficult; in many cases is will be made almost impossible. What is most regrettable is that the Government are the cause of this situation, but the councils will be blamed for it. The councils have no responsibility for these cuts, they have not been consulted about them in any way whatever, but they will get the blame because they are not providing the services which the people of the cities wish to have.
Yet none of this was necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath told us that the cost of the cuts will be £182 million. But £300 million was given away by the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this year to people whose incomes were such that they did not require a tax concession. This sum could have been saved nearly twice over by taking back that money. I regard what the Government have done as a monstrous interference with local government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, has quoted the quite incredible statement made last night in his winding-up speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as reported at c. 1470 of HANSARD—the speech which contained the Chancellor's denunciation of any local authority which deliberately set out, as he put it,
"to flaunt the national interest".
His misuse of the word "flaunt" shows that he is illiterate as well as inhuman. The Chancellor went on to say that deliberate action of the kind which he denounced
"could well call in question the continuance of the present system of local autonomy over current expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1470.]
That was an appalling threat to be made by any Chancellor, but it was a particularly appalling threat to be made by

1721
a Chancellor who was Chairman of the Conservative Party when "A Better Tomorrow" was issued three and a half years ago, which included these words:
"The independence of local authorities has been seriously eroded by Labour Ministers. On many issues, particularly education and housing, they have deliberately overriden the views of elected councillors. We think it wrong that the balance of power between central and local government should have been distorted and we will redress the balance and increase the independence of local authorities."
The Chairman of the Conservative Party who promised to increase the independence of local authorities is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who threatens to take away the autonomy of local authorities. I say with deep regret—and I say it with particularly deep regret to the Minister to whom I have to address these words—that the Government have set out deliberately, as is shown by the announcement of the Chancellor on Monday, to create squalor in our great cities. In this aim, unlike most of his other aims, the Chancellor will very likely succeed, but the people of our cities, certainly the people of the city of Manchester, will never forgive him.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. James Allason: The House has listened with great sympathy to the plea by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) about conditions in Manchester. He spoke first of the programme to deal with urban deprivation and implied there would be cuts, but as that item is on the Home Office Vote it seems a little inappropriate to seek to discuss it at this time. But I sincerely hope that there will be no cuts in that direction.
The hon. Member then spoke of the need for improvement grants and better conditions in housing. I am with him 100 per cent. there, but there is no intention of cutting housing or improvement grants. Improvement grants are expanding year by year and we are very proud of our record in this regard.
Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Manchester is an assisted area, and that at the end of June our improvement grant allocation will be cut by one-third?
Mr. Allason: The grant will be cut by 50 per cent. rather than 75 per cent., except in a housing action area, and I should imagine that the hon. Member's constituency will qualify under that heading. It is somewhat misleading to say that there is to be a cut. It is a question of who pays for it. There is the possibility of insisting on improvements to be carried out by reluctant landlords, and surely the hon. Member will welcome that. I do not know whether in his case it is a reluctant landlord or a reluctant council which is failing to carry out improvements. Nevertheless, he can take courage from the fact that the improvement grant scheme is continuing with vigour.
It is unreasonable to say that no service should be exempt from cuts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) explained, it is difficult to seize on one service and say that it should take all the cuts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has had experience in local government and has, no doubt, served on a libraries committee—
Mr. Dennis Howell Mr. Dennis Howell indicated dissent.
Mr. Allason: Then perhaps my experience of local government is greater than his in that respect. What usually happens is that an estimate is put forward and the librarian says he would like, say £40,000 to spend on new books next year. The committee then cuts it to £30,000 and the librarian looks disgruntled. Nevertheless, £30,000 is a handsome allocation for expenditure on new books. At a time of severe crisis, when everyone in the country is asked to tighten his belt, it is possible to secure considerable savings in the library service through the purchase of books.
When it comes to caring for the sick and the disabled, it is necessary to take a careful look. It may be that there is in next year's estimates an allocation for the replacement of an old minibus. It may be possible to patch up the minibus so that it can go on for another year. That is within a service which the hon. Member for Small Heath says should not in any circumstances be cut.
The hon. Member for Ardwick went somewhat further than the hon. Member for Small Heath, who did not actually

1723
suggest that taxation should be increased and that there should be no cuts in local government expenditure. That was what was said, and I understood the hon. Member for Small Heath to give his approval. It is interesting, if that is the firm view of the Opposition, that they seem to be suggesting that increased taxation should take care of these cuts.
Mr. Denis Howell: I thought I made it clear that we agreed that there was a crisis and we agreed that in the crisis the situation could not be left as it is. The burden of my case against the Government is that on the one hand there will inevitably be increased rates and on the other hand, where cuts have to be made, the Government have been totally nonselective and priorities have not been established. We disapprove of that.
Mr. Allason: We hear from the hon. Member for Small Heath a stirring call against reform and against retrenchment. He resists any attempt to bring local government into the twentieth century, which we shall achieve in 1974. One of his reasons for opposing reform was extravagance in salaries and staffs and in staff numbers. I agree that this is a fair criticism of local government reform, but it is not an argument against reform; it is an argument for getting the thing right.
That was what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was saying on 30th November. He was saying that it was scandalous that jobs for the boys were being created. I have sent him evidence of jobs being deliberately created so that local government officers should not become redundant. We know that that has happened. My hon. Friend made no threats. He said that local authority costs resulting from such action would be considered carefully, and not least by the ratepayers and by the electors. That was a reasonable thing to say. At least, these increases afford some relief to ratepayers. If these considerable sums were not voted by us tonight, they would fall on the ratepayers. The ratepayers are already thoroughly dissatisfied with this year's level of rates.
As I have already told the House, the rates in Hertfordshire rose in 1972–73 by 15 per cent. over the previous year. In the current year they have risen by an additional 13 per cent. We now hear that
1724
they are likely to rise by 7 per cent. next year. I understand that the increase will be 7 per cent. and not 7p. Let us hope that by the time the 1974–75 financial year reaches us we shall have got rid of some of the current self-inflicted injuries. Let us hope that by then the economic situation may be better. If there is any possibility of relief being offered, I urge that the highest priority be given to consideration of the ratepayers. They are being asked to pay much too much already. Let next year's order substantially increase the domestic element and so help the impoverished ratepayers.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: I shall deal in particular with the period covered by the No. 2 Order—namely, 1972–73. That is a period which has been affected by the rate support grant which was debated exactly a year ago. I must echo what the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), said about the contributions which were made by the late Martin Maddan to our debates. He took part in the debate of a year ago and made a valuable contribution.
Last year's order was affected by the counter-inflation legislation which started its passage through the House in January of this year. It is important that we consider the effect of the rate support grant orders and the counter-inflation legislation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked yesterday about local authorities which flaunt the national interest. Unconsciously he chose the right word. That is what is done by local authorities. The national interest is the welfare of the people of the nation and not a commitment to what a Prime Minister, a Chancellor or even a majority party which was elected several years ago thinks is the right thing at the right time. It is not in the national interest that the House or the country should accept without question all that a Government say.
In the rate support grant debate a year ago I welcomed what the Minister said. He told us that
"the Government are anxious that the level of rates should be held down as an act of deliberate policy in the national interest. If that is the Government's policy, as it is, obviously the Government have to come in to

1725
assist in keeping the rates down to a reasonable level. The Government's immediate policy with regard to rates is to keep the overall rise in rates to a level compatible with the Government's policies on prices and incomes while recognising, of course, that local variations will be inevitable."
He went on in words which could be echoed by us all:
"In value for money, rates really are the best buy. Think of all the services which one gets for the rates one pays—roads, schools, sewerage, refuse collection and disposal, street lighting and a host of other services. Therefore, in bringing rates down we must not bring down the quantity or quality of those services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1439.]
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that rates are our best buy. The Government had a choice between cuts in public expenditure and cuts in private spending. They have chosen cuts in public expenditure, and I do not think that at heart the right hon. Gentleman can agree with what the Government have done. Public expenditure is the basis of the welfare of our people, and I believe that that is the national interest.
In last year's debate I pointed out several anomalies that had grown up in the rate support grant system which particularly affected large cities and industrial urban areas. I shall not weary the House with a recital of the numerous debates we had in December, January and February of last Session on that problem. The Government now accept that there were anomalies, and they have tried to do something about them in future rate support grants.
The trouble is that during 1973–74 inflation has further exaggerated the problems of those cities. The cost which they have to bear is greater than the cost which the rest of the country has to bear, and the proportion of the increase in rate support grant which they receive is less than that which other areas receive. So the problems have become even more pronounced. Is there no way under existing legislation by which an adjustment can be made to help them? Their rates last year were very high, and they are now faced with the tremendous problem of passing on that burden to next year.
Towns particularly were placed in a difficult position by the Counter-Inflation Act. Hon. Members will recall that
1726
the former Secretary of State for Employment explained Clause 13 of the Counter-Inflation Bill in this way:
"I should also refer to Clause 13. This is the new provision under which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State concerned—for the Environment, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—may obtain information from local authorities about rate demands. The clause will enable the Government to consider whether a rate increase seems unnecessarily large and, if so, to ask the local authority to reconsider the matter. Although the clause contains no powers to compel local authorities to make a new lower rate in place of the one questioned by the appropriate Secretary of State, its provisions make such an alteration possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January 1973; Vol 849, c. 964.]
I am sure that the Minister realised at the time the difficulties in which that clause placed him.
Faced as they were with essential and large increases in expenditure, towns and counties tried hard to reduce their expenditure. We had the spectacle of 12 men in the Department of the Environment trying to monitor the rates of hundreds of local authorities. What does the Minister think of the monitoring system? Does he propose to continue that same system under the Counter-Inflation Act in future?
Although reorganisation does not take place until next April, many of the initial costs of new staffs will already have been expended and other expenses will be placed on this year's rates. A fair rate of increase for administration is set out in the order. Will this sum be large enough?
The cost allowed for by the Government was £396·7 million and the increase in the grant within the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order is £237·3 million. This means that £159 million must be found from the rates, and this sum has not been allowed for and was not included in last year's estimates. The Government did not anticipate this expenditure and have not taken it into consideration. The present order envisages an increase of 8 per cent. compared with last year's estimates.
Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that most local authorities have a contingency sum in their estimates which could cover this figure.
Mr. Marks: That is possibly the case with urban districts and some counties.

1727
but the cities and towns cannot work with the same sort of reserves. Each year they face rising inflation, and this order represents 8 per cent. more than was anticipated. In other words, they will have to find 8 per cent. more than the Chancellor allowed for this year, and this figure has not been budgeted for.
I welcome the orders because they reflect an increase and show that the Government accept that inflation has made life very difficult for councils. We must be grateful for small mercies in that the Government have accepted the responsibility for these increases.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. John E. B. Hill: I apologise to the House for coming into the debate at this very late stage, but I have just returned from a committee meeting in Brussels to find the House still discussing the rate support grant. I have a considerable regional interest in the level of rate support grant because the county of Norfolk is affected, not so much by the situation produced by these orders as by the prospect of moving away from the sort of formulae on which the present rate support grant is based.
In view of the overall national situation, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night exhorted local authorities to keep down any addition to their current expenditure. That is a worthy objective, but we must bear in mind the fact that many local authorities, particularly the new Norfolk authority, which is typical, have a heavy on-going commitment. So much has been added as a result of legislation that new resources will have to be found unless some of the undertakings already given are resiled from.
I wish to instance one or two examples. The degree of administration and staff required to supervise fire precautions has particular relevance in Norfolk because of the large number of hotels, boarding houses and similar establishments in coastal areas. It is fair to say that the county feels that it will be extremely difficult to keep down its future expenditure and therefore its rates if there is any substantial diminution in the rate support grant.
As I understand it, the formula is being changed so that the vital factor of sparsity, which hitherto has meant the
1728
population per mile of road within the authority, will in future become that of density. In other words, the population will be divided into the acreage of the local authority. That is the main factor as a result of which the new county of Norfolk looks like losing some 3·8 per cent. of its present level of grant, and that means a sum of about £1·25 million.
The difficulty is that the computer does not seem to realise the difference between sparsity and density. It is most easily described by comparing two types of area. Let us say 100,000 inhabitants live in 500 square miles. There is the same density of population, namely 200 to the square mile, whether the area is an evenly-inhabited stretch of arable farmland with many scattered villages and small market towns or a large area of uninhabited moorland with a valley in' the middle of it, at either end of which there is a substantial town, with most of the population gathered in centres. A similar situation can occur within the village structure. A typical East Anglian village often stretches along a mile or two of road with a church at one end and a pub at the other. That has to be compared with a village clustered round a green with the population living much closer together.
One can imagine the difference in costs in terms of connections for sewerage or electricity, for refuse collection and for school transport, and the difference in capital costs where no towns or villages are big enough to justify a new school because the population is so thin that the catchment area has to spread over a number of villages. All this adds greatly to costs.
I reflect that this sparsely populated county is none the less amongst the fastest-growing counties in the country. It has the additional numbers without, on the whole, the advantage of scale. The numbers are scattered. In the event of the overloading of a village school or of a local sewage works, it is always on a small scale and the total county problem requires separate remedies in several places.
The final matter worrying us in Norfolk is that the test seems to be changing. It is no longer one of need, which hitherto has been the ingredient in the rate support grant. The new basis is to be

1729
that of previous expenditure. It happens that Norfolk in recent years, in response to Government exhortations to keep down the level of local expenditure, has moved from being one of the counties with rates well above the county average to one of those with rates below the county average. If we now change from a basis of need to one of previous expenditure, the authorities which have co-operated in previous Government policies will be penalised.
Therefore, I must ask my right hon. Friend carefully to reconsider the future formula on which rate support grant is to be based. Certainly, the needs of a county such as Norfolk have increased as a result of expansion and the matters I have mentioned. In particular, will my right hon. Friend distinguish in his formula, and in the Government computer, between density and sparsity? If he will, I think that Norfolk's grant will not be cut to the degree that at present seems likely.
9.41 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) drew attention first to what he called the terribly expensive reorganisation. Certainly, expense is involved in reorganising local government from 1,400 local authorities to about 400. It has been taken into account in the rate support grant, after full discussion with local authorities, in considering what sort of expenditure both local and central government can expect in the reorganisation.
I do not think that there is any squabble about the figures for the sum taken into account in the rate support grant. I hope that we have given full consideration to what would normally be expected in setting up new authorities from the old authorities. Where our expectations have gone wrong is in connection with staffing. The hon. Gentleman spoke about his anxiety in that regard, and it is my anxiety. I have discussed the matter with individual local authorities very fully in the past few weeks. It seemed that some have been able to devise an establishment which employed no more than the authorities
1730
which had been merged, but in others the establishment has increased by perhaps 50 per cent. over the numbers employed by the authorities which merged to form that district or new county authority.
It is not possible to judge the matter purely by the numbers employed in the previous districts which have been merged or have become the county, because the functions have changed. To study the matter carefully one must examine the functions being undertaken by the new authority and whether it is engaging too great a staff for those functions. I was attracted by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a feasibility study should begin at once into the cost of reorganisation from the staffing point of view.
We have probably taken into account the question of new offices. With the need to restrain building, we shall have to do with existing offices. I think that a very close study should be carried out quickly into the establishment of the new authorities. I am sure that the public will expect that a reduction in the number of local authorities from 1,400 to 400 should lead to a streamlining of staff. However, it must be remembered that the functions have changed.
The hon. Member for Small Heath talked about threats being made by Ministers against local government, and he rather associated that with the question of staff increases. What Ministers have been doing is to call the attention of those in local government to the fact that their enthusiasm for local government has in many cases run away with them and that the public will look askance at the increase in salaries and in staff which is occurring in some authorities. Other authorities have been very careful and have carried out the streamlining which is possible.
We propose to issue a circular to local authorities saying not only where cuts can be made in accordance with the requests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but also that local authorities should show economy in their new staffing.
The hon. Member for Small Heath said that the two-tier system was bound to increase the cost. I do not think so. If we are reducing the number of local

1731
authorities by the figures which I have mentioned, there should be a streamlining in the staffs and a possibility of employing fewer.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not attacking local authorities in his statements concerning local authority expenditure. To use the words he employed, there is at present autonomy in local government over current expenditure. The whole trend—by the previous Government as well as by the present one—is to give local government a greater discretion in the spending of the money which the taxpayer contributes to local government. We have the rate support grant. We are proposing, in the Local Government Bill now before the House, to move a number of other items into the rate support grant and away from specific grants.
When one considers the control which local government has over the amount which the taxpayer contributes, it is only fair for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to point to the responsibility of local government to keep back unnecessary expenditure.
Mr. Marks: Have we not nationally made commitments—I am not talking now about the functions of local authorities—as regards the protection of staffs who lose their jobs as a result of reorganisation? Are not authorities bound to give such staff protection at their existing salaries? Is not this element in this year and next year a very large added commitment for which the individual authorities themselves have not made the decision?
Mr. Page: Central Government was very generous over the question of those who wished to retire from local government in the course of the reorganisation and in the case of redundancies. In many cases I have been personally accused of encouraging the House to be too generous over this. A great number of chief officers have retired at a young age to take up employment elsewhere at better remuneration and drawing their pensions also. Good luck to them. The intention was that we should streamline local government establishments and enable people to find jobs elsewhere.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that
1732
by making this offer—which has been accepted, I think in dramatic numbers-local authorities have lost some wonderful experience that could have been put to good use in the new authorities?
Mr. Page: No, I do not think that. There are enough to go round. We are sorry to lose some of the very experienced town clerks, and so on, but there are still a good number of well experienced ones left to undertake the reorganised local government.
I was dealing with the question of the phrases and words used by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was pointing out that local government has considerable control over what the taxpayer pays. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the rate support grant is divided into three factors—the domestic element, the resources element and the needs element. The domestic element has been this year a reduction of the rate poundage in any area by 6p. We have said that next year it will be 10p, and on top of that a variable domestic element—variable geographically—given to those authorities who will lose by reduction in resources element or by an increase in the cost of water and sewerage.
This means that the taxpayer comes in as a ratepayer to the extent of that domestic element whether it is 6p or 10p or 10p-plus and comes in at the rate poundage which the local authority chooses to charge. So the local authority has considerable control over what it gets out of the taxpayer on the domestic element. Not only that, but the resources element is taken as the amount by which one local authority falls below a standard line for the country nationally, and by that amount it falls below, again, the Government—that is to say the taxpayer—comes in as a ratepayer at the rate poundage which the local authority chooses to charge.
It was very reasonable, then, for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that local authorities should realise their responsibility in keeping down their expenditure for which they have to call for rates. Indeed, if there were irresponsible local authorities to any great number I would have thought it would be necessary for any Government to reconsider the trend of global grants—rate support grant—and, perhaps, turn the

1733
trend round and go back to specific grants and say "If you wish to spend money on this subject or that subject we shall contribute a certain percentage of that but not leave you discretion on which to calculate your expenditure". I hope we shall not do that. I hope we shall still leave discretion to the local authorities to decide in a responsible way what their expenditure should be and what their needs are from the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
The hon. Member for Small Heath produced a set of figures which had been supplied to him, he said, by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and on those figures he came to the conclusion that the Government had failed to take into account a sum of £164 million, and that there was a shortfall to that extent. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) came rather to the same concluison.
What we are talking about here is the amount of increase in costs during a certain period of time and the increase of costs to local government expenditure. We apply to that the same percentages as applied to the main settlement with the result that 60 per cent. will be contributed by the taxpayer and 40 per cent. by the ratepayer, and the ratepayer will have to pay that 40 per cent. calculated on these figures perfectly correctly. When I say "correctly" I am not being rude to the local authorities in any way, but these are the figures which were agreed between the officials of my Department and the officials of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The ratepayer will contribute to this increase a sum of £164 million, being the 40 per cent., or, taking the earlier years, 42 per cent.; the taxpayer will contribute the rest. This is really not a shortfall but application of the normal procedures to the rate support grant.
Mr. Denis Howell: It still has to be found next year, at a time when the Chancellor is saying that there should not be a penny increase in the rates.
Mr. Page: This is something which is found each year by the local authorities and the taxpayers. My right hon. Friend did not say that there would not be a penny increase in the rates. He said
1734
that there would not be an increase, due to the reductions which he was asking for.
The hon. Member for Small Heath was quite right in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had mentioned an increase in the domestic rates of probably 7 per cent. This is a fairly low figure compared with the increases we have seen over past years, a deliberate endeavour to keep down the increase in rates which we have seen over each year in the past, and it is based on an inflation figure which has been discussed and agreed with the local authority associations.
Mr. Marks: What is it?
Mr. Page: It is no secret. Looking at these increase orders, we get an inflation figure of about 10 per cent. for last year or for this current year. This has been agreed with the local authority associations. There need not be more than an increase of 7 per cent. in the domestic rates throughout the country.
Mr. John E. B. Hill: My right hon. Friend has referred to an average increase of 7 per cent. in the rates. I remind him that, because of the factors I mentioned earlier, the likely increase in the new Norfolk is pointing towards more than 20 per cent.
Mr. Page: I shall be dealing with my hon. Friend's speech in due course.
The hon. Member for Small Heath talked about an enormous cut-back in the rate support grant and quoted a figure of £182 million. There is still under discussion the figure by which relevant expenditure may be reduced as a result of the cuts proposed, but it is certainly not £182 million. It is not much more than half that figure, I would have thought. The very circumstances in which these cuts are demanded give all the more reason for the expenditure of local authority money on just the sort of social subjects which both the hon. Member for Small Heath and the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned. I have endeavoured to lay down guidelines.
Mr. Denis Howell: Am I not correct in saying that, after the local authorities had their first discussions with the Government, they were requested to save

1735
about £81 million or £82 million and that now, through the Chancellor's announcement this week, at least a further £100 million is likely to be saved? Therefore, is not the figure which the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting £182 million and not about £90 million?
Mr. Page: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made his figure clear. The £81 million represented cuts requested last May. They were being taken into account, of course, in the rate support grant discussions. One estimates that the addition brought about by the new cuts will be about £100 million. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did not appreciate that he was taking into account the £81 million asked for in May. Here we are faced with a situation in which it is necessary for the Government, because of the need to conserve resources, particularly those which demand energy and fuel, to make this cut-back. In making these cuts, the guidelines that I give and have been giving to local authorities come under three headings—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Ways and Means and the Charlwood and Horley Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fox.]

RATE SUPPORT GRANT
Question again proposed.
Mr. Graham Page: I was attempting to put these guidelines under three headings. The first is that in making the cuts there should be no reduction in essential services; secondly, that there should be no reduction in the ability to meet emergencies; and, thirdly, that they should look for the area of cuts at projects requiring materials depending for their production on energy and fuel.
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman must surely recall the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) on Monday, when he said:
"If, as we all hope, the industrial troubles are settled soon, certainly there would be no
1736
immediate change in the proposals that I have made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 976.]
Therefore, regardless of the energy situation, the Chancellor will insist on these cuts in local government services.
Mr. Page: The situation in industry has gone so far by reason of the difficulty over energy and fuel, whether as the result of action overseas or within this country, that we cannot hold out prospects of getting back on to target at any early date. It would be too optimistic to suggest that we could restore these cuts at an early date.
We are calling them cuts, but they are not cuts in existing expenditure or a lowering of standards; they are a slowing up in the rate of growth. About 12 months ago we were hoping that local government would grow at 4½ per cent. a year. These cuts represent a reduction of that 4½ per cent. to 2½ per cent. Growth of 2½ per cent. is still expected in local government. Therefore, these are cuts in anticipated expenditure rather than in real expenditure at this time.
Because we must make these cuts at a time when the country is being asked to make sacrifices by a five-day week with three days of lighting and heating, when people are being asked to make sacrifices in the home by heating only one room, and when there are difficulties regarding transport, and so on, there is all the more reason for local authority money to be spent on social services and helping those who may suffer hardship in these circumstances. That is not the area in which to make the cuts. I know that it makes good reading when reference is made to meals on wheels, the chronically sick, and so on, but that is not the area in which to make the cuts. That will not save energy and fuel.
Mr. Kaufman: Where then?
Mr. Page: In projects which depend on materials which are dependent upon energy and fuel for their production. I am sure that is where the reduction can be found.
Mr. Kaufman: Absolute nonsense.
Mr. Page: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the guidelines that I hope local authorities will adopt in deciding where to make the 20 per cent. cut in capital

1737
and the 10 per cent. cut in current expenditure.
No cuts are required in housing, which includes improvement grants. Therefore, some of the fairy story with which the hon. Member for Ardwick entertained the House is far from the facts. There is no reason for Manchester City or Greater Manchester to reduce its expenditure on housing or on improvements. Because I was anxious to give these sort of guidelines to local authorities, I have arranged about 10 meetings in the regions. I chose Manchester as the first. I visited Manchester yesterday to discuss with the districts of Manchester, with Greater Manchester county and with a number of local authorities in the northern part of Cheshire, and so on, what their problems were and where they could make the reduction without causing hardship to the people. They were very co-operative in considering ways in which this could be done without hardship to the people, who will suffer enough because services have been withdrawn from them.
It is not all the Government's fault that the services have been withdrawn. The hon. Member for Ardwick said that this was all the fault of the Government. He said that it was unnecessary to make any cuts. On that matter he disagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, who said that he thought that the cuts were necessary. The cuts are necessary, but they are not all the Government's fault. If the Government allowed the use of resources to go on indefinitely and unrestricted, they would be blamed for creating greater hardship. I accept the words of the hon. Member for Small Heath when he said that the prime duty, certainly of local government, was to look after the quality of life.
There are certain things which we shall have to look upon as luxuries, which come within the phrase "the quality of life." I am thinking particularly of the Bill dealing with the protection of the environment which is at present in another place. It may well be that we shall have to delay bringing into operation some of the desirable matters that the Bill proposes. We may have thought that it would come into operation on 1st
1738
April next, but it may be next autumn, or something of that sort. But these are new requirements for the environment. We may have to delay some of those.
I assure right hon. and hon. Members that the cuts in central Government expenditure are far more severe than those in local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) drew attention to the fact that central Government should coordinate more its demands upon local government and not set a target which local government could not achieve unless provided with greater resources from central Government. I hope that I have understood him correctly. That is a point which is frequently raised with me by local authorities—that in central Government we ask them to do more and do not give them the money with which to do it. It is a very sound point. We propose to restrain ourselves in asking local government to do too much.
My hon. Friend asked whether the necessary political decisions on this matter will be made. My answer is certainly in the affirmative. He asked about loan sanctions passed by the Department and not by Ministers. Loan sanctions are to a great extent something of the past. The capital allocation to local authorities is divided between key sector, free sector and the locally determined schemes. The key sector requires loan sanction from the Secretary of State. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking with great care at the requests for loan sanction in that sphere. Only where there is a risk to public health or where the expenditure is connected with housing are we inclinded to grant that loan sanction at present.
In the free sector we ask local authorities to reduce by 20 per cent. the capital which they commit to projects and, indeed, to do the same when they are financing out of their own resources. The locally determined schemes, which now run at £348 million over the whole country, will be subject to the reduction of the 20 per cent. and then distributed among the counties for distribution over the county area.
I come to what was said by the hon. Member for Ardwick. It is rather frustrating for a Minister, who has worked

1739
for many months on a formula which gives the great cities a distinct advantage over all other areas, to be kicked in the teeth for doing it. The needs formula which has been applied this year gives the cities a very great advantage over the rest of the country in the amounts allocated to them. This was indeed an undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he met the representatives of the great cities. The result has be en that, given the same size of cake to divide, many areas of the country are contributing towards the advantage gained by the great cities.
It has been necessary to soften the impact in the first year of the new needs factor of the rate support grant, so we have had to introduce further factors to even out the burden falling on other areas, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill). But given the same size of cake to divide, the other areas of the country have to meet the subsidy to the great cities if we are to keep to our undertaking. We can smooth out the effect by introducing other factors into the formula, and that we are doing in discussion with the local authority associations. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South that the effect is being evened out to a greater extent than he thought.
Within the needs element of the rate support grant there is, of course, the factor of density. My hon. Friend made a distinction between density and sparsity, but the density factor, which is measured in terms of 1·5 acres per head, benefits counties such as Norfolk. I am quite sure my hon. Friend will not find that the formula means an increase of 20 per cent. in the rates. This also answers my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who spoke of increased rates in Hertfordshire.
The hon. Member for Gorton asked me about monitoring. There is still power under the statute to monitor the rates again this year. I assure the hon. Member that I found no satisfaction in carrying out the monitoring, although I persuaded local authorities to think again about their rates to the extent of £13 million. I have therefore claimed—I do
1740
not know whether the claim is right—to have saved ratepayers £13 million by the monitoring. But it is not the sort of principle which I enjoy following, and, unless it is absolutely necessary—it is only local authorities which will make it necessary—I do not want to undertake that job again. It helps, of course, to talk over the budgets with local authorities, and that was perhaps the best advantage of monitoring. The central Government got to know what local authorities thought, and local authorities got to know the view of the central Government. There was a kind of co-operation by means of that monitoring.
I think I have covered all the points that were raised in the debate. At one time it was a debate on an increase order. It has turned into a debate on the reductions in local government expenditure and public expenditure. Hon. Members have taken some of the statements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor out of context, but if those statements are put into their true context of the amount contributed by the central Government to local government, and of the control which local government has to a great extent over that contribution—and certainly the control which it has over the rate poundage which it collects—it becomes clear that it was right for my right hon. Friend to ask the local authorities to look to their responsibility in that respect.
Of course, my right hon. Friend does not need to ask many of the local authorities to do so. They are responsible bodies, and the whole policy of the Government has been to give them more and more responsibility. There are some, however, which need reminding, and that is what my right hon. Friend has done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 1) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY
  10.17 p.m.
  The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): I beg to move,
  That it is expedient to make further provision as to the payments to be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by television programme contractors, including provision authorising or requiring the Authority to contract with programme contractors for payments to the Authority and provision for the whole or any part of those payments to be paid, directly or indirectly, into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the Exchequer of Northern Ireland, and to provide for other matters supplementary thereto.
  In a Written Answer on 23rd July 1973 I announced that discussions were being put in hand for the preparation of legislation to change from receipts to profits the base on which the independent television levy was charged. Those discussions have now been completed, and the motion seeks authority to introduce a Bill to give effect to the conclusions reached.
  The percentages which it is proposed the Bill should prescribe were announced today in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). If the House agrees to the motion there will, of course, be full opportunity to discuss the contents of the Bill, which are somewhat complicated, when it comes forward for debate.
  Mr. John Grant: I have only one question which I should like answered before we allow the motion to go through. Will the Minister give us the estimated cash yield to the IBA in a full year as a result of the proposed change? We know that there have been protracted consultations and negotiations and that some of the television companies were at one stage most unhappy with the situation. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were both involved.
  Sir J. Eden: If I may reply with the leave of the House, it is of course impossible to give a specific answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John Grant) because his question is
  1742
  directed at what might happen in the future. As I indicated, the Bill is complex only in so far as its provisions are somewhat complicated and we should need to study their full ramifications in relation to the activities of the individual companies to be able to do justice to the hon. Member's question. I can indicate a broad order of magnitude. If the system which is outlined in the terms of the Bill which I hope to have leave to introduce to the House had been applied to 1972–73, the outcome would have been an increase of £11 million on the yield of approximately £22 million, making £33 million in all.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to make further provision as to the payments to be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by television programme contractors, including provision authorising or requiring the Authority to contract with programme contractors for payments to the Authority and provision for the whole or any part of those payments to be paid, directly or indirectly, into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the Exchequer of Northern Ireland, and to provide for other matters supplementary thereto.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir John Eden and Mr. Patrick Jenkin.

  INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY
  Bill to make further provision as to the payments to be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by television programme contractors; and for purposes connected therewith; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

  INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (LAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committtd to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY (RE-COMMITTED) BILL
Considered in Committee [Progress. 19th December].
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  SUPPLEMENTARY.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 14, after 'appropriate', insert
  'including a poll of the inhabitants'.
  We had a first-class and detailed debate on Clause 1 last night. It is not my intention to prolong the proceedings tonight. We want to make progress and, because of the seasonal situation, I am as anxious as everyone else to accommodate the House. On a matter of great importance involving the alteration of electoral areas and the specifying of numbers of councillors involved in local government reorganisation, why is there no provision for consultation? Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be included a poll of the inhabitants?
  The Minister has made great play during the process of the Bill on the ground of new thinking. That new thinking arose out of a poll. We have had our conflict on the preceding poll. We have put that behind us. There is a radical change to the position which we had in Committee on the Local Government Bill arising from an assurance that opinion would be taken into account. Now that we have the Bill which has come about as the result of public opinion, what follows should be pursued in accordance with criteria laid down by the Minister. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he has valid reasons for not including a poll on the matters contained in the clause.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I support my hon. Friend the Member for
  1744
  The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter). The clause refers to the Secretary of State carrying out
  "such consultation as he thinks appropriate".
  Who does the Minister think should be consulted? Will the consultations differ from consultations in other areas? The Minister knows our argument about the poll and we need not go over that ground. Is not this an opportunity to embark on an experiment in local government which the House should take?
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I have to resist the amendment on the ground that once the change has been made to the local government boundaries in this area—as I hope it will be under the Bill—it should be as if that had occurred under the Local Government Act 1972. I explained to the Committee why the boundaries as set out in the Bill were not included in the Act of 1972. The Bill is an endeavour to put the Act right. Once the Act has been put right we should abide by its provisions. That is what the clause does.
  The provisions as to consultation in Clause 2(2) follow exactly those in the Local Government Act 1972. The House of Commons found them reasonably satisfactory and they should apply once we make the alteration of the boundaries. The bodies to be consulted are the local authorities, county, district and parish, which are involved in the change; the parish was consulted on this occasion. One might say that that is the right and proper form of consultation if a change is being made in a parish boundary. One would seek the views of the parish council, and if the parish council wished to take the view of its parish meeting it would do so. That would be in the nature of a poll.
  If it were a change in a district boundary, the district council would be the right body to consult. The members of the district council are elected to govern their area and it would be right for the Secretary of State to consult the district council and, of course, the county in so far as it was involved. Those are the bodies who have been consulted previously on the alteration of boundaries. The provisions are now new in law. They have been applied previously in boundary changes and have stood the test of time.

  1745
  We must leave it to the secretary or State at the time to consider what consultations should be undertaken, and if he does not undertake the right consultations he is answerable to the House of Commons.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Leadbitter: We have had elections under the Local Government Bill, but the Bill before us is not yet an Act of Parliament. The transitional period has brought about a situation which Lord Garnsworthy in the other place and others have described as unique. The changeover will take place only several weeks before the operative date for the coming into force of the new system of local government, namely April 1974.
  Therefore, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no "horse-trading" where differing interests are involved in terms of elected members of the non-metropolitan councils? It is obvious that conflicts of interests could arise. I hope that the Minister will consider widening the consultations beyond those he has already indicated, especially if conflicts in, say, Horley and Charlwood are not solved within a reasonable time and to the Secretary of State's satisfaction.
  Mr. Graham Page: It is a reasonable request that we should look at these questions and not be hidebound in consulting only the local authorities concerned. We shall consult those authorities primarily since they are the elected representatives, but if there is any substantial alteration it may be right to consult further than the local authorities themselves. This is a hypothetical situation. A Secretary of State would wish to be certain that it was right to make alterations and would consult widely.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I am satisfied with what the Minister says. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 14, after 'instrument', insert
  'and subject to approval by affirmative resolution of this House'.
  We now come to a point of some importance which concerns whether the procedure to be followed involves an
  1746
  affirmative or negative resolution of the House. I feel I must take some care in dealing with this point because, since the last edition of Erskine May was printed, the Select Committee on Stautory Instruments has established new procedures in respect of affirmative and negative resolutions. Although the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation in the first instance examines orders with great care in terms of their propriety and legal framework, there still arises the question by which resolution the matter should be covered.
  The Minister may well be able to give us an assurance that the second stage of the changes laid down in the procedural requirements in Erskine May is satisfied by the establishment of Standing Committees for the examination of the instrument beyond the points of propriety and the legal sense of the instrument. But I must counter that by suggesting that taking an instrument, which is subject to the negative procedure, before a Standing Committee takes away from the House its powers to examine it.
  So far as I am aware, the affirmative procedure is to indicate the importance of an instrument. The test is that the Government have to bring it before the House. That test is supported by the fact that parliamentary practice has established that that procedure is adopted when matters of substance and important portions of delegated legislation need to have a high degree of scrutiny. That does not apply to the negative procedure, even though in Standing Committee, because the matter is closed in Standing Committee.
  Even so, the outstanding objection is that finally the negative procedure, having gone through the steps I have outlined, is still subject to catching the attention of an hon. Member. We all know what happens. Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments have used the lateness of the hour to get by the ordinary Member, who has perhaps not been so careful as he might have been, or has been so busy that he has not noticed a statutory instrument in time to put down a Prayer to seek its annulment.
  We are dealing with a matter which concerns people very much. I can see that the questions of deciding electoral

  1747
  areas and specifying the numbers of councillors and times of elections are matters which can follow the areas of consultation which the Minister has described. I readily accept that now. The corollary is that the end product of the exercise and related matters should come before the House on the affirmative procedure.
  The affirmative procedure enables the House of Commons to fulfil its traditional rôle. We proceed on the basis that the Government must bring their order to the House. The Government having come to the House of Commons, they must submit the order to a debate lasting at least 1½ hours after 10 p.m., no matter what the business may be and no matter what Standing Order is invoked to interfere with the business during the day. Even though there is a debate under Standing Order No 9, which occupies some hours during the day, the affirmative procedure enables the House of Commons to debate an order for 1½ hours.
  Not so with the negative procedure. I concede that the Select Committee on Procedure has done much to try to deal with the difficulty, but we must make it clear that no matter what happens in the Joint Committee and the Standing Committee, once a statutory instrument becomes subject to the negative procedure the debate is closed at 11.30 p.m. The business could carry on till 11·25 p.m. and we would be left with only five minutes. The usual channels ensure that "a Nelson" is done and it is forgotten about, but a back bencher who feels seriously about the matter must be very much awake; and he has only five minutes to deal with it.
  I am ready to accept the Minister's good intentions as to enlarging areas of consultation, should that be required. After that, when we have to deal with specific statutory instruments the right thing to do, when it involves the public and electoral matters, is to employ the affirmative procedure.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: Here again, we are following the procedure which was adopted in the Local Government Act 1972 and which was accepted by the House of Commons at that time. The provisions in Clause 2(2) of this Bill as
  1748
  to consultation follow exactly those in the 1972 Act. Clause 2(2) provides for the Secretary of State's order to be subject to no parliamentary procedure, not even the negative procedure. This is not a question as to whether it should be the affirmative or negative procedure. It is a statutory instrument. The invariable practice in reorganisation Bills of this sort has been that the order is made without formal parliamentary procedure. We consider that there should be no change in this case.
  The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has discussed the procedure we now have for dealing with instruments under the affirmative procedure and under the negative procedure. The way one would endeavour to bring a statutory instrument of the sort mentioned by Clause 2(2) before the House would be by an Early Day Motion and persuading the usual channels to accept a motion, perhaps. But this would be the only way to bring an instrument of this sort before the House. I do not think the House should necessarily need, unless there is something going very wrong on the matter, to debate an order of this sort.
  Perhaps it would be a good thing to put on record just what is to happen. We did not describe it fully on Clause 1. What we are dealing with under Clause 2 is the need of the Secretary of State to make the decisions on electoral areas for the elections which are required under Clause 1. First, we have, by Clause 1, decided what elections there shall be, and I should like to put them on record.
  There will have to be by-elections for new parish councillors for Charlwood; for new parish councillors for Horley No. 3 Ward—not for the other two wards; new district councillors for Horley on the Reigate and Banstead District Council; new district councillors for Sal-fords and Sidlow on the Reigate and Banstead District Council; a new district councillor for Charlwood on the Mole Valley District Council; a new district councillor for Horley and Salfords and Sidlow on the new Surrey County Council; and a new county councillor for the new Dorking division, now including Charlwood. The areas of Charlwood and Horley to remain in West Sussex are too

  1749
  small to be separate divisions and they will be added to existing divisions.
  Particularly in the last case, these are matters which would be dealt with by statutory instrument under Clause 2(2), but in all these cases the electoral wards have to be decided for all the councillors to be elected. This, as in the past, is a matter between the Home Secretary and the people of the district. Perhaps I may point out, without going back to the previous amendment, that now that we have decided where the elections have to take place, what is happening is that public comment has been invited, including comments from the political parties, and these will be considered by an independent committee which will advise the Home Secretary as to the course to be taken.
  I think the public are fully protected in this and that it is not a matter which we should be obliged to debate in the House. If, of course, anything goes disastrously wrong with it, I have no doubt that hon. Members will hear about it and will make the Home Secretary responsible by calling him to answer in the House. On these grounds, I would not wish to alter the invariable practice as laid down in this Clause for setting out the electoral areas.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister has said the right thing in the sense that he has placed these matters on record. I am glad that he has done so. The sense of the clause is now on record and I am satisfied that it will perhaps save time in future in a way which would not have been possible if it had not been on the record. For this reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'or altering'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this we can properly discuss the following amendments:
  No. 17, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'or altered'.
  No. 19, in page 3, line 24, leave out paragraph (d).
  Mr. Cocks: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 seek to remove what appear to be
  1750
  superfluous words which do not seem to add to the sense of the clause.
  Amendment No. 19 is possibly a more substantial matter, with which I hope the Minister will deal, because it seeks the deletion of paragraph (d),
  "assigning existing councillors to any new or altered electoral area".
  The Minister will recall that this was one of the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on Second Reading, in a speech which we all enjoyed, when, talking about points which he felt should be dealt with in Committee on Clauses 1 and 2, he said:
  "As a point of principle, the Bill should lay down clearly—if we do not do so, the Select Committee will"—
  that was rather wishful thinking; that was before the Department of the Environment had mugged the petitioners who were attempting to put forward their case—
  "that new councillors for the affected areas should be chosen as a result of a further election. I should like clarification from the Minister that all councillors at county, district and parish level for all the areas affected will … be elected by fresh elections; otherwise"—
  this is the point to which I draw particular attention—
  "it will be parliamentary intervention in local elections and the creation by Parliament of councillors in office who were not elected by those whom they will in future serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 448–9.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes raised a substantial point. If there is any purpose in a Committee stage, it is to make clear that parliamentary intervention should not take place and impose on people representatives whom they have not directly chosen.
  Mr. Graham Page: This would be intervention in the sense indicated by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), but it is intervention to assist the local authorities and local government units concerned rapidly to carry out the elections of their councillors and see that the electoral areas on which those elections are based are correct.
  Clause 2(2) gives the Home Secretary power to prescribe electoral arrangements which may involve altering existing electoral areas as well as creating new ones.

  1751
  It would be wrong to remove the power to alter and leave merely the power to create. The assigning of existing councillors to electoral areas which are only slightly altered may be involved. If the Home Secretary took it upon himself to make substantial alterations by an order of this kind I have no doubt that he would be called to book by hon. Members responsible in this House for that particular constituency.
  The clause gives considerable discretion to the Home Secretary, but this is common practice. It has been used for many years in local government reorganisation after both borough re-warding and new county electoral divisions have been devised.
  I can give the hon. Gentleman the effect of what is in contemplation here in altering the electoral areas as they now stand. The numbers of electors to be added to the three electoral divisions and three wards are 188, 167 and 44 respectively. These are small figures compared with the totals for those areas. However, I agree that this is deliberate action by the central Government to put a certain number of electors into a particular electoral area. To that extent it may sound very dictatorial. But no one will do that unless it is to the benefit of the areas concerned and satisfactory to them.
  In this particular case, and on the sort of figures I was giving in the small areas, the assignment has been proposed in local consultations and seems right in the circumstances. Therefore, if it has worked out all right in this particular case with the authorities concerned, I think that we should leave the power to the Home Secretary. It has been used in other cases without complaint, because it has always been used with full consultation. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
  Mr. Cocks: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall faithfully report to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who was concerned about this point. If he feels that the Minister's explanation is unsatisfactory, no doubt he will take appropriate action in another place. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman
  1752
  said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move, Amendment No. 23, in page 4, line 4. leave out subsection (7) and insert—
  '(7) All resolutions passed before 1st July 1974 shall be binding on the council'.
  This is a probing amendment. I have wrestled with this subsection (7). I have done my best with it. In the subsection in the Bill there is not a full stop in nine lines of print, until the end. We are trying to encourage interest in local government and legislation, and the words that I have suggested as a substitute might meet the case. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the matter.
  Mr. Graham Page: I, too, wrestled with subsection (7) when it was presented to me by the parliamentary draftsmen. I knew what I wanted. I tried to find out whether it was in the clause. I was assured that it was, and that it was not possible to reduce the wording.
  The purpose of subsection (7) is to require a district council affected by the Bill to postpone exercising its option over whether it should have whole council elections or elections by thirds until after 1st July 1974, by which date the new councils—provided that the House allows us to have the Bill in a short time—will have been elected under the Bill. It is clearly wrong that a council should be able to exercise this important option before it has on it the councillors for whom the Bill provides. All that we are doing is saying to the district council, "Hold your hand. There are more councillors coming on to your council who will want, perhaps, to make their voices heard on whether in future there should be whole council elections or elections by thirds." For that reason we are saying that any resolution before those new councillors come on to the council should be ineffective.
  But, as the hon. Gentleman will see, as recompense for that we have extended the period in which that option can be made. It does not have to be made until 1st January 1975, so between 1st July 1974 and 1st January 1975 the council can decide whether it shall have in future whole council elections or elections by

  1753
  thirds. That means that the new councillors will be there to make their voices heard in any debate on that subject.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: The Minister becomes more and more reasonable, although he has taken a battering today and still has an adjournment debate to face up to. I feel that if he ever comes back on this earth in another form he should come back as a parliamentary draftsman, because he has clarified the situation wonderfully well and I am quite happy with what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

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

RECREATION AREA (HOUGH)
11.1 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: On the motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 1, I am very pleased to raise the subject of the provision of a recreation area in the parish of Hough. I should say at the outset that I am raising this topic at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir R. Grant-Ferris), in whose constituency this parish falls, for it is essentially a matter concerning the Hough Parish Council and the rural district of Nantwich and in no way touches upon the interests of Shropshire or of the Oswestry constituency. I am indebted to both the chairman of the Hough Parish Council, Mrs. Brereton, and to the representative of Hough on the Nantwich Rural District Council, Mrs. Hill, for the background information that has been given to me on a topic which has caused, and continues to cause, widespread concern in the locality of Hough.
1754
The background of this problem is fairly simply this. Hough Common, which is approximately 4 acres in area, was once used as a tip by the Nantwich Rural District Council and was acquired by the Hough Parish Council under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Since Hough is a village which is scheduled for growth under the county plan, it is not surprising—indeed it is appropriate—that there was a decision by the parish to seek to use this common land, which hitherto had been somewhat unsightly, as a recreation area to provide amenities which would be commensurate with the expected growth of the village. A plan was devised, costing approximately £7,000, which would have as its objective the conversion of the common into a first-class recreation area. What has led to this subject now being ventilated on the Floor of the House of Commons is the tangled and frustrating story of the relationships between the parish and the Nantwich Rural District Council.
In March 1972 the clerk to the Nantwich Rural District Council, as a result of representations that had been made from the parish council, offered to carry out work to improve the appearance of Hough Common under the special Environmental Assistance Scheme. A site meeting was therefore held on 16th April involving representatives of the parish and the deputy engineer of the Nantwich Rural District Council. As a consequence, a scheme was approved by the finance and general purposes committee of the rural district council at its subsequent meeting in May. A further meeting was held on 18th August 1972. In part, ostensibly because the council engineer and surveyor would not be able to supervise the scheme, he being—so it was, I am sure, quite correctly alleged—too busy on the problems of local government reform, a landscape consultant was employed to do the job.
A most important point in the catalogue of events is the meeting that subsequently took place attended by the clerk of Hough Parish Council, the deputy clerk of Nantwich Rural District Council, the deputy engineer and the landscape consultant. Notes of that meeting were made by the clerk of the Hough Parish Council. They indicate that she was under the impression that the Hough scheme had not been altered in any way

1755
from the original proposals which would have improved the totality of the common and that the scheme as originally conceived would be executed for the sum of £7,690. The clerk of the parish council wrote to the rural district council on 25th August confirming such an understanding.
However, in January 1973 the parish council learned via the contractor that work was being carried out on only part of the common land which had originally been involved in the scheme. There was a local reaction that work of this character on that limited area could not conceivably merit the proposed expenditure of upwards of £7,000. The deputy engineer was therefore contacted and he then informed the clerk of the rural district council that further work was needed to bring the scheme into line with that which had been originally agreed. The clerk riposted that the parish might be expected to bear additional expenses incurred. Then followed correspondence, part of which was a letter of 27th March written by the parish council in which the comment was made that
"The work that has already been undertaken is certainly not in accordance with the plan submitted and definitely does not warrant the cost involved."
The story thereafter is one of fruitless correspondence between Hough Parish Council and the clerk of the Nantwich Rural District Council. I am informed that the chairman of the finance and general purpose committee of the rural district council declined to put the matter on his committee's agenda on the advice of the clerk of the council.
On 5th April 1973 a delegation from the parish visited Nantwich Rural District Council offices. It sought in vain to gain audience with the clerk. On 6th April the Hough Parish Council wrote to the Department of the Environment at its Manchester office. It said that the scheme as it was being executed was a waste of public funds. Continued attempts were made to have the matter discussed by the rural district council. The clerk advised the chairman of the council not to have the subject put on the council agenda.
On 15th May the landscape consultant, Mr. Blayney, met the parish council. When confronted by its representations, he said that the work could be extended to cover the area as originally conceived
1756
by the parishioners. He said that the work would have to be hurried along because the grant expired on 30th September.
I am sure it will not come as a totally shattering revelation to my right hon. Friend the Minister when I say that there was spasmodic work during the summer. On 4th October the deputy engineer of the Nantwich Rural District Council informed the chairman of the Hough Parish Council that the scheme would not be completed and that the landscape consultant had been criticised by the clerk of the rural district council for issuing instructions to the contractor to carry out work which did not have the formal approval of the council.
The Hough Parish Council complained again to the Department of the Environment. It said that there had been a waste of public funds. I have not been able to give to my right hon. Friend a full and documented history of all the frustrated attempts by the Hough Parish Council and by the rural district council representative to have the facts debated fully and fairly within the Nantwich Rural District Council.
The present situation is almost Gilbertian. Half the site which was within the ambit of the parish council's original scheme is levelled, drained and seeded. The other half is in a somewhat dilapidated state. The rubbish and scrub has been removed, but there has been no infilling, no levelling and no drainage; no fence has been erected. It was an integral part of the scheme to make it a satisfactory recreation area. The siting of the proposed fence is wholly inappropriate and is a matter of mockery within the village.
There is at stake substantial local resentment and indignation. There is indignation that the Department of the Environment should not ensure that upwards of £7,000 has been properly spent. There is understandable indignation, which is tinged with anxiety that the Department should not ensure that the Hough parishioners should get a scheme for a recreational area that the parish council had originally envisaged and countenanced. The parish council says that there should be a full-ranging inquiry to satisfy not merely the council but the taxpayers that the money will be directed

1757
to the purpose that was originally intended.
It was often argued that much of the underlying strength of this country lay upon the potential of each village having its Hampden and being able to produce someone who would argue for the libertarian issues as Hampden argued in this assembly generations ago, but in this instance we have not only village Hampdens but village Gladstones who want to see public funds used prudently for the purpose for which they were truly intended and who are confronted on a small scale with the misapplication of funds. They have evidence of a local but easily identifiable issue which is of national concern—namely, that in the days when so much money is voted for public use it should be most effectively disposed.
I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend answers the debate—I know he cannot answer the whole range of questions implicit in what I have said—he will indicate that the Department is aware of the grave anxieties that are felt in the parish about public moneys not being devoted as they most appropriately should be devoted and about the benefit to the villagers not being as they expected. In that sense I am delighted to raise this topic on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich, and I look forward to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister in a reasonable state of expectation.
11.17 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): This matter is very apt for an Adjournment debate in that it is one of local concern yet has within it a considerable amount of principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has expressed anxiety on behalf of Hough Parish Council that in its view the scheme that has been carried out is not the scheme that it considered was originally authorised. I understand that the parish council alleges that there has been maladministration and asks the Department of the Environment to ensure that an inquiry is held into what is alleged to have gone wrong.
In a debate of this sort one hears only one side of the case, and I must
1758
rely for the facts on what my hon. Friend says, but there may well be an explanation on the other side by the Nantwich Rural District Council. It is sad to find at the root of the problem a dispute between a rural district council and a parish council. In our reform of local government we have relied to a great extent on the grass roots of the parish council bringing forward the feelings of its people to the larger local government unit, the district council. It is disappointing when bringing forward the feelings and views of the parishioners results only in a dispute between the two local government units.
The facts as I know them are scanty, and my hon. Friend has filled in many of them for me. I understand that the scheme was for tidying up Hough Common. It was submitted by consultant architects on behalf of Nantwich Rural District Council, the body responsible for the work being carried out. It was submitted to my Department under the special Environmental Assistance Scheme, which is the rather more formal description of Operation Eyesore.
What we are talking about here is one of the items in the great scheme of Operation Eyesore which has brought so much satisfaction to the country in clearing up untidy land and eyesores. It has been tremendously successful throughout the country—in fact, so successful that we could no longer leave it as an open-ended matter for local authorities to carry out, because the scheme was running away with the expenditure. However, it has achieved much throughout the country and I wish that this scheme which we are debating had had the success that others have had.
The scheme, as the Department understood it, consisted of site levelling, clearance of scrub and undergrowth, the clearing of trees, seeding and drainage. That was approved under Operation Eyesore for a grant on 31st August 1972. The total cost which was approved for grant was £7,790. I think my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of £7,690. On that sum of £7,790 approval was given for a grant of 75 per cent. That is the normal grant under Operation Eyesore. The grant was payable only in respect of those items which I have mentioned, not for any specific future use of the common but just for carrying out work under those items.

1759
The rural district council was, of course, responsible for the scheme. So far as the grant is concerned, the transaction was between my Department and the rural district council, and the grant was payable to the rural district council. We knew nothing of the arrangement between the parish council and the rural district council or their expectations. Indeed, I do not think we would have been right to look behind the request by the rural district council for this grant. The members of the rural district council were the people responsible for putting up the scheme to my Department, and it was to them that my Department was responsible for paying the 75 per cent. grant. So far as we are aware, the work was completed by 30th September 1973. That was when Operation Eyesore came to an end and the time by which the work had to be completed in order to qualify for a grant.
We received the certificate of the rural district council that the work for which the grant had been ready to be paid had been completed. Having that certificate from the rural district council, we paid the grant. So far as we knew from that certificate, the work had been carried out in accordance with the plans which we had approved in offering the grant. It would have been very difficult throughout Operation Eyesore for the Department to go and examine every scheme to see that it had been carried out in accordance with the application and in accordance with the offer of grant. It would be quite impossible to staff an operation of that sort. So we have to take, as I think we are safe in taking in 99·9 per cent. of the cases, a certificate by the responsible local authority to which the grant is to be paid.
I can understand the indignation of the parish council that the money has not, in its view, been properly spent. But the question here is not what the parish council was promised or understood it had been promised by the rural district council. The point, so far as I am concerned, is on what we had offered the grant and whether that work has been carried out.
My hon. Friend has put a doubt in my mind as to whether there may have been some mistake over the certificate granted that the work had been completed
1760
and whether, as a result, in relying on that certificate, we paid money for work which was not done in accordance with the first application for the grant and in accordance with what we thought we were paying the money for. To that extent I shall ask the rural district council whether there is any justification for the allegation that its certificate to us was wrong and that it has collected money wrongfully from us.
Mr. Biffen: When my right hon. Friend makes that inquiry, will he at the same time seek evidence from Hough Parish Council?
Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend has put Hough Parish Council's case tonight, so far as time would allow. There may well be documentation which we should be shown in respect of what he has told the House. But what I do not want to do, and what I cannot possibly say I shall do, is hold any sort of formal inquiry, bringing the two parties together before an inspector, or something of that sort. That is not in accordance with our policy towards local government now.
We do not wish to act as big brother towards any local authority. All we need to do here is see whether a grant, for which the taxpayer has paid, has been properly paid. We have relied on certain assurances in making that payment, and when those assurances are brought into question I must, of course, ask some questions about it. But I could not promise to hold any formal inquiry.
I remind my hon. Friend in passing that there is now going through the House a Bill under which we propose to set up ombudsmen to look into maladministration by local authorities. Perhaps he and I will not be involved in Adjournment debates of this sort when that Bill receives the approval of the House. That might be the right place to raise such a complaint as this in future. At present, however, the Department of the Environment is not a body for inquiring into maladministration by local authorities. They are responsible to their ratepayers for administration in their districts. However, where some process of payment of grant by my Department is involved, if I am told by my hon. Friend that we may have paid it wrongly. I must make some inquiries.

1761
As soon as I have the answer to those inquiries I shall inform my hon. Friend and discuss the matter further with him. I regret that I cannot take it further tonight, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy him on a matter which, as I said at the outset, though a local dispute—a very local matter, for what could be more local than a common in a parish—nevertheless raises a point of principle, involving disagreement between a parish council and a district council.
1762
In future we shall rely very much on the parish councils—not only the existing parish councils in rural districts but the successor parish councils which we are creating—to perform the function of making the people's voice heard, and I therefore hope that we shall be able to avoid disputes of this kind hereafter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter
  Butter
  Import Duties
  Import Duties
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Intervention Buying
  Intervention Buying
  Horticulture Grants Scheme
  Horticulture Grants Scheme
  Farm Price Review
  Farm Price Review
  Beer
  Beer
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Bread
  Bread
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Seaforth Grain Terminal
  Seaforth Grain Terminal
  State Veterinary Service
  State Veterinary Service
  Sugar Processing
  Sugar Processing
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Milk
  Milk
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  London Airports (Refreshments)
  London Airports (Refreshments)
  European Assembly (Members' Allowances)
  European Assembly (Members' Allowances)
  Tax Evasion and Arrears
  Tax Evasion and Arrears
  Personal Incomes and Debts
  Personal Incomes and Debts
  Diesel Fuel
  Diesel Fuel
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police
  Police
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Horserace Betting Levy Board (Chairman)
  Horserace Betting Levy Board (Chairman)
  Citizenship (Oath of Allegiance)
  Citizenship (Oath of Allegiance)
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Bail
  Bail
  Firearms Control
  Firearms Control
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Waste Materials (Recycling)
  Waste Materials (Recycling)
  Diesel Supplies (Motorways)
  Diesel Supplies (Motorways)
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Naphtha
  Naphtha
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Private Generators
  Private Generators
  Computers
  Computers
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  North Sea Oil (Equipment Supply Firms)
  North Sea Oil (Equipment Supply Firms)
  Electricity Supplies (Veterinary Surgeons)
  Electricity Supplies (Veterinary Surgeons)
  Working Week Requirements
  Working Week Requirements
  Steel
  Steel
  Fuel Supplies (Needy Persons)
  Fuel Supplies (Needy Persons)
  Smokeless Fuel
  Smokeless Fuel
  Electricity Consumption
  Electricity Consumption
  Ship Repairing
  Ship Repairing
  Engineers (Registration)
  Engineers (Registration)
  Consumer Protection Advisory Committee
  Consumer Protection Advisory Committee
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Widows
  Widows
  Health Centres (County Durham)
  Health Centres (County Durham)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Heating (Special Need)
  Heating (Special Need)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Cardiovascular Disease (Report)
  Cardiovascular Disease (Report)
  Audiologists
  Audiologists
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Children (Theatrical Performances)
  Children (Theatrical Performances)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Nurses
  Nurses
  ECONOMIC POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  KELLINGLEY
  KELLINGLEY
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  HOLLAND
  HOLLAND
  WORKING WEEK RESTRICTIONS
  WORKING WEEK RESTRICTIONS
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland (Notification of Casualties)
  Northern Ireland (Notification of Casualties)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Bristol)
  Schools (Bristol)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Arab Refugees
  Arab Refugees
  Overseas Development Administration
  Overseas Development Administration
  Palestinian Refugees
  Palestinian Refugees
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Telex Facilities
  Telex Facilities
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Ulster Museum (Admission Charges)
  Ulster Museum (Admission Charges)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television
  Television
SCOTLAND
  Roads
  Roads
  Rents
  Rents
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Fishermen Lost at Sea
  Fishermen Lost at Sea
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Departmental Organisation
  Departmental Organisation
  Kilbrandon Report
  Kilbrandon Report
  Technical Teachers
  Technical Teachers
ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Statistics
  Planning Statistics
  Housing
  Housing
  Building Contracts
  Building Contracts
  Ripon (Traffic)
  Ripon (Traffic)
  Rent Tribunals
  Rent Tribunals
  Hypermarkets
  Hypermarkets
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Scotland)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Scotland)
  Railways (Scotland)
  Railways (Scotland)
  Office Building (London)
  Office Building (London)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Houses (Rents and Prices)
  Houses (Rents and Prices)
  Insulation (Fuel Savings)
  Insulation (Fuel Savings)
  Manchester Underground Railway Link
  Manchester Underground Railway Link
WALES
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Housing
  Housing
  Environmental Services
  Environmental Services
  Road Transport
  Road Transport
  M4
  M4
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Education, Arts and Science
  Education, Arts and Science
  Queensferry Roundabout, East Flintshire
  Queensferry Roundabout, East Flintshire
  Schools (Flintshire)
  Schools (Flintshire)
  Health and Social Services
  Health and Social Services
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
EMPLOYMENT
  Coal Mining
  Coal Mining
  Pay Code
  Pay Code
  Statistics
  Statistics
  New Year's Day
  New Year's Day
  Fishermen (Further Navigation Training)
  Fishermen (Further Navigation Training)
  Small Firms (Information Centres)
  Small Firms (Information Centres)
  Prices
  Prices
  Pay Increases
  Pay Increases

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol):
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

LIGHT WATER REACTORS
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to assess the dangers of light water reactors.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, under the Nuclear Installations Acts 1965 and 1969 nuclear power stations in England and Wales must be licensed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and in Scotland by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are advised on the safety of such plants by the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, who is aware of and is maintaining a continuous interest in the safety problems associated with light water reactors.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it is possible for British scientists to conduct independent examination of these reactors? May I also ask him whether it is true that the reactor proposed for Sizewell and others of this type proposed for this country will be the largest ever built, if they are built, and whether this does not reinforce the need for a stringent check on the safety of these reactors?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I see no reason at all why scientists should not individually examine the light water reactors, because there are many of them in existence—20 in the United States at present and 10 in other parts of the world. Of course, the larger the station undoubtedly the greater the care that has
458
to be taken. But I am advised that all the types of reactor on the list can be accommodated at Sizewell.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it true that as yet the Nuclear Inspectorate have received no detailed description at all of this light water reactor?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the first stage, obviously, is for the Secretary of State to receive advice from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee, which is a non-statutory body set up by the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, and for Scotland, and whose Chairman is Sir Owen Saunders. Then there is the Nuclear Power Advisory Board which my right honourable friend recently set up with the object of choosing betwen the various types of reactor under consideration, and making a recommendation. But as I have said, whatever reactor is chosen by them would be subject to the most stringent examination by the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, and so would any components.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, have the Government yet made any firm decision regarding the installation of these light water reactors?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. As my right honourable friend announced, the decision will be made early in the New Year.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's reply to the Question as it appears on the Order Paper, does one take the position now to be that the miners will make application, as it were, to the Chairman of the C.E.G.B. that instead of a nuclear power station being built in a certain area, as it was in Durham, and being fed by the coal produced by that particular area to a coal-fired power station, the powers of the Chairman have been taken away and it now rests with the Minister to decide whether he wants to carry out any negotiations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. The miners will be able to make representations on the planning permission, and should there be an objection on planning grounds, then, of course, there will be a local inquiry.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, did the noble Lord's answer to me mean that the Inspectorate have no detailed description at all of any light water reactor? Because I understand from a statement in the newspapers to-day that in evidence in another place the Inspectorate are saying that they have no details at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, whether or not that is so—and I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on that point—the fact remains that the Chief Inspector will be brought in. He has the advantage of scientific and other experts, some 70 of them, to help him. He will be brought in at the appropriate stage, and will have to advise the Secretary of State that the particular type of reactor is safe.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean by that that no particular reactor will be accepted until it has been carefully investigated by the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, yes; I mean just that.

PROPERTY SPECULATION
11.6 a.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to control property speculation.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, the profits from speculation in land are taxed as income under the existing law. In addition, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Monday that the Government proposed to introduce legislation in the 1974 Finance Bill to alter the basis on which tax is charged on substantial windfall capital gains that arise on the disposal of land or buildings with development value or potential. It will also provide for tax on capital gains to be charged on the occasion on which a building (other than one used for residential purposes) is
460
first let following material development. The measures will ensure that up to 75 per cent. of the gains from land development will accrue to the community. The Government are also considering a surcharge on the rating or empty office blocks in the context of the Local Government Bill which is now being considered in another place and which will come before the House shortly.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comprehensive Answer. May I ask her whether any of the measures that she has explained cover unrealised capital gains? Will they affect those companies or individuals who use buildings which are kept empty for a long time as a way of securing bank loans to acquire more buildings, which again may be kept empty for a long time, and so on?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is, Yes. This is a complex matter, but if I may put it in terms which I understand, the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean in effect that there will be a tax on the difference between the value of the office block when built and its value on first letting if it was to be sold. Therefore the tax will arise on the length of time in which the block has been left empty.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to answer my specific question, which was whether any of these measures tackle the problem before there was any letting or disposal?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, yes, because this will come into effect from the date of the speech. It will be put into effect in the Finance Bill, but will be effective from December 18.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the weakness of these proposals, like so many others in the past, is that they encourage owners of properties to hold on to them, to make no disposition either of selling or letting, and to pay no tax and just watch the values rise? Surely that is the kind of social injustice that the public feel concerned about.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. My right

461
honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment are very concerned about this point, and this particular measure is designed to deal precisely with those cases.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she noted that immediately after the Chancellor's announcement about additional tax on property developers the shares in property companies rose on the Stock Exchange? Did that indicate that they were very much worried about the announcement?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if the shares rose it might well be in connection with the entire series of proposals rather than the particular proposals affecting property companies.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in the light of the complicated details to which the noble Baroness has referred, and the time factor, would she not agree that the global amount mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place is £80 million? In the light of the enormous fortunes that have been made, would she not regard that as mere "chicken feed"?
BARONESS YOUNG: No, my Lords, for two reasons. The measures will involve for individuals an increase in tax liability from, at present, 30 per cent. up to as much as 75 per cent., which is two and a half times as much. It is obviously difficult to estimate the yield from proposals of this sort, but some noble Lords may have seen the suggestion in yesterday's Financial Times that two developments in the City of London alone could account for well over half the figure of £80 million I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the effect of these proposals.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, has any attempt been made to calculate how many hundreds of thousands of pounds would have been saved for the ratepayers of Camden had Centre Point been 100 per cent. rated instead of 50 per cent.? Would it not therefore be desirable to have full rating of all empty properties?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I have not the answer to that specific question as to the amount of loss in rates suggested by the noble Baroness, but I would suggest to her that the whole question of the rating of empty properties will be a matter which may be discussed by your Lordships' House under the Local Government Finance Bill.

THE BRITISH LIBRARY
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when construction of the new British Library building, opposite the British Museum will start, and how long this will take to complete.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, although good progress has been made in planning the British Library on the Bloomsbury site, the design has not yet been finished. It is not, there-fore, possible to estimate when work will start or how long it will take.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Arising out of it, may I ask him whether the new British Library building is to be one of those libraries to suffer financial cuts as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not have any specific information on that point. My right honourable friend announced last May that the building would be put back one year from when it would otherwise have started, and as we have not finished the design I do not think it is likely to be affected by the current cuts.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it true that Her Majesty's Government are proposing to move it to Maplin?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have not heard that piece of information before.

E.E.C. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
11.14 a.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present estimated total sum pledged to the Regional Development Fund of the European Economic Communities, the estimated benefit to the United Kingdom and when and in what regions that benefit will accrue.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there is no agreement as yet on the size of the Fund and I cannot therefore provide the information which the noble Lords seeks.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, apart from the complete inadequacy of that Answer, that since the Foreign Secretary only a few hours ago gave the most definite assurance that he has made in the last 35 years, the whole situation has altered? The German Cabinet met and reframed their budget last night. M. Pompidou, who instead is having bilateral negotiations with the King—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD HALE: My Lords, I am asking the noble Earl what is the effect of these matters which are so vital for the immediate interests of Britain that we are now on the verge of bankruptcy, and if the "teeny-boppers" on the other side of the House want to howl me down, I can tell them that they will have a job. In the last few hours, M. Pompidou has announced a new energy policy, and is it not now the fact that the question is not so much whether we can re-negotiate as to whether we are going to be asked to walk the plank?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept entirely the seriousness of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, and I wish that I were able to furnish him with a fuller Answer. But the fact is, as I know that he knows, the Council of Ministers have not agreed on the size of the Fund. It is therefore impossible for me to say what our estimated benefit is, and until those matters are concluded—and this is a question for the Council
464
of Ministers to decide—it is impossible for me to furnish the noble Lord with the details which he quite rightly requests.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, has the noble Earl observed that there seems to be some disputation among the members of the Nine about the regional distribution of the available finance? Has he also observed that a very prominent member of the Commission—not one of the British members—stated that Britain has not gained any benefits since the Treaty of Accession was signed? If the noble Earl and his colleagues think that I am asking awkward questions, I take the opportunity of wishing them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have observed the disputations to which the noble Lord has referred. I think those are not uncommon or unusual or unexpected. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the compliments which he has passed with regard to the season, which are fully reciprocated.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I am only too happy to be associated with the good wishes expressed by my noble friend. The noble Earl will perhaps forgive a slight temporary emotion if he recalls the speech in which it was said that this would do some good for the "Oldhams" of Britain, and Oldham withers while Brussels sprouts. But I do sincerely thank him for his statesmanlike Answer, which I am sure will raise the general spirits of both sides in this matter.

RAIL ACCIDENT AT EALING
11.18 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice. The Question is as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on yesterday's rail accident on the Western Region?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Young will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of

465
Belhelvie on the recent meeting of the E.E.C. Council of Ministers.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the House is not sitting after 3.30 p.m. I suppose the Statement will go into Hansard—or are the Government telling us that we shall definitely be sitting until our usual late hour?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt just as good as, if not better than, myself at estimating the time that your Lordships will take on any particular subject. We have a number of important subjects on which people feel quite strongly and it seems to me to be not unreasonable to assume that the House will be sitting at 3.30. Perhaps I can console the noble Lord; if the House should have completed its business before that time, I will move that it adjourn during pleasure so that the Statements can be made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Baroness Young to advance the Protection of the Environment Bill from Thursday the 17th to Tuesday the 15th of January next.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL CHECK-IN FACILITIES
11.19 a.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to move to resolve, That this House deplores the declared intention of the British Airways Board to withdraw the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal on January 1 next; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government in the national interest to direct, if it is in their power to do so, or otherwise to request the Board to defer the proposed withdrawal until such time as—

(a) the effects of the present fuel crisis on the drastically revised flight schedules and the future pattern of access to Heathrow can be fully assessed; and

466

(b) a Select Committee of this House has inquired into and reported on the merits of the proposal, the Government have commented thereon, and Parliament has been given the opportunity of expressing an opinion on both.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day, I think it might be helpful to explain briefly the background. First, I should like to apologise to the Government for the somewhat frequent changes in the Motion which have appeared from day to day, but one has to keep up with day-to-day happenings—and I thought I had better say that before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says it for me. Everyone who uses the West London Air Terminal is familiar with the check-in procedure. You take a bus, taxi or train to Gloucester Road. Your ticket is checked, your luggage is weighed, removed and subsequently taken to the aircraft. You do not see it again until arrival at your destination. A bus destined for your particular flight takes you out to Heathrow where you join your plane. This is a service of great benefit to passengers, particularly to mothers with families, and those without private cars or money to pay for private transport to Heathrow. Any anxiety about catching a particular flight is removed.
B.E.A. propose to remove this check-in facility as from January 1. Travellers will take a bus from the terminal, as at present, but they will not be able to check in; nor will they be able to do anything about their luggage. This will go on the bus with them. They and their luggage will be deposited at Heathrow. Thence, in the words of officialdom, they will be responsible for taking their luggage to the check-in point. Even more serious than the resultant chaos and lengthy queues is the problem of elderly and infirm travellers, of mothers and families, all on outward journeys with their 44 lb. of luggage.
That is the background. I asked the first Question on this affair in this House 19 months ago on June 15, 1972. The last one was asked by Lord Balfour of Inchrye on December 5 last, an occasion on which all quarters of this House made their position quite clear. Lord Balfour has written to me expressing his regret

467
at not being able to be present to-day, and has asked me to let the House know that he supports this Motion. I propose to mention two further letters written to me by Members of this House, and I should like to thank all those who have sent good wishes for the Motion and their regrets at inability to be present.
Any such changes as envisaged by B.E.A. have to be carried out by the British Airports Authority. As I told the House in the debate on April 2 last, at column 98, the Chairman of the British Airports Authority wrote to me in July, 1972, referring:
"… to a situation which we had not expected and about which we were not consulted."
The unions were not consulted; they were told, as were the British Airports Authority. The public were neither consulted nor considered. Apart from any merits or demerits of the matter, the major part of my battle has been that B.E.A. (if I may continue to call them that for the moment for the purposes of clarification) acted as judge, as jury and as complete bureaucrat on their proposed withdrawal of this most valued and useful consumer facility. I voiced, and Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised more than once, the question of the public interest. We both felt that if such an interest was affected then Her Majesty's Government might well consider giving a directive, as Lord Balfour felt they had power to do under the Act. We got nowhere on that one. Evidently more than 1 million people were not of sufficient public interest to merit such intervention. It was ruled always by B.E.A., and accepted implicitly by Her Majesty's Government, that this was a commercial decision and no consumer interest entered into it at all.
As the House knows, on July 25 last, 14 months after we started, it was at last accepted that air travellers were one large group of consumers with no consultative body or users' council to speak for them or to listen to them. Contested all the way by B.E.A. and by Government spokesmen in this House over many weary months, as most noble Lords will recall, we got our Airline Users' Committee. Their terms of reference will be important in my later remarks, so it might be as well to state them here:
468
"To assist the Civil Aviation Authority in its duties in safeguarding the interests of airline users and to investigate individual complaints against airlines where the person or body aggrieved has not been able to obtain satisfaction from the airline concerned."
That this Committee was established at all was due to the efforts of your Lordships' House, from all sides. If it had not taken so long as 14 months, much time and trouble would have been saved.
The House will be familiar with the way that B.E.A. went about this business. What Parliament said counted for nothing. Indeed, on October 18 and 19, 1972, the Government had to make a retraction on behalf of B.E.A., who had flatly contradicted what had been said officially in this House. My Lords, I may say that "retraction" is a generous interpretation. What has disturbed me as much as anything has been the method of dishonest implication and untrue statement used by B.E.A. The fact, my Lords, is that a hasty and ill-judged decision was made. This was challenged in this House some 19 months ago, and ever since then B.E.A. has been trying to find reasons to substantiate its action. I used the phrase "dishonest implication and untrue statement", and I propose to illustrate these methods.
Hence we now move to the reasons given by B.E.A. for the withdrawal of this consumer service affecting more than 1 million people. These were:

"1. Delayed departures of planes due to late running of buses from the West London Air Terminal.

2. The declining number of people using these facilities at the West London Air Terminal.

3. The fact that no other city offers such facilities.

4. Expense."

Taking first the delayed departures of planes due to the late running of buses from the West London Air Terminal, when the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I visited B.E.A. in February last, as I told the House in the debate on April 2, we asked for figures concerning this delay of plane departures. None were available. The House may recall that in that same debate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, found some figures—no fewer than 435 flights out of Heathrow in October, November and December, 1972. He omitted to mention that one of the two tunnels into Heathrow was closed for this period. This I think he should

469
have checked, although I appreciate that an honest person would not have thought it necessary. I was explaining that the noble Earl was an honest person and therefore would not have felt it necessary.
I shall be returning to this point later, but I think it is of interest that on April 10, following this debate, the representative of the B.E.A. bus drivers unit at the West London Air Terminal wrote to say:
"The suggestion that failure of coaches to arrive on time at the airport prompted the decision by B.E.A. to close check-in facilities is a complete misunderstanding of the position, as we know that a very small number of coaches indeed are so delayed as to cause inconvenience to passengers or hindrance to aircraft."
May I leave proof until the last section of my remarks? At this stage, I had only my own strong doubts, plus the written statement from the men who drive the B.E.A. buses.
Taking, secondly, the statement about the declining numbers of people using the check-in facilities at the West London Terminal, this is untrue. In spite of a deliberate lack of publicity by B.E.A., the number of travellers actually using the facilities has remained a constant 1⅓ million. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will find these figures confirmed by B.E.A. This October the numbers fell, not because travellers did not wish to use the facilities but because B.E.A., on October 1, closed them down for foreign airlines at the West London Air Terminal. We have much too strong a case to get bogged down in undue detail, but all these illustrations show a trend. B.E.A. say that 20 per cent. of passengers use the terminal facilities. According to the Sunday Times, Alitalia estimate their figure as 30 per cent.; Air France as 35 per cent., and none of the other airlines asked gave a figure of less than 25 per cent.
As for the third reason, that no other city offers such facilities, I think that this is incredible. Presumably, if your competitors offer less than you, you join them. That seems to me a strange concept of good marketing. Surely B.E.A. exists to provide the best possible service, and not one of a lower level because that is what is offered elsewhere.
My Lords, I come now to the fourth reason—expense. Figures given to me
470
personally by B.E.A. mentioned a saving of between £500,000 and £400,000 per annum by the withdrawal of these facilities. I am going to trouble the House with a few figures, but this is the only time in my remarks that I shall do so. In 1971, the number of passengers using the terminal was 3,507,368, and of these 1,389,943 used the check-in facilities. In other words, 3½ million used the terminal, and 1⅓ million of those used the check-in facilities.
If we take a very low average fare of £50, the passengers actually using the check-in facilities brought in revenue of some £70 million. At the discussions with B.E.A. in February of this year I was told that 781,000 B.E.A. passengers were currently using these facilities. In addition, 582,000 foreign airline passengers were using them. That is a total of 1,363,000 passengers, and that is the continuation of my 1⅓ million. The foreign airlines paid B.E.A. for that privilege. Could the noble Lore, Lord Drumalbyn, when he comes to speak, either now or later in the debate, tell us what fee the foreign airlines paid B.E.A. for the privilege of using the facilities, and whether or not it was in the neighbourhood of £400,000 per annum? If we take the B.E.A. passengers alone at the same low average fare of £50, the revenue would amount to some £40 million. It has always seemed to me extraordinary that a consumer service involving so many passengers who produce a revenue in excess of £40 million should be removed to save, according to B.E.A., half a million pounds—£500,000 The revenue brought in by passengers was not even considered. In the commercial decision taken by B.E.A., which it was assumed it was in order for them to take, £40 million was not worth mentioning.
This brings me, my Lords, to the Airline Users' Committee, of which I am a member. I need not tell the House that I have no intention of disclosing private discussions within that Committee. What I do propose to talk about is what is public knowledge, and that is the report or Press release of the Committee dated November 21 last. If I may go back to the first reason for the withdrawal of the facilities—the delayed departure of planes due to the late running of buses from the West London Air Terminal to Heathrow—it will be remembered that B.E.A. had

471
no figures of such late departures available for me. They then provided the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with some 435 flights, giving, intentionally, a misleading impression; and that the representative of the B.E.A. bus drivers' unit said that this impression was not true. Upon request, B.E.A. provided papers for the Airline Users' Committee, including details of delayed departures. Quoting from the Press release of the Committee dated November 21, we have the following:
"British Airways have tried to justify the withdrawal of the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities on the grounds that they led to delays in flights and were also uneconomic. The Committee has examined British Airways evidence, but this shows that aircraft departures delays last year of more than 15 minutes and directly attributable to late coach arrivals were only 0·4 per cent. of total departures (i.e. less than one flight every two days). The Committee considers this figure is far too small to justify the drastic reduction in public facilities which is proposed."
My Lords, I have dealt with the declining numbers that did not decline, and the lowering of our standards to match those of our competitors. That leaves expense and loss to B.E.A. I gave my layman's estimate a few moments ago. Being a member of the Airline Users' Committee I cannot go into detail, but I can quote the first paragraph of their Press release. It said:
"The Airline Users' Committee deplores British Airways intention to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities. The Committee has discussed the subject with British Airways and is not satisfied that an adequate case for abandonment of check-in facilities has been established."
Later in this statement is the sentence:
"In order to meet British Airways financial problem the Committee has suggested that the cost could be covered by imposing a surcharge for the use of these facilities."
On this question of expense, a British Airways Press release dealing with the check-in facilities and dated December 4 says:
"The fact that their withdrawal saves £½ million a year is an important, but incidental, factor."
If the foreign airlines paid B.E.A. a substantial sum each year for using these facilities, then even this "incidental" factor could be non-existent should the facilities be continued. As I have said before, I hope that the Minister will be able to
472
help us on this question at the end of the debate. Apart from this "incidental" factor, the preceding sentence in the British Airways Press release states once more—and I stress "once more"—that continuation cannot be justified because of the resultant frequency of delayed flights. I would ask the House to note the frequency, on figures provided by B.E.A., of 0·4 per cent.—a delay to less than one plane every two days.
My Lords, I come now to the Questions asked on December 5 [OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 593–603.] when this House so strongly showed its disapproval of what was being done. Nobody could be in any doubt about that. Personally I was more disappointed and more despairing than I have been for a long time, and I have protested to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Why? First of all, my Lords, we had this Press release from British Airways (as I will now call them) concerning the West London Air Terminal. I thought this statement was an insult. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was more polite. He found it "peculiarly unconvincing". I might add that this statement concerning the Airline Users' Committee was sent neither to them nor to the Civil Aviation Authority. But the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, found it a good statement; and this, from a Minister whom we all respect and one with a long interest in consumer affairs, I found unbelievable. It was this that made me so despairing.
The Question from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye concerned the findings of the Airline Users' Committee, and the House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who answered that day could not remember whether or not he had read the findings of the Airline Useres' Committee before replying; or, indeed, if he had ever read them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I deal with that point right away, because it was a difficult point? The noble Baroness will remember that she referred to the Press release and the report, and I naturally wondered at that time whether there was a report on which that Press release was based. I am sorry if there was confusion, but had she said "Press release" I would of course have been able to say at once, "Yes, I have read it".
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry, but there was no confusion at all in my mind. I was referring, of course, to the exchanges in this House on Thursday last, December 13, at column 1274 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have a lot to say and I do not wish to prolong it, but the noble Lord has still not got the point. I am still horrified that he had answered a Question—not my question but that of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—without, obviously, having read the statement on which the Question was based. If he had read the statement, he gave an Answer that was totally at variance with it. I can only imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—and I am sorry to say this—does not realise that statements like this bring into disrepute any expressed concern for consumer bodies. Many of us give much time and thought to serving on such committees. If Government Ministers answer Questions on them without even reading what has been said, it really does not seem worth while devoting one's time to them. If the Minister will look at column 1274 he will see what I mean.
Here I wish to mention my second letter from the first Chairman of the Consumer Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has written to say that she cannot get down from Scotland to-day. She sends her regrets because, she says:
"I would have supported you in every way".
So this protest to-day really does come from both sides of the House.
My Lords, the Minister told us on December 5 that the British Airways Board was doing its best to make better use of the buses, to see that these were more full; and he went on to tell us about the installation of an extra lift. As long ago as April 2 I told the House about a lift and an escalator. Now we are to have two lifts. Each measures 2 metres by 1·7 metres, and converting this to feet we have an area of 6 feet 6 inches by 5 feet 6 inches. I imagine that each would hold two passengers, plus trolleys, plus baggage. As buses will be running full—and I beg the House to think of the holiday months—and every 10 minutes, many passengers will be deposited at the same time with their luggage. Does the Minister suggest that those who cannot get into the lift push
474
their trolleys, or carry their baggage, up the escalator?
I am sorry to say that we then moved on to the Minister conveying once more the dishonest and misleading impression put out by British Airways that 80 per cent. of passengers are held up for a long time because their planes are waiting for buses running late from the West London Air Terminal. My Lords, how long can one go on repeating what is untrue? I feel very strongly about this and it may be that had the Minister read the report from the Airline Users' Committee before answering, he would have answered differently. After all it was the noble Lord himself who on July 25, when we were informed of the setting up of this very Committee, and West London Air Terminal was mentioned, who said—and I quote from col. 1822 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the day:
"If one is setting up a body of this sort it is natural that that body should be given the opportunity to discuss this issue".
I want to ask the House: is it any less natural that the results of that discussion should be noted and taken into account? Does the noble Lord not care what the Committee says? May I repeat once more that, based on figures submitted to the Committee by British Airways:
"aircraft departure delays last year of more than 15 minutes and directly attributable to late coach arrivals were only 0·4 per cent. of total departures (i.e. less than one flight every two days)."
My Lords, 0·4 per cent.! I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, regrets what he said.
My Lords, my attention has been drawn to the exchanges in another place on Monday, December 10. I think the most polite comment on the answers provided is that they added nothing to the problem we are discussing. But what I protest about, and what I think the House would wish me to protest about, is that the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping, Mr. Heseltine, again repeated the untrue statement about passengers being held up because—and I quote from col. 24 of the Official Report of another place:
"a particular bus is held up for a long time."
The House will remember this figure: the percentage of delays due to this in 1972, on British Airways' own figures, was 0·4 per cent. My Lords, should not the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping turn

475
his attention to the 99·6 per cent. delays due to other reasons?
I hope that all in this House to-day, and all in another place, when they have read this debate, and the public who I trust will be informed by the Press and the other media, will condemn this blatant dishonesty. I want to ask the House: can nothing be done to stop this misrepresentation which is put about by British Airways to support a wrong decision, and, I am sorry to say, repeated again and again by Government spokesmen?
One could go on giving similar examples. Each has the same trend and I believe it is one that all fair-minded people will resent. However, I propose to mention only one more. I think this misrepresentation, too, must be laid to rest At column 598 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for December 5 of the debate in your Lordships' House, and at column 23 of the Report of another place for December 10, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and Mr. Heseltine respectively repeated that no complaints had arisen as a result of the facilities being withdrawn from foreign airlines on October 1. Concerning the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping and his Department, of course they do not wish to know; they make no inquiries on points like these. The result might be too inconvenient. Then the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gets landed with their prejudice in this House. It is not his fault.
The third letter I wish to mention comes from the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch—and I have his permission to use it. On this matter of the withdrawal of facilities from foreign airlines from October 1 last he says:
"It may be true that no complaints were received by B.E.A. The public generally considers that it is useless to make complaints to these big corporations. But that there was no dissatisfaction is not true. My wife went to Cook's office in Army and Navy Stores today (December 12) to collect a ticket. The man who dealt with this informed her that there had been bitter complaints about the withdrawal of the check-in facilities for foreign airlines."
My Lords, I come now to my conclusion and to the reason for this Motion. Nobody could deny that I have done all in my power to have this matter inquired into. Equally—and I think this is more important still—nobody could deny that this House, from all sides, has given me
476
full support. And I think nobody could deny that, in spite of whatever proof we put before the House, this bureaucracy of B.E.A. has been allowed, even encouraged, to ride roughshod over the needs of 1⅓ million paying passengers. Much as the dishonesty and misrepresentation have concerned me, the lack of consideration for human problems has concerned me even more—and I think this is true of the House. This bureaucracy seems to have no understanding of the worries, even of the pleasurable anticipation, of people going on holiday, particularly in the summer peak period. Now, under the suggested proposals, they are going to have that pleasurable anticipation spoiled. Will they catch their plane? How long will they find the queue at Heathrow waiting to check in for that plane? The arrangements they have made at the other end—what will happen to these?
British Airways say—and I quote:
"British Airways will take good care to see that they are properly looked after at Heathrow until they can be put on an alternative service".
My Lords, this is quite wicked—and "wicked" is not too strong a word. These are not monied people who can make alternative arrangements at the other end. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, must know that planes to the European holiday resorts do not run every few minutes and that these are fully booked in the peak periods. And there are the elderly, and the less elderly travellers with their 44 lb. of luggage, struggling to get into the lifts or up the escalator. It is all so unkind, so thoughtless, so obviously devised by people sitting at a desk who do not have these problems.
Last week I had a letter from the wife of a much-respected Conservative Member of Parliament. I shall be very glad to show this letter to the noble Lord after the debate. She says:
"As a 'London Grannie' who is constantly being asked to ferry children backwards and forwards, and help young mothers with small children, may I make a special point to do with young mothers? It is already difficult enough to cope with a baby and perhaps two toddlers with their necessary hand-baggage. There are never enough porters luggage trolleys to help this kind of traveller, and it will virtually be impossible for these young women, often travelling alone, if they have to cope with the extra burden of having

477
to check in at Heathrow—where chaos often reigns as it is".
My Lords, what nonsense it all is, and what heartless, unkind nonsense! I do not know whether noble Lords or the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, can see the headline of the paper that I have here. This is the issue of B.E.A. News for June 21, and it has a large headline. The large headline is: "Putting people first". There are few travellers who believe that nowadays; and perhaps British Airways (B.E.A. Division) will take that from the public, if not from me.
The Annual Report of the British Airports Authority for 1972–73, speaking of "The Airport Scene", says:
"When weather, mechanical failure or air traffic congestion disrupt airline schedules at peak times the conditions in terminals can reach depths of discomfort and frustration which no passenger should be expected to endure".
The British Airports Authority is still of this opinion. The Authority believes that traffic growth at Heathrow over the next few years, prior to additional airport capacity, will add to this discomfort and frustration. To avoid this, my Lords, I have asked frequently that the decision to withdraw these check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal should not even be cancelled but should be deferred until the rail link with Heathrow is established in 1976, when we can see what the position then is. As the House knows, I have got nowhere. Therefore, my Lords, in order that this matter may at last be inquired into, and while thanking the House for its patience to-day and all quarters of the House for their support over 19 months, I beg to move.
11.56 a.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, everyone will agree with the noble Baroness when she claims, and rightly claims, that she has done all in her power to secure the postponement or cancellation of the withdrawal of the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. Everyone has admired the way in which she has done this, and I make absolutely no complaint about the way in which she has pursued her objective. I also recognise the strong support that she has achieved in this House. I do not think I can take exception to anything that she has said, although I think one can put different constructions on the facts
478
that she has enumerated to the House—and I think it is my duty to do that. I regret her charge of blatant dishonesty against B.E.A. They have presented the facts as they see them, although she may not appreciate the way in which they have presented the facts. The only other slight criticism I would make is that she slightly impugned my homework. I would deny that, and I would say to her—and I am sure she will agree with this—that I have throughout taken tier campaign (if I may put it that way) very seriously indeed. In fact, I do not think that, over the last year, there is any single subject which has taken up more of my time. I have read the papers that were available, including of course the Press release, which I read before my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked his Question. But as I was asked about a report I naturally had to search my mind, and subsequently my files, to see whether there had been a report. It was in fact, as the noble Baroness says, a Press release.
My Lords, may I address myself to the points that the noble Baroness has made, and go over them in my way? First of all, who uses the West London Air Terminal? I agree with the figures which the noble Baroness quoted: that there were 781,000 passengers at B.E.A. and their subsidiary and allied companies, and some 582 travellers of other lines, who used the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. The figures have in fact fallen, so far as B.E.A. passengers are concerned, by nearly 100,000 since 1969; and, of course, the proportion of travellers using the facilities has dropped, as has frequently been said, from one-half in 1953 to between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. at the present time. As the noble Baroness said, in general there was a separate bus for each flight, though in a few cases passengers for two or more flights scheduled to depart at about the same time were conveyed on one bus. As she said, the buses took B.E.A. passengers to Terminal 1, whether for international or internal flights, and passengers for foreign airlines to Terminal 2.
What, then, are the services that the Motion asks should not be withdrawn? They are the checking-in of passengers and their luggage at West London Air Terminal; buses related to particular flights; and the practice of keeping

479
flights from taxi-ing out for take-off until the passengers from the West London Air Terminal bus have boarded their plane.
What is not being withdrawn? It is important that I should tell your Lordships, because in conversation with many of you I feel there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter. The bus services to Terminals 1 and 2 are not being withdrawn. That service is continuing. The only difference is that instead of a bus being assigned to each separate flight, by and large a service of buses at intervals of 10 minutes at ordinary times and 4 minutes at peak periods will be maintained. That is in the B.A.B. timetable. Considering that the average number of passengers for each 56-seater bus is at present only 14—and yesterday I saw one arriving at Heathrow with only 7 passengers on it—the new service will obviously be a much more economic, a much more flexible and a much more efficient service than the old one. Passengers will be able to leave sooner than under the present system in order to make sure of catching the plane. The proposals are that the buses should leave 10 minutes sooner, but individual passengers will be able to take any bus they like. At present they might have to wait half an hour at West London Air Terminal, if they got there soon enough, for the appropriate bus, and even then the bus might be subject to delays. To obviate that risk, passengers will be able to take any bus; they can go to the Terminal at any time they like and go straight on to the bus.
The new service has advantages. First of all, reception and departure at West London Air Terminal will be on the street floor. Passengers will be, as the noble Baroness says, deposited—that was the word she used—with their baggage at street level. There will be porters there if they want them to take their luggage across to the bus. I have seen this happening because I have visited the terminal myself and seen it in operation. The passenger will see his luggage taken to the bus he is catching at the other side, will be able to watch his luggage being loaded into the bus and will then get his bus ticket in the hall. Incidentally, there are great advantages for old people in not having to struggle down the two
480
flights of stairs from the upper floor to the ground level, no doubt carrying their hand luggage, as they have to do at present.
At the airport terminal they will see their luggage unloaded, identify it, and, if passengers wish, it will be taken by porters to the check-in point. A supervisor will be available all the time to help passengers and to see that if a bus has been delayed check-in is expedited. The noble Baroness referred to an escalator and a lift. A new escalator is being installed; there is one there already. A second lift is also being installed at the present time. In the very rare case that the bus arrives too late for passengers to catch the plane—and I agree with the noble Baroness that they are very rare cases; there has never been any doubt about this.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he seriously telling us that he knows there are very rare cases when the bus arrives late? That is something completely new, after 19 months spent on this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will come to this point in just a moment, but may I just say to the noble Baroness that when one talks about 80 per cent. of passengers one translates that to 80 per cent. of passengers in any particular plane. There is no deception about this at all. It simply means that where a plane is kept waiting, on average there will be three to four passengers who went direct to the Airport waiting for every one passenger who has come from the West London Terminal. That is a mathematical fact. There has never been the slightest deception or dishonesty about that.
As I was saying, in those very cases the British Airports Board have said that they will accept the responsibility for getting passengers on the next flight on which there is spare capacity, no matter whether it is a British Airways Board plane or one operated by another airline. They will see that in the meantime passengers get meals at B.A.B.'s expense, and if there is no available flight that day B.A.B. will pay for a night in a hotel at Heathrow for them. The only condition attached is that passengers must have taken a bus leaving not later than the time recommended by B.A.B. for

481
his flight, and that seems a very reasonable condition.
My Lords, as I said, buses are seldom late. In the period March to October this year, 85 flights were delayed for more than 15 minutes for that reason. That is less than one flight in two days; it is scarcely one flight in three days. To reduce this hazard still further, British Airways are recommending passengers to take buses leaving 15 minutes earlier than at present. As check-in at present has to be completed five minutes before the bus is due to leave, that means that passengers will need to be at the terminal only 10 minutes earlier than at present if they are to comply with the recommended condition. Is it reasonable to expect those passengers who check in at Heathrow to be kept waiting by those who come from West London Air Terminal, if it can be avoided? Those who go direct to the Airport outnumber those who go to West London Air Terminal by between three and four to one. B.A.B. have never sought to justify the withdrawal on these grounds alone, which form by no means the only, or even the most important reason, for changing to the new system.
However, I think its importance is often underestimated. One has to remember that although B.E.A. might like to do so, they do not at the present time run shuttle services. They use a plane on several routes in the same day. A plane may start by doing a trip to Paris, come back and then do a trip to Scotland. If, say, on the first journey that plane is held up, it can disrupt the whole flight plan for the whole day. This could be cumulative. Those who have used services running to Scotland and connecting services within Scotland are very well aware of this kind of thing. That is a fact which has been given insufficient weight in considering the consequences of the plane being held up avoidably.
My Lords, the nationalised airlines are expected to use their resources as efficiently and economically as possible. Their resources include their manpower, their buses and their accommodation. It may be very convenient for passengers never to have to wait at a check-in desk, but if that means under-use of check-in facilities, plainly the system has to be looked at again. It would be unsatisfactory if there were constant queues at one place and practically no waiting at all at another.
482
It is really quite unacceptable that the buses should be used as uneconomically as they are being used under the present system, as I have said, with an average of less than 14 passengers for each 56-seater bus. The new system is intended to improve on this. It has already been doing so in the case of the foreign airlines.
Lastly, these new arrangements will enable much better use to be made of the premises at West London Air Terminal. The check-in floor will be used for offices. If the check-in facilities were maintained, the British Airways Board say that it would be necessary to acquire, or build, additional office accommodation, which would mean considerable extra expenditure. But the fact is that the proportion of passengers using West London Air Terminal is not sufficient nowadays to justify the retention of check-in facilities with all the administrative complications that they involve. My Lords, half of the passengers of British European Airways—it is still British European Airways—used the facilities in 1953 and now only between one quarter and one-fifth of the passengers use them. The noble Baroness drew attention to the difficulties confronting old persons. When I visited Terminal 1 yesterday, I paid particular attention to this point. I found that there is a service devoted entirely to the direction of porters and to seeing that the appropriate facilities are provided for old persons. In a little box in the terminal centre there is an indicator to indicate the "state of play", and it is possible to switch porters to points where they are required to deal with any rush of passengers. In addition, B.A.B. have said that there will be eight additional porters available all the time, to deal with passengers arriving? at Terminal 1. This means of course considerably more porters to work on rota.
My Lords, I turn to the question of consultation. I agree that it was unfortunate that the appropriate consultative arrangements did not exist over a year ago when B.E.A. first decided to discontinue the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, full credit for the part she played in having the Airline Users' Committee set up. But even had the Committee existed at that time, and even if it had not liked the new system, it would have been very difficult

483
for B.E.A. not to proceed. It is quite untrue to say that B.E.A. did not consider the public. There was no means of consulting the public at that time, but to say that they did not consider public requirements is quite untrue. It obviously must be, in a competitive situation such as exists there, that they are bound to consider the interests of their users.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by saying that there were no means of consulting the public? There are unlimited ways of doing so, many of which are practised at Heathrow and could have been practised at the Air Terminal. There are methods of establishing what people think and want.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I meant to say was that there was no Users' Committee set up at that time.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is a different thing.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is the proper way of doing so. I have pointed out on previous occasions that consultative committees of a kind do exist. B.E.A. have subsequently set up one of their own. I think it also important to bear in mind that users' consultative bodies are not tribunals to which nationalised industries submit applications for permission to carry out their plans. Such bodies are consulted in order that the plans may be modified to meet the needs and the convenience of consumers so far as is practicable, and this is what happened. When the Airline Users' Committee was set up by the Civil Aviation Authority I told the noble Baroness and the House that B.E.A. would pay attention to its views. This is exactly what has been done. As I have indicated, steps have been taken to meet the views of the Airline Users' Committee. Furthermore, the British Airways Board have offered to co-operate with the Committee in monitoring the new system. I understand that the Committee has accepted the offer. I am not saying that the Committee is satisfied that it is right to make the change, but it has accepted the offer. If the Committee finds that the kind of hardship it fears is occurring, I am sure that the
484
British Airways Board will be glad to take all practicable steps to put matters right.
The noble Baroness's Motion implies that a Select Committee should be set up. That is a matter for the House, my Lords, but the House may think that a Select Committee is not really necessary now that the Airline Users' Committee has the issue before it. The House may feel that this would be a duplication; and, of course, a Select Committee might reach a different conclusion from that which the Airline Users' Committee has reached. It is by no means certain that they would take the same view. What I cannot advise your Lordships to do is to accept the Motion itself. It calls on Her Majesty's Government to do something that no Government have been prepared to do ever since the nationalised industries were first set up; namely, to interfere with the day-to-day working. There can be no doubt at all that passenger handling is essentially a matter of day-to-day management, and a matter for commercial judgment in a competitive situation. My Lords, apart from—
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, surely the Railways Board was asked to continue rail services in the last three or four years when they wished to close them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is a statutory procedure in that case. Parliament has imposed strict limitations on the powers of the Government to interfere with nationalised industries. Broadly speaking, the limitations are similar for all the nationalised industries. So far as the British Airways Board are concerned, the limitations are laid down in Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. Any direction issued must be of a general character and must affect the national interest. The power to issue directions includes the power to secure that
"…any relevant body specified in the directions—
(i) discontinues, or restricts to an extent specified in the directions, any of the activities of the body which are so specified…".
There is no similar power to prevent the discontinuance or restriction of the activity. I am advised that there is no power to give a direction under Section

485
40 not to close the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal after December 31. Even if there were, would it be sensible or even practicable for the Government to bully or cajole the British Airways Board into maintaining the facilities at West London?
The Motion delicately uses the word "requests", but I doubt whether the noble Baroness intends that the Government should take, "No" for an answer to that request. The check-in facilities have already been discontinued, as the noble Baroness said, for 40 per cent. of those who were using them. No complaints have come to the British Airways Board by any of the various methods by which one would expect them to come, through agents and the like. That I can merely report.
The noble Baroness says that there have been complaints made to agencies, but all I can say is that the British Airways Board have not heard of them. I have been to the West London Air Terminal and to Terminals 1 and 2 during the past week and I believe that the arrangements there are in many respects better for foreign airlines than they are for B.E.A. users, now that the change-over has been made. After January 1, it is intended that the arrangements shall be the same for foreign airlines and for B.E.A. users, and it is certainly desirable that they should be the same; it is simply not practicable to change the arrangements for foreign airlines back to what they were before October 1. It is, of course, true that a fee was paid by the foreign airlines for the check-in facilities. But a new agreement has been negotiated. I do not know whether they are available now, but if they are not I will try later to give the noble Baroness the figures that she asked for. The plain fact is that to continue the check-in facilities after January 1 while a Select Committee considered the whole matter would disrupt the plans of the British Airways Board and cause dislocation at West London Air Terminal. The British Airways Board have taken advantage of a slack winter season to redeploy their staff and to make structural alterations. Neither the staff nor the facilities now exist to provide check-in facilities for the spring and the summer. It is not now a question of continuance, but of reinstatement should those facilities be required for the
486
spring and the summer, and it is necessary to go on with the changes which are being made just now if those facilities are to be available.
My Lords, I ask the House to recognise that the decision to discontinue the check-in facilities in two stages was one that was entirely within the powers of the British Airways Board, and it is not a power that they exercised without consideration of the public or the consumer interest. Their reason for making the change was to provide more economical service for users of the West London Air Terminal and more efficient for their air passengers taken as a whole. To halt the process now in mid-stream would involve retaining a service which was costing over £500,000 last year, and would cost more next year. It would mean running two systems at West London Air Terminal. It would mean acquiring more buses; it would involve additional expenditure for reinstating the service; and would mean forgoing economies at a time when it is in the national interest that everyone should make economies.
My Lords, I must ask: is it sensible, just 12 days before the changes are to be completed, to ask the Government to intervene and call a halt, even if the Government had power to do so? It would certainly be at variance with the practice of successive Governments vis-a-vis nationalised industries in this matter of day-to-day management. I really cannot believe that the Party opposite would wish to urge the Government to do something which they certainly would not have done themselves if they had been in power, because it is completely out of line with the whole concept of nationalised industries, of which they were the architects. They may lie sorry to see the services go. They may think that the minority of air passengers who use them may be worse off in consequence. But it is simply not on to intervene at this very late stage. I suggest very strongly to your Lordships that the sensible thing now is to let the B.A.B. proceed with their plans, and to watch very carefully the outcome, an outcome which will be monitored by the Airline Users' Committee, in co-operation with the British Airways Board.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask

487
him this question? At an earlier stage he said that a Select Committee might come to a different point of view from that of the Users' Council. Would he object to that? Would it not strengthen the case that he has been trying to put?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would not object to that at all; but I think it might tend to confuse counsels.
12.23 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am certain that everyone in the House was deeply impressed by the powerful and able case presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, works hard for his Government as Minister without Portfolio, and we all admire the diligent way in which he handles portfolio after portfolio. But of all the burdens that he has had to carry, the load he carries on behalf of British Airways this morning is the least justifiable of all. He has made the best of a bad job; but it still remains a bad job. I am sorry that in his last remarks he referred to "the Party opposite", because throughout the history of this campaign it has been entirely a non-Party affair, with Members on all sides and from the Cross Benches intervening. I thought his rosy picture of what happens at West London and at Heathrow, and what is going to happen under the new reforms, did not conform with reality. I have been for over twenty years a customer of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I believe them to be the finest in the world, not only in efficiency but in courtesy, in care and in human relations with the passengers. So it is disappointing for me to have to say that in this matter which we are now discussing, the merger of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. has been followed by their riding roughshod over one of the splendid services they have provided—that of checking-in at West London Air Terminal.
Since I came to your Lordships' House I have watched with admiration the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, on behalf of consumers in general, and of air passengers in particular. It is now just over a year and a half since the noble Baroness, having heard of the proposal to take away the check-in facilities at West London, asked her first Question on the matter on June 15
488
1972. On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had to reply, and he stonewalled, as the Government have done ever since and as the Minister has done this morning. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that it was a matter for British Airways; that the facilities were originally provided for 100 per cent. of the passengers; that the percentage of users had dropped to about 25 per cent., and that for the rest of the people going to Heathrow it was uneconomic: and he said that the check-in facilities would end in the summer of 1973. If your Lordships turn up that Question, you will find that in the cross-questioning that took place on that occasion the noble Baroness was supported from all sides of the House. There were the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Shepherd, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Thurso, Lady Wootton and Lady Llewelyn-Davies, all on this first encounter.
Finally, my Lords, the Government undertook to have a word with the B.A.B. and B.E.A. Since that day, every time this matter has been raised in the House, either by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, or by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, they have beeen supported by many more noble Lords, some of them here to join in the debate to-day. It is rare indeed that in your Lordships' House there has been such near unanimity on any issue, with only the Government Front Bench aloof, cold and immovable. I believe that as this debate proceeds to-day we shall find the same unanimity among your Lordships.
I should like briefly to repeat the issue which has been so clearly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. Many people—over one million—use the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. There they book in and hand in their luggage, and from that moment they have no more worry about their luggage. It is a wonderful feeling, as all those who have experienced the use of that terminal will know. They then go by guaranteed bus to Heathrow. They have no worry; the bus will take them; they will get their flight, and they can forget their luggage until they get to the other end of their journey. This may not mean much to richer people, who can take a taxi to Heathrow, or take their car and

489
park it in the long-term parking places at Heathrow, where an attendant will take them from their parked car to the Heathrow Airport and their luggage will be manhandled by a porter: they have very little trouble. It is the poorer people, who cannot afford that way of getting to Heathrow, and especially the elderly people and those with families, who are going to find it very difficult to cope with their baggage under the new system. They will still have to go to West London Air Terminal. There they will take a bus, as the Minister has said, with their luggage. They will have to make their own certain arrangements to be sure that they catch their plane. The bus will not be for their flight, but for any flight. At the other end they will have to get their luggage from the bus to the check-in point.
A few weeks ago I flew from Heathrow, having been taken by friends direct to Heathrow. The check-in-points were crowded and there were long queues. We waited for a long time. This new system will add a million more passengers to the long queues that one already finds at Heathrow. For this proposed change, we are offered really just two basic excuses. The first is the saving of half a million pounds. This sum could easily be met in other ways. I believe that customers would be willing to pay a small surcharge for the convenience of check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. In any case, if British Airways are going to cope adequately with the increased numbers of passengers at Heathrow they will have to provide more staff and more facilities there, which will cut away some of the money it is suggested will be saved.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I omitted to say that at the present time there are 32 check-in points at Terminal 1, and the British Airways Board are providing check-in points at each of the passenger loading bays: that is at each of the 17 flight gates. That adds practically 50 per cent. to the check-in facilities.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am glad to know that the check-in facilities will increase, but the cost of providing them will have to be offset against the half million which the noble Lord said was being saved by this
490
arrangement. The second excuse is that by the use of the check-in facilities and the guaranteed flight bus services from the West London Air Terminal, aeroplanes are delayed because they have to wait for passengers. I consider this to be a most flimsy excuse. If the facts are as stated, even the 0·4 per cent. of cases to which the noble Baroness referred could be obviated by making the checking-in and bus-leaving times earlier. We now have an excellent motorway from West London to Heathrow. It is far easier, swifter and more regular than it was in earlier days when we had to stop at every traffic crossroads. I do not think anyone would object to being asked to check in a little earlier at the West London Air Terminal if he was going to retain the comfort and the certainty he has had up to this moment.
An article in the Sunday Telegraph earlier this month suggested that this withdrawal of check-in facilities is only one symptom of a malaise which has affected B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. since the merger. It suggests that there is among the staff—and I quote—
"… genuine embarrassement over the downgrading of B.A. passenger services, citing as well as the check-in, ever-reducing sect pitch, deleted or reduced meals and badly stocked bars."
It is because the reputation of the two airlines has been so high that this apparent flouting of the customers is most regret-table and hard to explain. The Airline Users' Committee set out in November what it felt. The noble Baroness has quoted their deploring of the proposed closing down of the check-in facilities. The statement continued:
"The Committee is convinced that the withdrawal of the W.L.A.T. check-in facilities and of guaranteed flight connections will cause considerable hardship to the travelling public, of whom over a million (including many elderly people) have been regularly using these facilities each year."
They have said that if the check-in facilities are to be withdrawn the withdrawal should at least have been postponed until the Underground railway was ready to serve Heathrow. I am glad to see that the Minister, judging from his intervention just now, accepts that additional facilities must be generously provided at Heathrow to cope with the million extra passengers who will check in here. I support the Motion moved by the noble

491
Baroness, and I hope she will have the support of the House.
12.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this Motion because I feel that the case has been put so very well by the noble Baroness. I find this an extraordinary and unparalleled situation. We have been given a series of reasons for abolishing these check-in facilities. The statements have been incorrect. The importance attached to the various reasons has altered almost from day to day; and, finally, we have just been told that they want to put offices in the present terminal building. Is this a new idea? One can only presume that it was known earlier and, if that was so, I consider it a slight on the dignity of this House that we were not told the facts. For that reason, if for no other. I consider that we should all vote for this Motion. It is intolerable that an Authority should not take the trouble to prepare a proper brief and give the facts. I personally would have had a great deal more sympathy with the closure had I known about these offices. It is not a conclusive argument, but at least it is one that is quite solid.
The point has already been made that consumers are almost certainly prepared to pay half a million pounds—if that is really a fact—to have these facilities. Those of your Lordships who have been to Heathrow will know what the check-in facilities are like. If you are going to increase the number of passengers checking in there and provide reasonable services, there is only one answer—that is, to pull down the building completely and start again. It is far too crowded. There is no room anywhere; and to get people rushing about between perhaps 20 check-in points would be intolerable.
I feel that this is just another example of the sort of thing which efficiency experts provide to-day. It is so often done, with no thought of the consumer in mind. I think it might be worth quoting a parallel instance. An institution of which I am a member wrote to me not long ago and said that they had put their subscriptions on a computer and they asked whether I would for the future cancel my banker's order and pay on demand, because their
492
computer programme could not cope with a banker's order. That has happened again recently in connection with another institution of which I am also a member. I wrote in and said: "This is all very well. You may be saving money, but you are merely putting the work back on me and you are no longer providing a service." In the present case there is not even the justification of money, because it is so easy to put on a small extra charge to cover the half a million pounds which it is said this building costs.
There are many other speakers to follow, my Lords, and so I shall not keep your Lordships any longer. I have made the points I wish to make.
12.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should also like to support this Motion, along with other speakers. I have followed the crusade of the noble Baroness with wonderment and awe. Her tenacity and stamina on this issue must surely warm the cockles of the hearts of all Back-Benchers, however docile (as I am) they may be. I support the Motion for two clear reasons: the first is because, as other noble Lords have said, one is disturbed by the very forceful tones that the Airline Users' Committee reported on this matter. One has to remember that this Committee is a perfectly responsible Committee chaired by the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Their report was quite adamant. It was, having taken the most detailed evidence from B.E.A. and having examined all aspects, that they had come firmly to the conclusion that the basic argument put up by B.E.A. in favour of their decision to close the check-in facilities simply did not stand up. A number of Members of this House, when the Civil Aviation Bill was going through in 1971—notably the noble Lords, Lord Kings Norton, Lord Beswick, and of course, the noble Baroness, fought for the principle that the Civil Aviation Authority should be and should have the responsibility for consumers' interests. That responsibility to-day stands in that Act under Section 3(1)(d). The Civil Aviation Authority have fulfilled their duty by this report. It should not be lightly put aside, either by the Government or by this House. That is why I support the

493
noble Baroness on the second part of her Motion for setting up a Select Committee.
The second reason why I support the Motion is the clear relation that this issue now has on the fuel crisis. I was very surprised that my noble friend did not mention this once, despite the fact that it is in the first part of the Motion. Two years ago, when B.E.A. took the decision on the closure, there was no cloud in the sky of fuel shortages and the issue was never considered. Their argument then, as we have heard was that the service in the West London Air Termnial was really an expensive luxury of diminishing usefulness, and was no longer required because 80 per cent. of the passengers went by car. That was based on conditions that simply do not apply to-day. It was recently reported, as the noble Baroness said, in a report in the proceeding in another place that my noble friend's right honourable friend, when asked what difference the check-in withdrawal at the West London Air Terminal would make to fuel saving, replied—and I paraphrase—"negligible". I find that answer very difficult to follow. At this crisis time when the Government are exorting us all, I am sure rightly, to save all possible fuel and even to live in one heated room in one's home, it seems that every policy they can devise to encourage people to save fuel should be enthusiastically endorsed. If 80 per cent. of the passengers go to Heathrow by car it represents, by my calculations, over 15 million people a year, over 5 million car journeys a year, and over 5 million gallons of petrol a year. It is a very significant figure and perhaps my noble friend could put the matter straight when he comes to reply. By closing down the check-in facilities and stopping the guaranteed buses, it is hardly an inducement to the travelling public to use the West London Terminal bus service. That is my reason for supporting the first part of the Motion of the noble Baroness when she refers to the fuel crisis and the national interest.
The question to which one should address oneself—and indeed my noble friend did—is this: can the British Airways Board practically withdraw at this late stage? Before coming to the House to-day I checked with the British Airports Authority, and I understand that the
494
additional basic equipment at Terminal 1 which they put in—not British Airways, but the British Airports Authority—will cost approximately £90,000, which B.E.A. will have to find. I understand that if a change in the decision takes place, this equipment would not be wasted and could be utilised. I understand, further, that if the decision is not altered and a closure takes place on January 1, during the height of the Christmas rush—to which the noble Baroness referred—the extra equipment will not all be fully operational. In fact at the moment the lifts are not working, and have not even been completed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: One lift.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: One lift. My Lords, this seems to conflict with an undertaking that B.E.A. gave two years ago that no closure would take place until adequate alternative arrangements had been installed at Terminal 1. Where do the Government stand on this issue, and where do the Civil Aviation Authority stand? One recalls that my noble Leader reminded us the other day that this is a delicate issue, an issue of the relationship between Government and a nationalised industry. My noble friend referred to this. The noble Lord confirmed that the Government would not normally interfere with a nationalised industry's operations. They would interfere—and I submit this is a case—if it is in the national interest.
Where does the Civil Aviation Authority come in? In the Preamble to their Act, it states clearly that they have a duty
"to establish a corporation with functions which include the function of controlling the activities of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and the British European Airways Corporation ".
I will repeat that: controlling the activities of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Under Section 3(1)(d) they have the duty to further the reasonable interest of users of the Air Transport Services. I submit that the Civil Aviation Authority have fulfilled their obligation under Section 3(1)(d), but have as yet not acted within their powers under the Preamble. Why not? The reason, I believe, is that they feel the ball is firmly in the Government's court.
I have listened most carefully to my noble friend's arguments today. His

495
argument in essence seemed to be: What is all the fuss about?—the bus services remain. In my view the fuss is a fuss that should fuss the Government; it is really a hotch-potch, and at a time when travellers should be encouraged to use these bus services to save fuel this service is reduced in attractiveness and quality. My Lords, that is why I support the noble Baroness.
12.48 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I, too, should like briefly to give some support to the noble and battling Baroness, if I may so describe her. I thought that she made an absolutely devastating case in detail and, frankly, I was not entirely happy about my noble friend's reply, although I recognise the difficult position in which he finds himself. I also find myself in a rather difficult position because the last time I looked at the Order Paper there were two Motions in the name of the noble Baroness. One asked for the postponement of the closure of the facilities, and the other for the appointment of a Select Committee. Today, there is only one.
I understand some of the arguments why it is not possible at this very late hour to change this decision. It is not the fault of the noble Baroness if it is so late, if it is the eleventh hour. But I recognised that it might be, and I had intended coming to the House to argue strongly in favour of the appointment of a Select Committee to look into this matter. I now find, however, that the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, which I feel would have been acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, has been withdrawn. I think this is the most crucial part of it, and therefore if the Motion we are discussing goes to a Division I shall have no hesitation in supporting the noble Baroness, for one reason and one reason only: that I feel there is a strong case for appointing a Select Committee to deal with this matter. The noble Baroness said that British European Airways (as I think one may still be allowed to call them, for the purposes of this exercise) were guilty of blatant dishonesty, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn disagreed. Surely that conflict of opinion is itself a very very strong case for having a Select Committee to gather the
496
facts quite independently; and let it consist of those who have not taken part in this particular dispute.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn made one remark which I found very odd. He said that it would be very awkward if the Select Committee took a different view from that of the Airline Users' Committee. If the Select Committee took a different view, I should have thought my noble friend would be rather pleased; it would be some justification for his action and that of B.E.A. It seems to me that from his point it would be a very strong argument for a Select Committee. It is mainly on those points that I feel very strongly that this is one of the cases where a Select Committee should be appointed. In another place there is the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and this is the kind of matter which they might raise. There is the Public Accounts Committee, which might perhaps question some of the economies which have been made in a Government Department. However, your Lordships do not have either of those two machines at your disposal. Since this is a matter in which the running has been made almost entirely in this House it seems to me that it is this House which could take over this task and appoint a Select Committee.
I have two other points which I should like to make. My noble friend said, quite rightly—and I have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view—that it is not for the Government to interfere in the day-to-day activities of nationalised industries. My Lords, considering the battle that has gone on for 18 months, it can hardly be called a day-to-day matter. None the less, I accept his point that it is thoroughly undesirable that the Government should interfere in day-to-day activities. I think one can make one firm statement here that the Government have one other power, and that is the appointment of the members of nationalised boards. Even if they do not on this occasion make any representations on a day-to-day matter, it is their duty, in considering reappointment to those boards, apart from the executive officers, to be satisfied that there are on the board sufficient people who are sensitive to public opinion and sensitive, in this case, to the needs of the travellers.

497
One other point I would make. Here we have the British Airways Board holding one view and the Airline Users' Committee holding another. This is something on which the Government have to make up their mind. They cannot just sit back and be indifferent. They must come down firmly on one side or the other, on the side of the Users' Council or on the side of the British Airways Board. To-day my noble friend seemed, on balance, to come down on the side of the British Airways Board, finally and irrevocably. I regret that. Therefore I think it is necessary to have a Select Committee.
12.53 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, I should like to say just a very few words from these Cross-Benches in support of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. For some time now this matter of the closedown of the West London Air Terminal check-in desks has been a real source of worry to the travelling public—and I refer to the ordinary passengers who rely on public transport, not those who can afford taxis or have private cars. They amount to a considerable number of people. I recognise that there is need to streamline procedures, and that the picture changes from time to time; but this is a valuable service to the passengers, and surely their comfort is of paramount importance. Of course, when the Underground rail link is completed, this need may well disappear. Now added to this, there is considerable anxiety among British Airways employees that since the merger of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., the actual running of the service is growing increasingly fragmented, thus reducing the standard of service considerably, whereas, in principle, the merger should make for a more co-ordinated, comprehensive service.
It is not only the West London Terminal that is involved. Ten provincial booking centres have been closed in recent months, which has led to an even greater burden being placed on the staff in London. As a result, as many as 70 per cent. of new recruits were being defeated by the pressure and were leaving within six months. Surely the time has now come to put an end to all the anxieties, the rumours and counter-rumours, by the appointment of a Select Committee to
498
examine all the many aspects of this whole problem. I very much hope your Lordships will give this Motion your support.
12.56 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I, too, rise to declare that I consider that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has put forward an extremely strong case; and I declare my support for it, because, in spite of all the arguments put forward by my noble friend, the Minister, I feel strongly that it is wrong to alter the existing arrangements at the West London Air Terminal. The noble Baroness has asked a number of Questions on the subject from time to time. I have been able to be in your Lordships' House to hear a good many of them, and have always been hoping for favourable results to come from them. Now, in theory, these alterations seem good, but I have grave doubts at present, based on my own experiences, about how trey will turn out in practice. I know it is the custom in your Lordships' House to declare an interest. Well, mine is that I shall be one of those who are going to be hit hard by this alteration. I live and work in London. I have no need of a car. My home is not far from Cromwell Road. When I take a journey by air, it involves using the Cromwell Road Terminal. I enjoy being able to go there, check-in, get rid of my suitcase and know that I do not have to worry about it until I get to my destination. I have been privileged to travel a good deal; in fact, I have travelled to and through 25 countries outside the United Kingdom, and most of them have been included in my air travels. In recent years I have come to regard air travel with certain apprehension—no matter how much I enjoy flying, how convenient it is and how much time it saves—because almost every air journey I take nowadays has some snag arising, and most of them are connected with luggage.
The theory is now that we go to Cromwell Road and take a bus to London Airport. We can take any bus and they will leave at regular intervals, but we have still got to keep an eye on our luggage. Then we arrive at London Airport, we leave the bus collect our luggage—and goodness knows how much elbow room we are going to have to get through the crowds that will

499
gather round the luggage compartment! Then we have to find where the check-in point is and we have to take the luggage there. I heard it declared most specifically when the noble Baroness was asking her earlier Questions that the distance from the bus to the check-in point was going to be a short one. I cannot remember what was said about lifts or elevators. But when you do finally find your check-in point, how big are those crowds going to be? How easy will it be to get the luggage from the bus to the check-in point? We have heard the guarantees about porters and trolleys being there, but I have "heard that one before", and I have known porters and trolleys to be very much noticeable by their absence.
I say it is all right for me, because, praise the Lord! I am strong and healthy. I can carry my own baggage, and, though it is inconvenient, personally I never travel light. But other people are not so fortunate. It is that short distance between the bus and the check-in point that is going to be an anxious one for a number of travellers, and it will be the thing that is going to make or break an air journey. Suppose you have taken the guaranteed bus and you have not been held up on the road anywhere, you may nevertheless find a long queue there, because sometimes I find that these check-in points deal with more than one flight at a time. You might be still in grave danger of missing your flight because of that long queue. We have been assured that various consolations will be available if one misses a flight, but how much is consolation going to be worth to a holidaymaker on a looked-forward-to tour, or, more important, to a business person who has an important contract to fulfil? I hope I am not being too repetitious. I am not trying to think up theoretical snags; I have experienced them myself. I must therefore ask, and join those other noble Lords who have also asked, for reconsideration about the closing of the facilities at Cromwell Road.
Even if the new scheme proves to work better than expected—and I, for one, shall be only too pleased to find any fears to be groundless—I do not think this is the time for it, with the present crisis demanding conservation of fuel. Air travellers from London Airport must be encouraged
500
to use Cromwell Road instead of motoring out to the Airport. On December 5, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked two Questions on this subject. I was not able to be in your Lordships' House because I was abroad at the time. As a result of the second Question, the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said:
"My Lords, as obviously the Government's desire is to meet the wishes of the travelling public if they can, would the Government invite Members of this House to describe the sufferings that they have gone through at foreign airports, almost all of which use the system which British Airways are now about to adopt?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/12/73; col. 603.]
I, too, have experienced a good many foreign airports. There is one I found particularly exemplary and that was Zurich. I say "was" because it was seven years ago when I last used it and I do not know what the situation there is now. The terminal was in the main railway station or in the precincts of it. You came off the train, checked your baggage in there, and were told you could take any bus you liked out to the airport. You did so when you liked, and you were given the time when the last bus to catch your particular plane would leave, Therefore, if your train arrived early you had time to go and do some sightseeing. The buses left, I think, every 10 minutes or quarter-of-an-hour regularly. Here is a system which we could use at West London, using check-in facilities and a regular bus service. That I think would be a very favourable system.
We have spoken about businessmen and holidaymakers, but how about some of our foreign visitors? We can find many things to criticise British Airways about, but I believe that millions of holidaymakers and business men and women who come to this country from abroad enjoy a large proportion of the services which British Airways have been providing up to now. We want these people to come here. We need no reminder about how important they are to our economy. One of the most sure ways of encouraging anybody from one country to revisit another country is to make him feel confident that his homeward journey is going to be an easy one. I say that the existing facilities at West London Air Terminal can help to ensure this.
In considering public opinion, I also ask whether anyone ever thought of making a trial run with the public? Was

501
anybody asked to try out the new system? I know that I, for one, if I had heard about it, would have been delighted to offer my own services as a human guinea-pig, and if anyone still wants to have a trial run I shall be delighted to take part; my family told me that they would be delighted to take part as well. One final repetition: I still think that this is not the time to make the changes. If they must come, please let them be deferred at least until the present crisis is over.
1.4 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to come here, at considerable personal inconvenience, to support the noble Baroness in this matter. As I have begun in somewhat Saturday morning form, given the state of the Session, may I say also that I find it extremely grieving to listen to Ministers whom we all like and respect, who try to be helpful to us in every way, struggling with a case that is as bad as this. First, the description given of the London Airports has no relation to reality. I suspect that the Minister did not try this out at a rush hour, carrying two suitcases and a baby. I have travelled a great deal. I am perhaps semi-elderly, but from that standpoint I can assure the Minister that Heathrow now is a frightening place. When you enter there you do not know where to go; and there may be as many advisers and as many notices as one likes but you really do arrive bewildered. And if I think of people who do not travel much, or who travel with difficult companions such as children, I wonder what it can be like dealing with one's luggage as well as with one's hand luggage and dependants.
Then, I hope I can sweep off the board one argument that has been used. That is the argument: "Others don't do it, so we can now stop doing it." That is an absolutely horrifying argument. What it amounts to is: "We, here, have discovered an efficient and humane way of doing this. Other people don't do it. We are some way ahead of them. This is very wrong and we must stop it at once." That argument is absolutely untenable and I hope the Minister will not use it in his summing up.
There is then the question (and I am being almost breathlessly brief because the arguments have in the main been used already) of the Underground link, which I do not think has been fully dealt with.
502
It is a point I have tried to press. In terms of the broader management of our affairs, of transport and of this city, there is really no sense in suspending the present facility when we have the Underground in prospect. I am aware that under the new proposals for capital expenditure it may be that the Underground extension and improvement is vulnerable. It ought not to be vulnerable because it ought to have been done ten years ago. But here again there is an inconsequence and a disregard about this decision, for good sense as well as public convenience, which I find to be completely deplorable.
There is one other point which is very important and which has been dealt with very faithfully, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. It is that in our care about consumers we must not totally disregard commercial considerations. The point has already been made that passengers using the check-in facilities in the West London Terminal would certainly not grudge a small surcharge to meet the loss which B.E.A. protest will be made. One final point is that I really cannot leave undisputed a word that the Minister used in his speech. He said that it would not be "practicable" now to change back again. My Lords, that is an incredible word to use. If you take away machinery and alter rooms, you can put the rooms back and put the machinery back, especially as we have been told that some of it—or surplus machinery—should be available. If a public Corporation disregards the widespread opposition to a move of this kind on the part of one of the Houses of Parliament, and goes ahead and takes the risk, then, if that disapproval is maintained, it must be expected to go tack to the point it started from. It cannot say it is "impracticable". It is very inconvenient, and possibly expensive, but that is the risk the Corporation took. So for this, and many other reasons, much more adequately stated than the views I have stated. I remain strongly in support of the noble Baroness's Motion.
1.10 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I have stood side by side with the noble Baroness since the beginning. I am glad to see that she is smiling now; she was looking sad before, although but I do not think she had any reason to look sad. When I saw my name

503
on the list at the end of the Back Benchers, I thought I was going to be the sting in the tail, instead of which I find that I am the ninth nail in the coffin.
I really cannot understand the argument that when you have something you need, something you can boast about, something that everybody enjoys, something that is a splendid advertisement, you then throw it away. It is rather like we have done with coal; we have coal, but we have disregarded it. Now we have a first-class service and we are giving it up. Why? Nobody has given me a proper reason. It is said that it will be replaced by eight porters—I repeat, eight porters.
One other thing that bothers me a little is the question of its being a nationalised service. I have always been brought up by such friends as I have on the Opposition Benches to believe that a nationalised service is a public service—a service for the public—and yet we have the extraordinary position that when, in one of the Houses of Parliament, from all sides of the House, there is the strongest possible expression of opinion, it is disregarded. There is then a Committee set up to pay particular attention to this point and it is completely disregarded.
I am wondering where we are going to in this country. Are we going to be governed by sections of the community or by anonymous boards, and are the Houses of Parliament going to have no authority whatsoever any more? Is a Minister not going to be able to express the views of the House strongly to a nationalised body? If that is so, what is the good of a Minister? I am sorry to have to say this to my noble friend, but quite frankly this is what we have Ministers for. I feel so outraged by the whole thing—I am not going to repeat what other people have said—that I felt that I must express my opinion in the strongest possible terms.
1.12 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I intend to speak only briefly. I am sorry that I was not in my place earlier to-day. I have risen frequently in the past to support the noble Baroness and I do so with the greatest of pleasure to-day. I made a suggestion, not in this House but privately in a letter, that if it was thought advisable for B.O.A.C.
504
to combine Victoria Station with B.E.A.'s Cromwell Road Station, in view of the fact that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are now becoming one unit, this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and that so far as I was concerned I should be perfectly happy to go to Victoria instead of to Cromwell Road, or, alternatively, to some new centre where B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. could operate together with joint check-in facilities, because of course it all centres round the withdrawal of those facilities.
It is very hard for people with cars; even harder for people with cars and chauffeurs—and even harder for Ministers—to understand what it means to the ordinary British citizen. Let us take the housewife going on holiday to Europe, wanting to get to Terminal 1, with three or four children. What a relief it is to be able to get rid, not only of your luggage but of yourself, in a sense, because you are checked in; you hand in your ticket and then you can relax and wait for the bus which is going specially for your 'plane. It is not a general bus. It is going, in my case, for the Belfast 'plane, or it can be for the Edinburgh 'plane or the Majorca 'plane. Instead of that, the place is now going to be turned into a bus station. I have no personal axe to grind because I have nothing except hand luggage when I travel. I am raising this point not for myself, but for the ordinary travelling public.
Finally, at the risk of repeating what everybody else has said, is it not rather incredible, when the Government are urging people to save petrol, to insist on continuing with this system whereby people will be forced to go to London Airport in their own cars if they do not want to wait for a general bus? I hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to what I understand to be the feeling of this House on this fairly important matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has just said, one would think that the Government would be proud that we were the only capital in Europe with these facilities, rather than saying, "Because we are the only place with these facilities we must take them away". I hope the Government will give further consideration to this matter because I. for one, feel bound to support the noble Baroness in her courageous action in pursuing this matter

505
month after month in the face of total Governmental opposition.
1.16 p.m.
TILE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise for not having been here earlier to listen to the arguments that were put forward. I have heard the arguments before, and I agree with them. I am sure that the Government have behaved rather poorly over this matter; I am sure that the British Airways Board have behaved fairly poorly over it and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is completely right. However, I think I shall be the one person who will stick out like a sore thumb. If replacing check-in facilities, or preventing their removal, is going to cost extra money, however desirable, and every other single argument being on the side of the noble Baroness, I cannot really see myself voting for her Motion when we are quite justifiably cutting back on money for schools, roads, social security and things of that nature. If I can be persuaded that no extra money will be spent on desisting from moving these check-in facilities I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who has made a very courageous and totally correct stand. But in a day of financial stringency this seems to me to be an unfortunate sacrifice that we ought to make.
1.19 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I should like to speak, if I may, between the lines, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Twenty five years ago B.O.A.C. selected a slogan to promote business: " B.O.A.C. takes good care of you". That worked, and it helped us to get the Corporation out of the red and into the black, and I think it is some-thing that should be perpetuated. This proposal to abolish the check-in facilities at the West London Terminal is not in line with that philosophy, and I believe that to do away with those facilities is a thoroughly bad thing. I remember sitting in with the late Lord Douglas of Kirtle-side and others when we were considering the building of the Cromwell Road Terminal, and I well remember that one of the big points made in its favour was that the check-in facilities there would be a big attraction to the public and of great benefit to the finances of the Corporation. I believe it worked out that way. I think
506
it would be wrong to do away with it and I support the Motion.
1.20 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, had been present in our discussion, he might well have come to a different conclusion from that which he expressed a few minutes ago. But I think the noble Earl should know that he is a lone voice, apart from that of the Minister. This morning we have seen the finest example of British phlegm since the wreck of the Hesperus, when the boy stood on the burning deck. Noble Lords will remember that in the vulgar parody of the "Wreck of the Hesperus", the crew were playing cricket. There stood the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, this morning, standing at the wicket, keeping a straight bat although the pitch was fathoms deep in water. It was, I think, rather a sad experience to see the noble Lord batting away there, apparently oblivious of the fact that he was putting up as good a case as is possible in defence of what really amounts to faceless bureaucracy. One of the things that I find distressing about this whole problem is that we should be accusing of faceless bureaucracy two organisations which have a magnificent record of public service. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who has just spoken deserves a great deal of credit for the high standard set by B.O.A.C. over the years, which B.E.A. I think also equalled.
My Lords, when one comes across cases of indifference to public feeling and to public wellbeing which are apparent at the moment, one is in a difficulty to know how to react. I suppose one might really take either or both of two attitudes. First of all, one could switch to other airlines which seem to be more sensitive to the requirements of their customers. At the same time, most of us, I think, have a prejudice in favour of flying on British airlines, and some of us have a prejudice in favour of flying on State-owned air-lines, although I am bound to say I recently flew with Caledonian and I have never had better service. I think it is not without interest that Caledonian are, of course, keeping their check-in facilities at Victoria Station. I think British Airways would be well advised to follow the example of their more entrepreneurial competitor.

507
The second way we can react is one which I think would be a very grave step to take; that is, to adopt measures to end the immunity which nationalised industries at present have from interference in their day-to-day working. I think that would be a retrograde step to take. If nationalised industries are to justify this immunity, they must show themselves to be peculiarly sensitive to what the public they are serving require. I agree very much with the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, when he spoke about the way that B.E.A. have treated this House and the Government during the last few months. They have been guilty of indifference; they have been guilty of deviousness and of discourtesy both to this noble House and to Her Majesty's Government. I am bound to say that even if the Government do not mind being made a monkey of, I believe this noble House does. I do not want to go into the details which have been so brilliantly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I do not want to emphasise the lack of solicitude for the old and the infirm, or the difficulties of mothers with children. I do not want to emphasise the rather fatuous train service arrangement which seemed to be offered as an alternative to the present practice. All those arguments have been fully rehearsed.
To-day, for the first time, I have had a letter from British Airways, a very courteous letter from Mr. Rutledge, which is an attempt to help but which, frankly, I find quite unconvincing. When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, talks about percentages, I find them absolutely irrelevant in this matter. What is important is that one and a half million people a year want to use these services, and it is no good saying the figure has dropped from 32 per cent. to 23 per cent., or whatever it was. There are one and a half million people whose views deserve consideration both by British Airways and by Her Majesty's Government. Nor am I influenced by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about the lateness of buses. He says, "All right; they have made buses start 15 earlier." I should not mind making them start half an hour earlier if I were going to get the same sort of service I now get at the West London Air Terminal.
508
The noble Lord, the British Government and British Airways must think again about this matter.
My Lords, I have two final points that I should like to make. The first is that the attitude the Minister adopted this morning and the attitude of British Airways suggest that going by air is something which is infinitely discreditable, from which we should be saved if we are to have all the benefits we hope to have in the world to come, and something which, if we persist in our foolishness, must be made as difficult and inconvenient as possible. There can be no other explanation of this disingenuous argument of the noble Lord that no other European capital enjoys the same facilities are we do. If they do not, they ought to. If we have these facilities, we ought to be proud of them; we ought to be advertising them, we ought to be boasting about them. We ought to be showing that we in Britain, in London and in this great public Corporation set a standard of service of which we are proud and which we hope to continue indefinitely.
My Lords, my last point is that I have great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has fought as bravely as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on this issue. We know about the road position between here and Heathrow; we know how inadequate the road communication is; we know how difficult it is at times of special pressure. We know how overloaded Heathrow can be. And if the Government and British Airways go ahead with this proposal, there may be further jams on the road. There may well be overcrowding and further inconvenience at Heathrow. Most of us know what can happen at Heathrow at times of a fuel crisis like the one we have at the moment, when the departure of planes is uncertain. We know what can happen at the height of the holiday season and when there are bad weather conditions. If we can siphon off from Heathrow to Cromwell Road Terminal or some other terminal in London some of the would-be passengers, we shall be making a great contribution to stopping the further deterioration of the services which are available. No; the Government must really look again at this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he could not bully or cajole British

509
Airways. Of course he cannot. Nobody is asking him to do that. But everyone who has been a Minister knows that quite often, without any powers whatsoever, it is possible to persuade organisations, both public bodies and private organisations, to follow the course of reasonableness and to devote themselves to the service of the public. It is no good the noble Lord trying to get away from this. The Government have a responsibility. He has great powers of persuasion usually in this House, but not. I think, to-day. Perhaps those powers of persuasion can be more fruitfully exercised on British Airways. I hope the noble Lord will tell them that their attitude just will not do and that they must think again.
1.29 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I speak again? I am flattered by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, to my powers of persuasion. I must try again. If I did not succeeed last time, I will try again now in answering the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, asked us to follow the course of reasonableness, but may I put one or two points of reason and reasoning to him? The facts are these. In the first place, the number of people preferring to use these check-in facilities has declined over the years, both proportionately and absolutely. As I mentioned in my speech to-day, there has been a drop of nearly 100,000 B.E.A. passengers since 1969. So the talk of siphoning off traffic to the check-in facilities at Heathrow seems to be going against the tide. The second point—and I do not think this has quite got over to noble Lords, if I may say so—is that the figures for passengers at the moment using the check-in facilities are not 1½ million; they are just about half that. The noble Baroness gave the figures; I think it is 780,000 using the check-in facilities at the present time.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I added to that, of course, the number of foreign airlines passengers, which brought my total to 1⅓ million.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, may I quote to the noble Lord, who has been kind enough to refer to me, from a document which I
510
have received to-day from the British Airways Board? The document tells me that the actual number of passengers checking in at West London for B.E.A. flights has fallen over five years by about one-eighth, to just over three quarters of a million. The number of people checking in there for other airlines has been fairly constant at about half a million. That, I realise, adds up to about 1¼ million, not the 1½ million that I said. Nevertheless, even 1¼ million people cannot be treated with contempt.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, noble Lords, unfortunately, did not allow me to finish my sentence. The point is that the foreign airlines have now ceased to use the check-in facilities; they are not now using them. We now have experince of how this works. I went out to see how it worked, and it seemed to me to be working extremely well, even though Terminal 2 is very much more crowded than Terminal 1. What merges here is that the situation is more crowded where the services have already been changed than where it is proposed to make the change as from January 1, 1974.
I wonder whether I may put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, on what he said. He said that the poorer people cannot afford other ways of getting to Heathrow. But, of course, there are other ways of getting to Heathrow at the present time for the poorer people. They can—and many do—take an Underground train to Hounslow and go by special bus from Hounslow to the airport. The same applies to the services that run from Waterloo to Feltham, and I am told that in normal times a great many people use those services Again, there is a direct bus from Feltham. So it is wrong to say that everyone who does not use the check-in facilities goes by car to Heathrow. Many other people also come by bus from other parts of the country direct to Heathrow. This means that, in a way, a special preference is being given to Londoners over those who come from other parts of the country.
The second point the noble Lord made was about the check-in facilities, and the point was also made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, about the assurance that had been given in this respect. I should like to amplify what I said earlier about what the British Airways Board are doing

511
at the present time. The question is: will the new arrangements cause any significant number of passengers to decide to travel to Heathrow by car or taxi rather than use the buses? We do not need only to guess about this because experience gives the answer. The new arrangements, as I have said, have already been operating for passengers on foreign airlines since the beginning of October. During the two months. October and November, the number of foreign airline passengers using the terminal increased by nearly 4 per cent., after the check-in facilities had been withdrawn, in comparison with the same months last year, whereas the use by B.E.A. passengers diminished, although the check-in facilities were being used.
I know that British Airways are anxious to simplify arrangements, so far as possible, for their short-haul services. They want to reduce formalities to a minimum, and make it virtually as easy to go along to an airport and catch a flight as it is to go along to a railway station and catch a train. This is the point of the check-in facilities now being established at the flight gates; that is, the passenger loading gates at the plane itself. They are establishing these check-in facilities, I am told, as from January 1 for their international services as well as for the internal services, where this already applies. This means that people can go direct to the flight gate with their luggage and check in there. As I have said, a very great number of people do this on the short-haul services at the present time. Furthermore, if their bus is late there is already a late check-in desk where they can check in. The services that are being established now will enable people to arrive earlier at Heathrow, and many people want to do so, because they like to go to the duty-free shop, and so on. So I really do not think, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Gainford, that his fears that he is going to be hit hard are in any way justified. He may be right; I may be right. But we shall never know until we try.
I come now to what has been said about the appointment of a Select Committee. This was the point my noble friend Lord Reigate made particularly, and so did my noble friend Lady Loudoun. Originally, of course, there was a Motion down on the Order Paper for
512
the appointment of a Select Committee, and if this had remained down the Government would not have opposed it. I want to say to the House that, whatever happens to this Motion, the Government would accept a proposal to set up a Select Committee, if this were the will of the House, so that the whole matter can be fully looked into, and it will be possible also to see what happens after the changeover on January 1.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, could my noble friend answer this question, in view of what he has just said? Does this mean that if this were done the check-in facilities would not be withdrawn on January 1?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; I specifically said that we will see what happens after January 1, after the changeover has taken place. I take note of my noble friend's point on this. I am not sure whether he was in the House when Lord Reigate made his speech, but he made the point that there was a difference of opinion as to what had happened in the past. It would be possible to vindicate or otherwise allegations of dishonesty, and all the rest, against the B.A.B. As I have said, the Government would not oppose the setting up of a Select Committee.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, this is extremely important for some of us. Am I to understand that if the Motion for a Select Committee had remained on the Order Paper the Government would have accepted it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
LORD REIGATE: In that case, may I ask whether the Government have considered at any stage putting down on the Order Paper for to-day their own Motion to appoint a Select Committee? That would have pleased me, anyway.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, we did not consider that because there was already a Motion down on the Order Paper, along with the original Motion. I think the noble Baroness had one day's gap between the time she put down her first Motion and the second one. We did not consider that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said that Heathrow is really a frightening place and that the passenger does not

513
know where to go. I would suggest that this is eminently a matter for the Airline Users' Committee to take up with the British Airports Authority. If there are deficiencies, this is the sort of work they were appointed to do. He also said that he doubted very much that it was not practicable to change back. It is not just a question of putting back a few desks at the check-in point. A great many arrangements have been made; there have been negotiations for the redeployment of staff with the trade unions, and all the rest of it, and it would be very difficult at this stage to make these changes.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I certainly had in mind that it can be done, but I also had in mind the deeper point of principle that these things should all be done, in the view of the Minister irrevocably, at a time when so much adverse opinion in one House of Parliament was known to exist.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I appreciate that, but it is only in this House that this matter has arisen—or by far and away mainly in this House. My noble friend Lady Emmet talked about no notice being taken of the Airline Users' Committee. I must say again and again to her that this is simply not true. The British Airways Board have gone all the way to meet the Airline Users' Committee except in regard to the guaranteed bus arrival; that is, except to say that the plane will wait for passengers who check in at West London Air Terminal. This is the essential point about the checking in. In other respects they have gone a very long way.
As to the question of services which the British Airports Authority are providing, there is already an escalator and a lift. What they are doing is providing a second escalator and a second lift. It seemed to me, when I saw it yesterday, that the second escalator was in a very advanced state of construction, but the second lift was not in such an advanced state. We all know the reasons for this kind of delay, and I need not elaborate on them.
May I say in conclusion that I venture to advise your Lordships not to put the Government in the position of having to request the Airways Board to do some-thing that the Government do not think right. I am sure that my noble friend
514
Lady Emmet would not wish Ministers to be in this position. She said that if Ministers are not prepared to express a view, then what is the use of a Minister. Surely, the Minister must express his own view in this matter, and not the view of somebody else. I am absolutely certain that the British Airways Board will be taking a very close look at every-thing that has been said in this House to-day, and that it will certainly not go unnoticed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting into a very dangerous constitutional position here.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I accept that that is so, but I am just about to deal with that very dangerous constitutional position. The Motion involves calling on the Government to do some-thing which no Government have been willing to do ever since nationalisation was established; namely, to interfere with the day-to-day management. Parliament has laid down by Statute the extent to which Ministers may intervene in the running of nationalised industries. If changes are to be made in the established practice, then it is right for both Houses of Parliament to make them. It would be quite wrong for one House to seek to require the Minister to intervene whether by way of direction or request in a particular matter.
The other point is: what does the national interest require at the present time? There has been reference to the use of fuel. Precisely one of the reasons why this change was undertaken was to economise in the use of buses, which means manpower and fuel, and this will happen. The more the buses are used the better, and goodness knows! there is enough scope for them to be used. I have shown that at present the buses are being used only to about one quarter of their capacity.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, if we are going to have a bus every 10 minutes, how is that going to economise on fuel? You can now get on any bus you like, provided you have got rid of your luggage, at West London Terminal.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand that this is not encouraged. You are intended to take the bus that

515
is assigned. Passengers are called forward at a particular time for the particular bus assigned to their flight.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, apparently the Minister does not travel by bus as much as I do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I used to. I do not just for the time being.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, surely the Minister will agree that since 'planes leave London Airport at extremely frequent intervals, a matter of minutes, a little ingenuity would make it possible for one bus to serve several 'planes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this happens up to a point, but surely it is not the general rule. The whole point of the arrangement is to have a regular flow of buses at 10-minute intervals at normal times, scaling down to 4 minutes at peak times. I am convinced that this will give a much more efficient service.
I am being distracted a little from what I was saying. I was saying that if changes are to be made in the established practice, it is for both Houses of Parliament to make them, and it would be quite wrong for one House to seek to require the Minister to intervene.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting as I did not hear the beginning of the noble Lord's speech, but I did hear the noble Lord say something that I do not understand. He said that no Government have ever interfered with the day-to-day running. If my noble friend looks at the Motion, if the Government do not have power to interfere, it asks that they should request the Board to defer the proposed withdrawal. Surely there is nothing to stop a Government asking a Board to postpone something.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should have thought that this very definitely is an interference with the day-to-day management. Of course, it will involve extra expenditure.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, as an ex-chairman of a nationalised industry, may I say that your Lordships would
516
be surprised if you knew how frequently certain pressures are generated, and, by Jove, they work, believe me.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am quite convinced that people as staunch as the noble Lord will be able to resist pressure when it is appropriate. The noble Lord, perhaps indirectly, is using the point of the national interest again, and we are bound to ask: what does the national interest require? Surely, it must be that we should promote in every possible way efficiency and economy—and this is the point made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. It cannot be right to require, or request, the use of 220 buses when 180 buses would do, with the extra fuel consumption and manpower that that would involve. It cannot be right to hold up the completion of a change which is designed—whether noble Lords yet appreciate it; and people very often resist a change up to the last moment and then appreciate it when it has been made—to improve the operational efficiency of the airlines in the interests both of the passengers and of the taxpayers.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but how much will it cost to stop this operation? As I said in my few words, I have been totally convinced that the Government are wrong, but can he tell us what the actual cost is going to be? I have to be told what it is before I can be persuaded to go into the Government Lobby in the possible event of a Division.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if my memory serves me aright—and the noble Baroness will perhaps remember the figures as well—I think the figure given for the immediate hold up was £170,000. But added to that would be the day-to-day loss arising from the changeover, and I understand that other costs would be involved as well.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I wanted the Minister to get to an end, not to delay him; but can he please tell me what fee has been paid by the foreign airlines. That is quite important.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I have not yet been able to get this.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I asked the Minister at quarter past eleven, I think, for that figure.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I appreciate that, but the figure has not yet reached me and, quite honestly, I do not quite understand the importance of it. A new contract was made, and the real point that is to be made here (I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King) is that the figure that was forgone by receiving lower payments from the foreign airlines is not an offset against the extra cost of running the present system. In calculating the extra cost of running the system, this forgoing of the particular payment from the foreign airlines was taken into account.
My Lords, I do not think it can be right to burden the airlines, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, says, with a service which the Board considers to be outdated and which is not provided by or for the airlines with which it is competing, and certainly is not now provided here for the foreign airlines because they have negotiated an arrangement which excludes it. It cannot be right to require them to forgo, even for a short time, the benefits flowing from the conversion of space at West London Air Terminal to badly needed office accommodation. Lastly it cannot be right to interfere with the second stage of the change—and bear in mind, my Lords, that this is the second stage of the change—when the first stage of the service to foreign airlines, as I indicated at the start of my winding up speech, has proved itself to be an outstanding success.
My Lords, I now have the figure asked for by the noble Baroness. Half a million pounds per annum was received as revenue from foreign airlines before check-in facilities were removed, but I am not quite certain whether there will be some continuing revenue received from them for the use of West London Air Terminal. The noble Baroness has asked the question and I have merely given her the answer.
I have said that the British Airlines Board have offered to co-operate with the Airline Users' Committee in monitoring the effects of the change in the next few months, and that offer has been accepted. I believe that the Committee is still not
518
convinced that the change will be for the better, but I say once again that in these circumstances the only thing to do is to put the matter to the proof, to let the B.A.B. proceed with the change and see how it works out in practice.
1.53 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Well, my Lords, I think the House will be glad that I am the last speaker—according to the Rules of the House I must be the last speaker. I do not think anybody has envied the Minister to-day; he has had a quite indefensible case, which I think has got worse and worse as it went on. Every speaker in this House to-day, apart from him, has spoken in favour of the Motion; only the Minister has spoken against, and I do not remember a similar case before. With reference to the noble Lord who came in later, I would only say that British Airways have thrown away money by removing the check-in facilities for foreign airlines: to wit, half a million pounds we have now been told, which is what they said they would lose by keeping them. So I think by any arithmetic, even mine, that cancels out and should be sufficient to bring him into my Lobby. They have thrown away additionally all the concessions they had for that airport—the various stationery offices and other things. That would offset any losses.
My Lords, the Airline Users' Committee does not think that the British Airways Board have gone any way to meet it. We did ask British Airways whether they would give figures for the late running of buses in 1973, as well as 1972, but they could not provide them for 1973. The noble Lord has now given them, however, and they are even better from my point of view and worse from the Board's. The figures show one plane delayed every three days, and my heart bleeds for the people waiting for the one plane every three days which is delayed by buses coming from West London. I am also rather shattered to know that one of the reasons hidden from us up to now was to put offices where the check-in facilities now are.
May I emphasise what my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale has said? I am not interested in percentages. I have the figure: it is 1,126,000. The figure which my noble friend gave showed that

519
1,125,000 are at present using the check-in facilities.
My Lords, I want to close by thanking everybody for coming here to-day at very great inconvenience, for this Motion, and I hope that noble Lords, who have spoken solidly for the Motion, with the exception
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
2.4 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before we go on to other business, may I ask the intentions of the Government? I take it that the offer that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made, that the Government would now welcome the setting up of a Select Committee, stands; and perhaps the Government themselves might like to put down a Motion to that effect. On the whole, I personally prefer Select Committees to be set up by Government
of the poor Minister, with whom I sympathise, will now carry it to success in the Division Lobby.
1.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Platt, L.

Auckland, L.

Hacking, L.

Porritt, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Hayter, L.

Reigate, L.

Bourne, L.

Henley, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Burton of Coventry, B. [Teller.]

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shackleton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jacques, L.

Shannon, E.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L.

Kennet, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stocks, B.

Derwent, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L.

Diamond, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Strathspey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Summerskill, B.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Elles, B.

Monson, L.

Thomas, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Gainford, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Northchurch, B.

White, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Onslow, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Craigavon, V.

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

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ferrers, E.

Limerick, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Furness, V.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Motion, but if not we could put a Motion down.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I must apologise first of all for not being here during the debate. I came straight here from a Cabinet Meeting, without the intervention of lunch. The House has recorded its views on this matter in a decisive way, and I think the right thing to do now is for my noble friend and myself to consult with our colleagues on the point of a Select Committee and on other points as well.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord's last remark implies that the Government will now take heed of the clearly expressed opinion of the House, and will carry it through, if not by direction at least by request.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House will not expect me to make any comment on that at this stage. What I can do is to repeat what I said, that it would be right for my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and myself to consult our colleagues.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to go on, but there is an urgency. There is only about a week, and with Christmas coming it is vital that the action should be taken now, before the facilities are withdrawn.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I quite understand the urgency, my Lords.

AIR CORPORATIONS DISSOLUTION ORDER 1973
2.6 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Draft Air Corporations Dissolution Order 1973, laid before the House on November 29, be approved. This Order, providing for the dissolution of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., marks a turning point in the history of British civil aviation. It is the culmination of the policy on the reorganisation of the nationalised airlines pursued both by this Government and by our predecessors since the Edwards Committee on Civil Air Transport was set up in 1967—the policy which my honourable friend the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping described as "evolving but consistent".
I do not think the House would wish me to go into the detail of this matter to any great extent. I should just like to say that good progress has been made towards the merger of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and that the Board have been able to win the general acceptance of employees of the two Corporations on the formation of British Airways. The unanimous report produced by their Cargo Working Party, made up of equal numbers of management and staff representatives, is evidence that the employees do accept the merger. Your Lordships
522
will be glad to know that the British Airways Board, with union support, intends that similar working parties be set up to examine the scope for achieving greater productivity in other major parts of the group. It is only by seizing every opportunity to make more efficient use of the group's activities that British Airways will be able to hold and strengthen its leading place in the fiercely competitive world of civil aviation. It is perhaps worth emphasising that it is a fiercely competitive world in view of the debate we have just had.
May I very briefly refer to the Order's main feature. The most important provisions are contained in Articles 2 and 3, which have the effect of dissolving B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. on April 1, 1974, and simultaneously transferring to the British Airways Board all the outstanding property rights and liabilities of the two Corporations Your Lordships may well ask why this Order is being introduced now if the dissolution is not to take place until April 1. The answer is because of the mass of detailed legal formalities which have to be completed round the world before the two Corporations can be dissolved. For example, traffic rights now held by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C have been transferred to the British Airways Board, but the overseas property rights and liabilities of the two Corporations are not so simply or so quickly transferred to, and vested in, the British Airways Board as they are in the United Kingdom. In some countries the British Airways Board have found that the authorities there are reluctant to conclude matters before final Parliamentary approval for the dissolution of the Corporations has been obtained. It is for this reason that the British Airways Board have asked that the Order should be presented for Parliamentary approval at this stage so that they will have the early months of next year to bring all their negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion.
I should perhaps explain the background to Article 5 of the Order which refers to certain overseas territories. Civil aviation licensing regulations in United Kingdom Colonies and other dependent territories do not apply to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in respect of journeys and routes specified by the Governor of the territory concerned. The Order will continue

523
exemptions in the listed territories by substituting references to "the British Airways Board" for references to the two separate Corporations in the appropriate regulations. This substitution of course involves no issue of policy. It simply ensures that the status quo will remain unaltered when the B.A.B. takes over responsibility for the air services from the two Corporations.
I began by saying that this Order marked a turning point in British civil aviation, and before I finish I should like to echo the sincere tribute which my noble friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping made in another place to all those who have, by their hard work over the years, helped to win for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. their leading positions among the airlines of the world As he said, few industries can rival the growth record of the airlines over the past quarter of a century. The contribution which the two Corporations have made to the development of British economy is quite incalculable. I know your Lordships will join me in wishing the British Airways Board even greater success in the next 25 years than it has achieved so far. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Air Corporations Dissolution Order 1973, laid before the House on November 29, be approved. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
2.12 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I understand that this business is really formal. Nevertheless, it would be improper to kiss B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. goodbye without saying "Thank you" to these two organisations and the people who make them up, as we, I will not say sign their death warrant, but sign their marriage documents. I have the sort of affection for "le BEA", as it is known in Europe, as I had for the Great Western Railway. It has transported me to many parts of the world most agreeably. I think your Lordships would wish this House to say "Thank you" to these two great companies as they marry and come together to create what may be an even more important and more effective organisation. The forecasts, as your Lordships probably know, are that because of this merger the profits will rise by £100 million in the first five years of the merger,
524
which is about £20 million a year, and £40 million a year thereafter. This will be achieved only if the right form of organisation is applied to the merger.
From what I have read it does seem that intelligence is being applied to create what is really a super-Corporation. The fact that the Joint Manpower Committee has agreed upon two very important moves towards rationalisation—and, as I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the techniques applied by the Joint Manpower Committee are going, to be applied in other aspects of the Corporation's work—makes me hope that a correct administrative structure will be provided for the new super-Corporation. All that I can do at this point is to give a blessing from this side of the House to the creation of the new Corporation; to say "Thank you" to B.O.A.C. and to B.E.A. and to wish the new British national airline every success in a competitive world—where, if I may underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, British airlines have been extremely successful. When many major companies lost money B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. seem to have achieved the important element of making a profit. May the new Corporation long continue to do that!
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, during the debate on the previous Motion before the House British Airways received a little rough treatment. I should like to pay my tribute to the overall picture of British Airways and pay also a tribute to B.O.A.C. and to B.E.A. as they disappear as separate Corporations. May I add my tribute to the staff of both those Corporations, and indeed to the staff of the new Corporation, for the splendid service they provide throughout the world and for the high reputation they enjoy for safety and for the provision of good service. At the present time British Airways face a very difficult period along with many other British airlines. There is a fuel shortage and a cutback in services and these create acute difficulties.
I should like to ask one question of my noble friend. It has been asked of me by a number of British airlines why the Government should not treat airlines as public transport, and why airlines should have been singled out as the only means of public transport to suffer a cut in fuel supplies. My noble friend will

525
appreciate that in Europe only Italy has cut the fuel consumption of its airline, and therefore our competitors are enabled to increase their share of a market which the British airlines have retained and kept to the fore. It would be a tragedy if a loss of passengers to British airlines occurred. Once passengers or routes have been lost to an airline it may take months or indeed years to recover them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something helpful on this issue.
2.18 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful for the tributes which have been paid by noble Lords on both sides of the House to the achievements of the British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporations and also for the good wishes expressed for the success of the Airways Corporation of the future. As to the question asked of me by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, it is not for me to comment on the position adopted by other European Governments. The British Government did not consider that it was right or feasible to exempt the British airlines completely from the fuel economies which are being asked for from other sections of the community. It should be remembered that aviation fuel, kerosene, may be used for other purposes than flying aircraft. The Government believe that some rationalisation of services could be made without creating inconvenience to passengers, given that there have recently been a large number of empty seats on scheduled flights. This has proved possible. My noble friend will have seen the comments in the Press this morning on putting back some of these services.
May I also say to my noble friend that I do not think his fears about losing traffic to foreign airlines are justified, for the very good reason that other countries are as anxious as we are to economise in fuel and not to run light loaded, although this may not be so over the Christmas period, and we appreciate that problem. But it follows that it has been possible to negotiate with other airlines for the mutual reduction of services. So I do not think that my noble friend's fears on this account are justified, and I hope that he will accept that we have had regard to the needs of the travelling public at the present time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
2.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Aberaare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 24 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 30, line 34, at end insert—
("(3A) In consequence of the amendment in Part III of Schedule 5 to this Act relating to an offence under section 40(5) of the 1972 Act (contravention of construction and use regulations) in Part I of Schedule 4, in column 5 (disqualification) of the entry relating to section 40(5) of that Act—

(a) in paragraph (a), after the word,, "paragraph (a)" there shall be inserted the words "or paragraph (c)"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "Discretionary if committed by carrying on a motor vehicle or trailer a load which, by reason of its insecurity or position, is likely to cause danger, but subject to the exception above").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34 and, with the permission of your Lordships, to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 39. This is a simple Amendment to which I have good reason for believing that during this festive season the Government may well give some consideration and support. It is to remove an anomaly in penalties for offences which involve infringement of different paragraphs of the Construction and Use Regulations relating to the safety of loads on vehicles. The maximum fine now is £200, and there is discretion to disqualify if the offence involves infringing the regulation that the weight and distribution, packing and adjustment of the load shall be at all times such that no danger is caused or likely to be caused.
Where there is an infringment of paragraph 2 of the Regulation which requires that the load at all times shall be so secure and in such a position that no danger is caused or likely to be caused by reason of the load, or part of it, falling

527
off, the maximum fine is only £50, and there is no discretion to disqualify. In paragraph 3, which prohibits the use of a vehicle for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause danger, or be likely to cause danger, the maximum fine in each case will now be doubled by Schedule 5 to the Bill as it stands. The Amendments under consideration would make the increased maximum fine of £400, and the discretion to disqualify applicable to all three types of offence. So far as I can see, there is no reason for the difference here.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment, coupled with Amendment No. 39 which the noble Baroness discussed as well, is to remove anomalies in the penalties for offences which involve infringment of the different paragraphs of the Construction and Use Regulations relating to the safety of loads on vehicles. This is indeed an anomaly, and we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Baroness for having seen this and for putting down these Amendments to get it right. We are more than happy to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of Part III of Road Traffic Act 1972]:
2.23 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 35.
Page 37, line 40, leave out ("more acute") and insert ("substantially more severe")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, Schedule 3 deals with certain Amendments to the Act of 1972. The Amendment which I propose is a purely verbal one. I do not think it raises any matters of principle; it is just a question as to what are the right words in which to describe the aims of this part of the Schedule. Your Lordships will remember that at present you have to sign a declaration every time you get a new driving licence, which is once in three years, to say that you are fit in various medical respects to drive a motor car. If there are to be opportunities for getting a licence almost for life, or, at any rate, until the age of 70 without further questions being asked, the question arises as to whether a person who knows he is suffering from a chronic disease
528
should be compelled to report, or be told that he must report, if at some stage this chronic disease becomes more serious. The examples which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, gave at an earlier stage of the Bill were sclerosis, by which I think he meant multiple sclerosis, arthritis and cataracts.
The point is that if this chronic disease becomes more serious, so that the person is seriously handicapped, then he must declare it, even though he has not reached the age when he has to apply for a new licence. The words used in this Bill are that if the licence holder becomes aware that a relevant or prospective disability from which he has at some time suffered has become more acute since the licence was granted, then he must report it. To my mind, the words "more acute" are not appropriate. As your Lordships will know, "chronic" relates simply to time, and a chronic disease is one that goes on for a long time and is very often incurable. Therefore, to the layman, "chronic" very often means incurable, but it does not necessarily have to be. A chronic disease may have acute exacerbation and thus become more acute. A good example of such a case is a person who suffers from bronchitis. For instance, during the winter he may develop a more acute phase of his bronchitis which puts him to bed with a high temperature for a few weeks, after which is is able to go back to what is for him a normal state of acute bronchitis. Therefore, in medical parlance, "acute" is the opposite of "chronic".
I hope that I am not speaking for too long on what is perhaps a minor point, but I should like to draw to the attention of your Lordships this kind of case. It is well illustrated by cataract, which gradually (over perhaps twenty years) becomes more and more serious so that sight becomes gradually more limited. Without any kind of change in timetable—any kind of acuteness—, it gradually reaches the stage when it is no longer proper for that person to be driving a motor car. For that reason, I would prefer the words "more acute" to be substituted for the words "substantially more severe". Since putting down this Amendment, I have wondered whether the words "substantially more disabling" would not have been more

529
appropriate, but I am quite happy to leave it to the Ministers in charge of the Bill to supply whatever they feel to be the most satisfactory wording.
Before I leave this point, I should like to ask your Lordships not to be put off by the fact that I have used the word "substantially", because whatever words one uses it is not possible to find a term which does not include sonic kind of subjective judgment on the part of somebody. Medical affairs are not black and white. You do not have a cataract which is not disabling on Wednesday but by Thursday morning has become seriously disabling. You have to describe it in comparative terms, even if you go a long way round and say that "it has reached the stage, in the opinion of the person concerned or that of his doctor when …". But you are nevertheless making judgments. I do not think there is any wording which will get us out of that difficulty altogether. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should have thought this was appropriate, for the adjective we normally use in relation to disability is "severe". We do not talk about people being "acutely disabled" but about being "severely disabled", and I should have thought that this was the right language to use.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for their observations. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, this is a matter of agreeing, and the important thing is to get it right. In all cases, what we are trying to do is to see that there is a duty to declare the onset of a new disability or the worsening of an existing one—and I am talking here of people with licences up to the age of 70. As your Lordships know, this is provided for in the new Section 87(1)(a) to the Road Traffic Act, 1972. In suitable cases, it might well be possible for the Secretary of State to grant an "until 70 licence" to somebody who is suffering from a disability provided that assurance can be given that the Secretary of State will be notified when the disability has worsened so that he may judge when the time has come to exchange the "until 70 licence" for a three year licence
530
or even revoke the licence completely. I am advised that the noble Lord's Amendment incorporating the word, "substantially" would leave a licence-holder free to judge when the time had come to disclose the disability affecting his driving more than it did when the licence was granted. This, I have to explain, would be unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that the word, "acute" has special significance in a medical context by contrast to the word "chronic", and that the word, "severe" would be more appropriate. I would completely agree and would not quarrel with those words, but there is, however, no evidence that the words, "more acute" in Section 87(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 have created any difficulty. We are dealing with words which are in an Act of Parliament already and have gone through thte test of the law courts. If this were amended, the Act would have to be amended as well. The word before "more acute" removes the possibility of the type of misunderstanding that may be worrying the noble Lord. While therefore "severe" might be acceptable if used in Sections 87(3)(a) and 87(1)(b), there is no case for departing from the well-tried words, "more acute". We feel the addition of the word "substantially" would not be acceptable. I accept that it is playing with words, but, bearing in mind that the test of law is established in this matter, and that it has not given rise to any trouble in the past, I ask the noble Lord to consider this matter and in fact leave it as it is.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we have already spoken to this Amendment earlier on. This is the main substance of what we were discussing on Amendment No. 18. I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) In the said section 101(7), as it applies in relation to an application for the issue of a new licence made on or after the day appointed under section 27 of this Act for the coming into operation of this sub-paragraph, for the words "three" and "ten" there shall be substituted the words "four" and "eleven".")—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
2.33 p.m.
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 52, line 20, column 4, at beginning insert ("3 months or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount and your Lordships will agree that in moving this Amendment, which I now formally move, it will be advisable to deal at the same time with the subsequent Amendments on the Marshalled List in the names of the noble Baronesses and myself, as the main points I desire to make apply to them all. I understand that the Government's object in bringing in this new provision is to reduce the number of motor cases at present being heard in the Crown Courts. The way this is being done is by withdrawing from the magistrates' court the right to impose imprisonment, and thus the defendant will not be able to opt for trial at the Crown Court. However, the prosecution will still be able to ask for the case to be heard in the Crown Court on the ground that it is of a very serious nature, or that the defendant has a bad record. It may well be that as many cases will reach the Crown Court as at the present time because, as your Lordships are aware, the number of cases of imprisonment are very small in so far as the magistrates' courts are concerned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Janner, but he is so far on a wholly false assumption. We are discussing a series of Amendments, and he says that the main object is to remove cases from the Crown Court. The first two sets of Amendments relate to cases which cannot go to the Crown Court anyway.
LORD JANNER: I am dealing with a number of cases—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want the noble Lord to be under a misapprehension here, and I am sorry to interrupt him. He said that the main object of the Government in all these Amendments is to remove cases from the Crown Court. That simply is not so. The first two Amendments deal with offences which are already summary,
532
and summary only. I think that should be clearly understood by the House.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I naturally accept the point of view of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and I will deal, therefore, with the first two Amendments. I thought I would save the time of your Lordships' House as much as I possibly could, but apparently that would not be quite in order. As your Lordships are aware, at the present time magistrates are entitled to deal with some cases where custodial sentences can be given by them. The Magistrates' Association, which your Lordships will no doubt know is a highly efficient body representing the vast majority of magistrates in the country, has considered this matter in depth, as has the representing body of the justices' clerks, on a number of occasions. They have given careful consideration to the case put forward by Her Majesty's Government in support of the provisions contained in this Bill, but they are still con-convinced that these contentions do not answer their reasons for opposing the terms of the Bill. The magistrates and justices' clerks have a vast experience in dealing with the type of case which is being considered. Justices' clerks are, in the main, professional lawyers, and of course specialists in cases which come before the magistrates' courts. The magistrates are men and women who have been chosen in consequence of their suitability for this work, who now have to be trained before they are allowed to sit in Court.
Today they sit in the Crown Courts together with the judge, with the result that their decisions on sentencing can out-vote the opinion of the sitting judge. That is an extremely important matter, because in fact what the Government are trying to do now is to say that they are not capable, or that they ought not to be entitled to form a decision in those cases in which imprisonment is involved. They will have that power in the Crown Court, in the event of their disagreeing with the judges. It must be clear that magistrates are anxious to see that the cases are treated in a just and effective manner. I hope that the Government will now accept, on reflection, their proposals, taking what I have said into consideration, as some of your Lordships on both

533
sides of the House who are magistrates have done. They are particularly concerned, as am I, that the removal of custodial sentences will not have the result desired by the Government and themselves. They certainly have no personal interest in the matter, as you, Lordships are fully aware. Their object, as is mine and that of my noble friends, is to have a satisfactory procedure for dealing effectively with cases which come before them.
The Bill provides for the prosecution, but not the defendant, to ask for such a trial as can bring custodial sentence. The magistrates will have the right to decide whether the case shall go to trial in the Crown Court or be heard in the magistrates' court. In view of what I have said, this is obviously not desirable. The variations of what kind of access is taken in respect of a case does not depend only on the prima facie evidence which the prosecution has been able to gather—I would point this out and I hope that the noble Viscount will appreciate the point I am making—but upon the actual evidence which comes out in the court in the course of the hearing of the case itself. It may very well be that the prosecution in presenting its case—I should like to draw the noble and learned Viscount's attention to this because I think it is a very strong point—would not be aware of the serious nature of the offence itself until the witnesses themselves have been cross-examined and the magistrates have put their questions to the witnesses and have seen them and formed conclusions, not only from the verbal evidence given but also from the manner in which the evidence was given. Thus, in a number of cases which the prosecution might have considered not to have justified a sentence of imprisonment, and which would result in the case not being sent to the Crown Court, it might very well have appeared to be clear to the magistrates, on hearing the evidence, that the prosecution had been wrong in deciding the case to be a serious one—wrong, not through any fault of their own, possibly, but because the actual facts and the examination of the facts were not available.
Surely, this is one of the main reasons for a trial resulting in a proper decision. The idea that the imposition of a larger
534
fine alone can provide a deterrent is not feasible, for reasons which I think your Lordships will readily appreciate. What does it mean? Any court, of course, has to decide what sentence is an appropriate deterrent or penalty. It has to take into consideration in the cases concerned what are the financial or other circumstances of the defendant. A fine of £400 could mean very little indeed to a person who is in affluent circumstances, and that person would be entirely protected against any custodial sentence in his case, where trial would be only by the magistrates' court. Likewise, with a man earning £20 or £30 a week, he cannot afford £400 any more than he can afford the present maximum. The maximum fine would have little effect in the majority of cases coming before the magistrates' court, but the important point is that the public will get the impression that bad motoring offences are not now considered to be serious, and this will have a psychological effect on the dangerous driver. It will become known, or it will be thought, that we are going soft or dangerous—reckless in respect of reckless and drunken driving.
In addition to what I have just said, there are certain side effects of the withdrawal of the right to imprisonment in a magistrates' court which are of great importance and which have not been dealt with by the Government; nor is an Amendment down of any nature to cover the points. That is the problem of people who do not pay their fines. How are the Government going to deal with the position? It means, obviously, that people can ignore the imposition or the result of the imposition of a fine, and they cannot in many cases—in most cases, if not in all—be brought to a court for the purpose of an imposition other than the fine. If this Bill is passed in its present form a person who does not pay his fine cannot, as I understand it, be brought back by warrant to the court. It may be that the Government have another explanation of it, but that is my view of the matter. He may come from an unknown address.
I think an Amendment should be passed to give the magistrates' courts the right to issue warrants. I say this in passing. At present they are not in a position to do that; they would not be in a position to do that if the Bill were carried as it stands at present. The taking away of the right to imprison would also take

535
away the right of the court to detain a person for various motoring offences. This would prevent courts from making detention centre orders, attendance centre orders or community service orders. At one stage the noble Viscount said that he was considering this matter with regard to detention orders (although he later withdrew it with regard to detention orders); but what has happened? We are faced at the present time with a position which does not cover those points at all, and consequently the situation is not being met.
The Minister may recall that the London branch of the Magistrates' Association conducted a survey in depth on the two senior attendance courses, at Greenwich and at Manchester, and drew up a report which strongly recommended that more senior attendance centres should be opened, where there should be attendances on Saturday afternoons for two or three hours at a time until the full number of hours had been completed. The Home Office decided that as they were then about to bring into force community service orders they would not open more senior attendance centres until the experiment of community service orders had been tried. Senior attendance centres are used to a very considerable extent for persistent road traffic offenders, not necessarily for the more dangerous offences. It therefore follows that the Government expected such offences to receive community service orders. This will deprive the Bill of a very useful treatment for the young offenders in the adult court, both as regards the attendance centres and the community service centres. Detention centres where a defendant can be sent for three or six hours are also frequently used for motoring offences and they act as a useful deterrent for the young offender, to prevent him from getting deeper into crime. These, too, will not be available for use.
Perhaps even more important is the effect on the juvenile courts, where attendance centre orders and detention centre orders are useful forms of treatment for motoring offences. Juveniles who make a habit of riding without "L" plates, without a supervisor, with falsified licences and who indulge in various forms of road traffic offences are being dealt
536
with in this way. By taking away these powers from the juvenile courts, what are they left with? They are left with fines, or making a supervision or care order, which in effect to-day means very little indeed.
When the Children and Young Persons Act came into force the dates for bringing into effect the various provisions were left open. One of the provisions was abolishing detention centres. I would point out to the noble Viscount that this Government decided that not only should junior detention centres not be closed but that more should be opened. In other words, there has been a decision for the time being that detention centres are very useful treatment centres for juvenile offenders. As I have said already, motoring offences are offences for which the juvenile court can make a detention centre order and it is quite absurd that these powers should be taken away and the juvenile court left practically powerless. There would seem to me to be no reason why the Government cannot support this Amendment and restore to the adult magistrates' court and juvenile court the possibility of imposing some useful deterrents and treatment, even if they did not send the adult to prison. I greatly hope that the Government will think this imperative.
My noble friends and I have confined the Amendments to what we consider to be some of the most serious matters, matters which involve personal injury. I am sure my noble friends will be talking about other matters, but the Amendment I am moving at present deals with failure to stop when an accident has occurred. Why this should be considered in the manner in which the Government want to deal with it I cannot understand. This is not a matter of deep research. Everybody knows very well, and certainly anyone who has practised in a court knows very well, that it is a most serious thing for a person to fail to stop when an accident has occurred. It may very well mean that a person has been killed in consequence of that accident, and if the driver neither stops nor gives a report, then obviously he is committing a most serious offence, even though he may be innocent of anything which may be considered a crime in consequence of what took place. But the fact is that these cases are not infrequent. It is an extremely serious

537
matter, as are the other offences to which I have referred.
My Lords, we are coming towards the end of the consideration of this Bill in this House. We have left out a very large number of offences—I have a list here—and there are dozens of offences with which we are not proposing to deal at all. Perhaps they may be considered later on in another place. They may consider that some other offences ought to be dealt with in a similar manner to the offence in this Amendment. But surely the time has come when the Government must realise that they must take the opinion of experienced people, the man or woman who is daily on the job and who knows what is happening, who has had the handling of these matters and has never abused them but who is going to have his or her hands tied if the Bill remains in its present form. In these circumstances, the House will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that this and the subsequent Amendment should be accepted. I beg to move.
2.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE (HOME OFFICE) VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I wonder if I could intervene at this stage, because at the end of the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I think, would like to contribute to this discussion. I ought to tell the House the results of the thoughts that I promised the noble Baroness I would have about some of the points she has raised, but perhaps I may first say a word about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Janner.
I entirely agree with him that he has picked the hard core of this offence. I am not absolutely sure that tampering, which is the subject of an Amendment, is part of the hard core, but for the most part I agree that here we are really dealing with the crux of the matter, and the noble Lord has selected it, quite rightly. I also entirely understand that this is a matter upon which people feel very strongly. I hope that there is no thought among the body of magistrates that there is some exercise here by the Government whereby we are denigrating the good sense and the experience of the magistracy; that we are in some way undermining their status; that we are devaluing their position; that we are "knocking" the magistrates. There is absolutely
538
no question of this, and I said so on the previous occasion. I see the noble Lord nodding his head, but I must emphasise this part, because it is too awful that anybody should think the Government are doing this. We have no doubt whatever about the value of the magistrates' experience, and the work they do; it is immensely appreciated, and there is no question of our trying to undermine them in any way.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Viscount permit me? I am sorry to interrupt and I am grateful to him for allowing me to do so. I do not think anyone would suggest that there is any denigration intended by the Government. What we say is that unfortunately the noble Viscount and his colleagues have not appreciated the points that have been made by the magistrates, who are really in a better position, if I may say so with due respect, than those handling the matter for the Government.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have made that point. I will now come to those points, in a minute, if I may. I do not think we have failed to appreciate the points; I think we have appreciated them perfectly well, and I should like to set out the arguments on them.
It is just worth repeating (I do not want to go through the whole of my speech in Committee) that if it is a matter of showing how serious one considers these offences to be, there is the provision for a greatly increased fine and there is a retention of the power to go on indictment to the Crown Court. May I just say that if we are really arguing this point on the basis that the prosecution did not know, until it heard the evidence cross-examined or the witnesses questioned by the magistrates, that this was a very serious offence, then I am afraid I do not think the cure for this is to retain the power of imprisonment in the magistrates' court; the cure for that is to get rather more efficient prosecutors. Because, quite frankly, if they did not realise that this was a very serious offence, having looked at the evidence which they themselves collected and were going to present, having looked at the record of previous convictions, I am afraid it is not an efficient prosecution. It cannot quite honestly be argued upon that basis.

539
Let us look at some of the details of what the noble Lord has been arguing about. I am not going to give all the figures again about the number of people who were imprisoned, because I did that before, and I think I probably convinced the Committee on the previous stage that this is in fact a power, whether it is actual instant imprisonment or indeed suspended imprisonment, which is used very seldom by the magistrates and very much as a last resort. The noble Baroness, if I may say so, on the last stage of the Bill really gripped this subject when she said, if I may paraphrase her, I hope accurately, that the magistrates do not want the power to imprison simply for the sake of imprisoning people. That is what the Government say, too, and I cannot make this too clear. We wish to take an opportunity that we have in the Road Traffic Bill to do away with the power to send people for short terms of imprisonment when we think that there is no requirement to imprison them for the protection of the public. This is our stated general policy. We wish to implement it on occasions when we think we can, and here we have such an occasion.
Let us look at some of the consequences of trying to carry out that policy and to put into practice what we preach. Let us first of all see about the burden on the Crown Court. Again I am not going to go into the statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, has just suggested that the result of this Bill may very well be that there will be as many cases in the Crown Court as there were before. I should be surprised if this were so. It is really my noble and learned friend's sphere of activity, but why is it that 96 per cent. of the options to go for trial for the drink and drugs offences under the Road Traffic Act go at the election of the accused, the defendant? Only 4 per cent. go on indictment at the election of the prosecution. Why is it that 100 per cent. of the dangerous or reckless driving cases that go to the Crown Court go on the election of the defendant, and nil per cent. on the election of the prosecution? Does this indicate that if we make this change we are going to have the same, or anything like the same, number of cases tried by
540
the jury in the Crown Court? I would suggest ont.
Let us look at one or two of the other consequential but, I accept, extremely important matters that I promised the noble Baroness I would look at. I accept that if one removes the power to imprison one removes a number of other things as well. I have considered very carefully with my advisers whether there is any way round this difficulty. I should like to tell the noble Baroness and others who are interested the conclusions we reached. I am afraid they are very disappointing, but this is not for the lack of my trying. I hope that this may be accepted.
First of all, let us take the community service orders. I agree that community service orders are, so far as we can see, very promising, or reasonably promising, as an alternative to imprisonment. But those who took part in the discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill last year will know that these orders were specifically tied to a situation where otherwise the person would have gone to prison, either directly or on a suspended sentence, and they were intended to be a replacement for prison. The whole experiment—it started in six areas—has been worked upon that basis. The magistrates are operating it on that basis, and the whole thing is being monitored and tested on that basis, to see whether it is a viable alternative to imprisonment. We shall never come to any sensible conclusion about this if we change our datum in the middle.
I have been convinced by those who say that we cannot now change the criteria upon which community service orders can be imposed. No longer are they to be the result of the tremendous discussions that took place on the Criminal Justice Bill on this subject only eighteen months ago. No longer is this to be maintained any more. We are totally to change the situation. If we are to test out these community service orders, to see whether they are effective—and I pray that they will be—we must stick to our guns and use them as a genuine alternative for imprisonment, at any rate until we have experimented with them. With a slightly heavy heart I have to come down in favour of the argument that we must keep these as an alternative to imprisonment. Therefore, if imprisonment goes, then the power

541
of the magistrates on these road traffic offences to use the community service order must go, too. It is logical, and I think it is logic that makes sense.
Then we have the whole area of the young offenders. Here again I should dearly like to be able to report some progress. I know that there are in the detention centres and borstals a fairly substantial number of young men who have committed road traffic offences. May I preface this part of my remarks by saying that if what they have done is to take conveyances without consent, which is what many of them have done, this offence is prosecuted under the Theft Act and not under the Road Traffic Acts, and it is not covered by this provision. So that we can leave that out of account altogether. That is quite an important consideration, because quite a number of those who are in the young offenders establishments are there for that offence. They may have been sentenced for dangerous driving as well, but the reason they are there is because it is a t.w.o.c. case.
What about the rest of them? Borstal was never available to the magistrates: they have to commit to the Crown Court. The detention centres at the moment are available, but they are imprisonment, There is no doubt, if you read the letters of those who are in a detention centre, that they regard it as imprisonment; and so do their parents. And, I must say, when I have been to see them so do I, Let us see on Lord Janner's case how much use the juvenile courts that the noble Lord was talking about have made of this power. In 1972 there were 19,000 cases of motoring offences and 300 junior detention centre orders were made. Again, my Lords, this is the very margin of the activities of the courts and it is only in very extreme cases that they make these orders.
Regarding attendance centres, the same 19,000 motoring offences for the junior attendance centres (that is from ages 14 to 17: the juvenile court cases) only 184 orders were made. That is to say in 19,000 cases in those two categories, only 484 attendance centre orders were made. This is very much in line with the general penalties being handed out by magistrates to offenders as a whole. I have to add that we are expecting the Report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System very soon. In this Bill I have to
542
resist legislation which changes the penalties available to the courts for young offenders, because we must wait and look at this matter as a whole. I should not be surprised if the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, were to agree with me on that. We want to debate the whole subject and get the thing straight.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I have already had the Report.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords; but the public have not. Therefore I have to add this footnote that on the young offender side we must wait and we ought not to make a change by this Bill. The noble Baroness mentioned hospital orders, and I have looked this up, too. In 1972, I think, about 1 million cases came before the magistrates' courts. That total includes motoring cases—it may be that there were 1 million motoring cases. Only four hospital orders were made, and I should have thought that such orders, which have to be based on a certain amount of medical knowledge in advance, meant that the cases were suitable for indictment. Therefore I think we are at the very fringe of the problem.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Would the noble Viscount permit me to interrupt him, before he extends his argument, which is very convincing? I think we all know that the moment you change powers of punishment because you have not needed to use them very much until then, the very next day you get a case about which you say, "If only we had been able to do this …". I think it is a slightly dangerous argument; one could almost say that we do not really need as many laws as we have because so very rarely do we have to deal with people under them.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hear my noble and learned friend saying that we do not need so many laws, and I should think he is absolutely right; and I certainly agree with him.
But may I come on to the last of the consequentials, which is the question of finance? I know that magistrates feel very strongly about this aspect. I have looked into this as well. The only thing that is lost is the power to compel attendance before the fine is imposed. That

543
can be done only if there is power to imprison. Take away the power to imprison, while you can fine somebody in his absence you cannot compel him to be there. On the other hand, if he does not come, he fails to attend at his peril, because the magistrate can impose whatever penalty he thinks fit and the defendant has no opportunity to complain that he cannot afford the fine or to ask for time to pay. That is the only thing that is lost.
Let us see what is not lost. Without his attendance the magistrates are not empowered to disqualify him from driving. Therefore if he is not there he cannot be disqualified: he has to be sent for, and he will not be disqualified unless he turns up. Equally, if he is fined, either in his presence or in his absence, he can be arrested and brought before the court if he does not pay. So the only thing that is lost is the power to compel attendance before the fine is imposed. And I would just add, finally, that of course if the defendant is arrested because he does not pay and is then brought back to show cause why he does not pay; and if the magistrate goes through the assessment of means and all that sort of thing, and gives him time and the defendant still does not pay, he can be sent to prison for default under the ordinary fine enforcement proceedings. It may be marginally more cumbersome, but there are still substantial reserve powers to deal with people who do not pay their fines to bring them before the magistrates to explain why and, if their explanation is not satisfactory, to send them to prison.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. Does the Bill enable a warrant to be issued for the arrest of a person who has failed to pay a fine?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, because the existing law does. There is no necessity to change the law; that matter is perfectly satisfactorily dealt with under the law as it stands. I have accurately explained the position so far as I know. Of course I shall apologise if I am wrong, but I believe my advisers have got it right and that I have accurately set out the situation.
544
There it is, my Lords; this is the argument. I went through the figures and the arguments at Committee stage. I know that feelings are very strong on this matter. I suggest to the House that the number of occasions on which magistrates wish to use custodial penalties are precisely those cases which can be identified by an efficient prosecution beforehand and dealt with on indictment; that we are reinforcing our view of the seriousness of these offences by putting up the fines; and that we have, albeit a little reluctantly, come to the conclusion that we have on non-custodial sentences. I should just add that day training sentences remain, because they are not dependent upon prison, but apart from that I have been through them. I cannot go into details, but the reasons are I think fairly valid reasons, or at any rate they are respectable, and can be argued. It is now for the House to decide: do we or do we not wish to take this opportunity to take away prison as a penalty where we think that there is no requirement that the courts should have it in their powers? That is the issue.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER. My Lords, I must apologise for not having been present at the beginning of this discussion, but I gather we are discussing a series of Amendments together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords; we are discussing Nos. 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I should like to say that it seems to me that they are on a rather different footing, and that the case is very much stronger in regard to No. 37, which I think is the one immediately before the House, than it is in regard to some of the others.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think we are adding confusion to confusion. Originally, we asked if we could move these Amendments together. The Lord Chancellor pointed out that of course there was a difference, and my noble friend then said that we would deal with the first two. So we are not discussing the last batch of Amendments.
3.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. I was under the impression (I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I gather I am from what the noble Baroness says; and it is important to me, because I have got to put the Question) that we were discussing the series but voting separately on the individual Amendments. But if it is now the case that we are discussing only Nos. 37 and 38, then I hope that we shall act on that basis and discuss the later ones later. It may be more convenient, because the reasoning behind the later ones is certainly quite different from the reasoning behind the first two.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Except this, my Lords, that I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not make another speech.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: In those circumstances, my Lords, am I in order in speaking solely to No. 37?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I thank the noble and learned Lord. No-one could be more enthusiastic about community service orders than I am, and for very good reasons, and nobody could be less enthusiastic about sending people to prison who are not a danger to the community. But I would suggest that a person who demonstrably is a danger to the community is a person who fails to stop after an accident. A great deal depends, I know, upon the nature of the accident. It can be quite trivial; and in these cases the magistrates impose a fine and nothing further happens. The person found guilty is probably very shocked by the proceedings, and is no danger to the community. But we all know of cases where people cause accidents and very serious injuries and fail to stop. I should have thought that this sort of case—a very much stronger case than the other situations covered by these Amendments—was one in which a reserve power for the magistrates to imprison should be kept. It is quite true to say that the prosecutor would realise the seriousness of the case and ask for it to be sent to the Crown Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It cannot be.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: In that case, my Lords, I misunderstood the noble Viscount. There seems to be a slight difference of opinion between the legal authorities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend has failed to read his brief. I am only looking at the brief. We are talking about Amendment No. 37. The brief says that both these offences are purely summary offences.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: We really must get this straight, my Lords. This is absolutely right, but the others on which I was also speaking are hybrids. I was talking about indictments because I thought that we were discussing all the Amendments. It is perfectly true that the first two are not hybrids, but those in the other Amendments are.
BARONESS WOOTTON or ABINGER: My Lords, now that our learned legal authorities are of one mind, this strengthens my case, because the let-out of the case going to the Crown Court is no longer available.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not anxious to weaken the noble Baroness's case. I was asking that she should not proceed on a false hypothesis, even if it was strengtheing her case to do so.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am sure that the learned and noble Lord always acts with judicial impartiality. May I come back to my case; that is, that the offence of failing to stop after an accident varies from the trivial to the extremely serious. It is true that magistrates may impose very high fines, but experience shows that the maximum fine imposable for any offence is usually a very long way away from the maximum fine actually imposed for an offence. I should have thought that if we were going to accept the principle—which I would fully endorse—that one only imprisons in extreme cases persons who are a danger to the community, here we have such a case. Magistrates can imprison persons who burgle houses. No, I am wrong—magistrates cannot imprison persons who burgle houses; they can imprison persons who burgle premises other than dwelling houses. I should have thought that a person who causes serious accidents involving injury is a

547
great danger to the community. He may be well-to-do and quite able to pay a fine of £100, or a fine of £50 or £60, which is more probable, and he may not be deterred from acting in the same way again. I would strongly urge upon the House that this Amendment is one which stands rather in a class apart from those which follow.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but may I quote two examples which I know personally, and then bring them together? Rather late one night my wife and I parked at the kerb in order to look at a shop. She wanted to do so. We both got out of the car, fortunately. Just at that moment a driver came along at about 70 m.p.h. and drove smack into the back of my car on the offside wing. He almost ran up the wing. I saw this. He slid off, went on, and no one ever found him. No one was hurt.
The other example I want to quote is the case where my wife and I were coming home again late one night when the roads were deserted. We saw a very serious accident. I should not like to say which driver was at fault, but a car crossing the main road double carriageway was hit in the rear portion very hard by another car again travelling at great speed. In this case the person had to stop because his own car was damaged and he was injured. It so happens that my wife and I were the only people there.
I combine these two stories because this is exactly what would have happened had my wife and I been in my car on the other occasion. There were four people in the car in front. The man in the front nearside seat was clearly dead. A young girl had come through the back window of the care. Her legs were hanging over the back of the seat and her body was curved over the bonnet. She was bleeding very badly from the mouth. There was simply no one there except my wife and I. I held that girl in a horizontal position while my wife rang for an ambulance. I held her for 20 minutes at least, and your Lordships may imagine the strain that caused. But later I had the satisfaction of learning from the hospital that my action had undoubtedly saved her life. I think that any driver with a sense of what should be done surely would report such an
548
accident. Having looked at the Schedule I see that the fine which may be imposed is now £100. Both morally and also from the point of view of the damage which may be caused one asks, "Is this enough?" If there is an answer, in the sense of action capable of being taken elsewhere, I should like to know. I apologise for intervening, but this is a matter of which I had personal experience. It was a shocking experience and so I was moved to say the few words that I have said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, clearly the House will have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Collison. It must indeed have been an agonising experience, at any rate on the second of the two occasions which he described. Nothing which I am about to say is designed in any way to qualify what I have just said. But I think that we must try to clear our minds about these first two Amendments and what we are talking about and what we are not talking about. My view has always been that this kind of Amendment in this kind of case is very much overdue. May I say two things by way of preface. I share to the full the respect and admiration for the Magistrates' Association expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. As the noble and learned Lord whom I see below the Gangway will know full well, Lord Chancellors are President of that Association ex officio. I do not think that they could carry on their work in this particular department of their business were it not for the mutual co-operation and respect with which the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Magistrates' Association regard each other. Therefore, nothing that I say must in any way be construed as critical either of the Magistrates' Association or of magistrates in general. When I refer to them separately it is because I believe that the Association is a 98 per cent. "closed shop". So, happily, there are few magistrates who are not also members of the Magistrates' Association.
The other thing I want to say is that I do not want in any way to deny the basic seriousness of the two offences or the three offences which we are discussing under the first two Amendments; under Section 25(4) of the principal Act, failing to stop after an accident and

549
giving particulars or reporting the accident; under Section 9, tampering with motor vehicles, and regarding the second of the two Amendments, driving uninsured or unsecured against third party risks. These are serious matters and they are commonly dealt with by monetary penalties of a relatively serious kind. Part of this exercise is to ensure that they are covered by monetary penalties rather more serious either than the maximum now allowed or that magistrates commonly inflict.
May I also say that I am commonly depicted by people who criticise my utterances as being a sort of hard-liner on crime who spends his time chewing glass and bleeding at the mouth. The fact of the matter is that I do not want to be soft on crime at all. But, equally, if anybody knows the state of our prisons at the present time and if anybody reflects on the little value to a man's or girl's or boy's character by taking away their liberty for three months and then letting them out again, all I can say is that they would be as keen as I am to get rid of short sentences of imprisonment whenever we can, partly because it does no good to the criminal who is treated in this way—if he is going to prison, he ought usually to go for a longer period—and partly because it makes almost impossible the task of those who wish to make our prisons, badly designed and disgustingly sanitated as they are, slightly more civilised places. I feel that strongly, and I think we are losing sight of it in talking about relatively minor motoring offences. I start therefore with the strong conviction that prison is altogether inappropriate in these cases. I also say that it is quite wrong to talk as if we were taking away from the magistrates their right to send to prison. That is not what we are doing. We are stating, if Parliament supports us, that we do not think prison is an appropriate penalty to impose for a type of offence. That is Parliament's business and, with the greatest respect to the Magistrates' Association, not magistrates' business.
As a matter of fact—and I can speak with a long experience of magistrates' courts going back to 1933—I have never known a sentence of imprisonment inflicted for any of the offences covered by these two Amendments, although I think some of them were not offences during part
550
of my experience at the Bar. I find that my experience is incomplete, because taking failure to stop, which the noble Baroness described as the worst offence, I find that there were 13,500 cases of conviction in 1972 for that offence, of which 38 only were sent to prison—something like 2 per cent. I ask the House to consider what this reflects. Does it mean that a given bench of magistrates, having 100 such cases in the course of about five years, will select two appropriately bad ones and send those miscreants to prison? My Lords, it does not. Do not let us deceive ourselves. The reality is that it reflects a slightly inconsistent sentencing policy on the part of some benches. What in fact one wants to avoid more than most things is an inconsistent sentencing policy about relatively minor offences in different parts of the country. If prison is used as a deterrent to that extremely limited extent, I should have thought that the case for abolishing it was absolutely overwhelming.
My Lords, I move on from that to the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. He began by talking about the alternative sentences which the noble Baroness talked about in Committee stage. I share most of my noble friend's predilection for these novel methods of sentencing, but I should like to put a rather more broad and perhaps philosophical point about the treatment of the young in magistrates' courts, These alternative methods of dealing with young people—community service and attendance centres—are designed as alternatives to prison. I beg the House to accept that they are not designed as additional nasty ways of treating young people. They are designed in order that when a young person comes before you for whom prison would otherwise be the inevitable sentence, you give him something other than prison. They are not designed to substitute, in a case where an adult would get a fine, a kind of alternative to prison for a young person. It is by treating young people in this way that magistrates get themselves a bad name. Young people are to be treated for the purposes of sentencing at least as kindly as adults, and I should think more so.
The next thing I should like to say is this. What one has to consider in this

551
case is not the kind of horror put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Collison. Quite obviously, if a man drives dangerously, drunkenly or carelessly, fails to stop and is later caught, he ought to be prosecuted for failing to stop. But that is not the case you posit when you are discussing the maximum penalty for that offence, because if the man is caught he will be punished for driving dangerously, drunkenly or carelessly, and, I hope, punished severely. The case you have to posit for the logical discussion of an offence of this kind is not the case where the man has driven dangerously, but the case where he has not driven dangerously and can be prosecuted only for failing to stop, unaccompanied by the aggravation of any other crime. The question that the House must face is not what you would do to such a man if he had driven dangerously: the answer is that you would treat him as having driven dangerously, and this offence would be subsumed under the dangerous driving offence and a nominal penalty, perhaps, attached in addition to cover it. But you have to consider the case where he has done nothing else except fail to stop. If you really face that issue, my respectful submission to the House is that, in the light of sentencing policy which we have been trying to persuade the public of for years now, short sentences of imprisonment are to be avoided if possible and the only answer you can give, if that offence is isolated from any other criminal offence, is that the person ought not to be sent to prison.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it is with very great diffidence that I interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I think it must be some time since he has heard these cases in the courts. It is a fact that the only convincing evidence that can be brought before the court is evidence of failure to stop, although there may have been a very strong probability that he drove dangerously, and so forth. I do not raise the question of drunken driving, but where very serious injury has been caused to somebody and the driver has not stopped, I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that there is a great a priori probability that he has a sense of responsibility or guilt about it, and in any case it is the only charge which will lie.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness is shocking me more than I liked to be shocked. If there is no evidence that that man drove dangerously, he must not be punished for another offence on the assumption that he may have driven dangerously. If the only charge which lies is failing to stop, and nothing else, then I would submit that prison is an inappropriate sentence and that a sentence of three months, even if you inflicted the maximum, would do no good. This is an attempt to turn away from the sentencing policy, about which I had thought Parliament was fully agreed, and to do it in relation to an offence for which custodial sentence is totally inappropriate if it stands by itself. If it does not stand by itself, then I respectfully submit to the House that the penalty should be inflicted for the offence which is proved and not for any offence which may be suspected.
I fully agree that the offence of failing to stop is one which ought to be treated seriously, and I hope I have said nothing which does not imply that. That maximum penalty is being multiplied by four, but I still maintain that the maximum penalty for that offence alone ought to be a monetary penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, attempted to ask: "But what if he does not pay his fine?" Apart from the technicalities, which have already been answered by my noble friend so I will not repeat them, the short point, as my noble friend demonstrated, is that that situation arises when anybody is fined. That, if it is to be accepted, would be an argument against fining anybody. The fact is for a very large number of offences a fine is the penalty inflicted by the court; indeed, for a very long list of offences it is the only penalty the court may inflict. In my respectful submission, to say that the fact that a man may not pay his fine is a reason for imposing a sentence of imprisonment in the first instance, is to put the cart before the horse and move away from the kind of liberal approach to sentencing policy which I feel sure we all want to see. I submit that on these two cases the sentence of imprisonment is obsolete. The length of sentence contemplated will do more harm than good, and the power should be swept away, as in many other cases where there

553
is an option to send to prison for three months.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, there are two points which I, as a serving magistrate, feel that the noble and learned Lord, with respect, seems to have overlooked. Regarding his very able argument about the use of such alternatives as the community service order, and that it should be used only instead of imprisonment, I think he is overlooking the great difficulty that many magistrates' courts are in every day in these particular times when they do not want to send people to prison. So far as I am concerned—and a great many colleagues in my court and in other courts take exactly the same view—magistrates get to a stage where they are either at the end of the road with, for instance, a young person, and the idea of paying a fine or even a disqualification has either been tried before or does not work, and they want to use the community service order instead of imprisonment. It becomes a fatuous argument to say that the courts would send them to prison. Taking it quite coldly, magistrates may want to say that the person should be sent to prison, but in fact they would rather use a community service order instead. They cannot do so, however, because according to the Criminal Justice Act the order can be used only instead of imprisonment. I would say that this and that provision ought to be made for magistrates' courts to be able to use these alternatives.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Baroness used, perhaps inadvertently, the example of driving while disqualified. Nobody denies that prison for driving while disqualified is an appropriate sentence; that is not what this Amendment is dealing with.
BARONESS BIRK: I did not say that, my Lords. What I said was that we had often tried disqualification; that has been used but then the person comes before a magistrate for another offence. I think this means that the whole aspect of sentencing ought to be looked at. Why on earth do the Government not wait for the James Committee Report? The James Committee are sitting at the moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but the James Committee have
554
nothing to do with this Amendment at all.
BARONESS BIRK: I am sorry; I am confusing the Amendments.
My Lords, I do not want the right of imprisonment: I want the right to be able to use other methods. I also want the right to be able to compel the defendant to come to court, not on a warrant when he or she has not paid a fine, but to ensure they have to go to the trouble of coming to court. For many people the actual appearance in a court is really part of the penalty. I object to what I call a "post office method" of dealing with these matters. As the noble Viscount said, the defendant cannot be compelled to attend, and that does away with what should be in some cases a more personal relationship between the court and the defendant.
3.40 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg to disagree with the conclusions he has formed from some of the arguments he has used. Let me put it in a simple form. If, in fact, the magistrates have sentenced very few people to imprisonment, although there have been many cases and many offences committed, does it not show that the magistrates themselves are capable of deciding whether imprisonment should be inflicted? They have experience and ability. I say this with the greatest respect, but some of us have practised in their courts, and know this to be the case. The fact of the matter is that magistrates have before them thousands of cases a year and they do not sentence people to imprisonment unless they are satisfied that this is the only way in which the case can be dealt with. Under this Bill they are deprived of that possibility. I say that that is entirely wrong.
With regard to the point the noble Viscount made in relation to failing to stop, if a person fails to stop he may regard it as a trivial matter, and motorists, unless there is a possibility of sentencing a person to prison for this offence, will regard the whole thing as trivial. It may well be that the consequences of an accident have not been fully understood by the person who has failed to stop. It is highly essential that any person who fails to stop should be

555
liable to a term of imprisonment if the magistrates think this is appropriate, apart from any other offence which he may have committed. This is my view and I think it is the view of the magistrates and they are entitled to express it. I do not want to detain the House any longer; we are getting towards the end of the day. Many arguments could be used. I am hoping your Lordships will go to a vote on this matter. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the magistrates—the practical people in these matters—should not be deprived of the possibility of imposing imprisonment, which carries with it the points that have been made about the detention and other orders.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I call the next Amendment I think my noble friend wishes to make a statement.

RAIL ACCIDENT AT EALING
3.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will answer the Private Notice Question which was asked earlier, by way of a Statement.
Let us put it this way: a youngster is sentenced and his Saturday afternoon is affected and he is prevented from going, say, to football matches. That in itself is not a very terrible thing. But to that young person it is a great deterrent from continuing the kind of action that had taken place and caused him to be sent to an attendance centre. The position, in my view, is very clear, and I hope that your Lordships will vote in favour of this Amendment.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Janner, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Collison, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Monson, L.

Snow, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Phillips, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Hacking, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Roberthall, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grenfell, L.

Onslow, E.

Amory, V.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Auckland, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Polwarth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bradford, E.

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

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Furness, V.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

I very much regret to inform the House that at 5.37 p.m. last night an 11-coach passenger train from Paddington to Oxford was derailed when travelling at speed between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing stations. Ten passengers were killed and 53 injured, 8 of them seriously enough to be still detained in hospital.
The House will wish to know that my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries has received a message of sympathy from the Queen and Prince Philip which, at Her Majesty's request, he has passed on to the Chairman of the Railways Board. My right

557
honourable friend the Prime Minister has also sent a message to the Chairman. I know the House will join with me in expressing most deep sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed and with the injured. The police, fire and ambulance services were on the scene within five minutes of the derailment. I should like to acknowledge the magnificent way in which they and the voluntary services carried out the work of rescue. It is also right to mention with gratitude the immediate help given by drivers from local depots; they have called off their non-co-operation for the time being in order to get things straight as soon as possible. I am not able at this stage to inform the House of the cause of this tragic accident, but I understand that neither vandalism nor the recent repairs to the track at this point were any part of the cause. One of my Department's Inspecting Officers went to the scene last night and the Chief inspecting Officer will be holding a public inquiry as soon as possible.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply to my Private Notice Question. I am sure the House will wish to join with Her Gracious Majesty and Her Majesty's Government in their expressions of sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident, and with the many injured. In the case of many accidents in the past, members of the public who crowded to the scene have made the work of those capable of dealing with the injured more difficult. In this case I would echo the words of Commander Payne of the Metropolitan Police, who praised the public for their co-operation and, as he put it,
"instead of having to contend with a large number of sightseers, those who have been here have been very helpful".
I am sure this House would wish to thank those who did come and who were helpful, and those who, realising their incapability of helping, stayed away and left the roads clear for the ambulances and the other services.
Also, at a time when railwaymen are not particularly popular, I as a railway-man
558
should like to thank the Government for their expression of gratitude to those railwaymen who forgot their immediate difficulties with their employers, who turned out and are helping to do everything possible to clear things up. Guesses as to the cause of the accident would be very ill-timed at the moment. We must await the result of the inquiry of the Chief Inspecting Officer. When his report comes, we shall have to consider that; but for the moment I end where I began, by echoing the expression of sympathy made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her Statement, may I join with noble Lords on behalf of my colleagues in expressing our deepest sympathy with the relatives of those killed and injured in this accident. May I also express our admiration for the police and the ambulance and hospital staff in the admirable work they have done. I should like to express our admiration for those members of the public who live near where the accident took place and who, as we understand, opened their houses and gardens in order to assist the injured and those who were doing the wonderful work of relief.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, may I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Champion and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their expressions of sympathy for those involved in this disaster, and for their acknowledgement of the great help given by the public in this matter. We are grateful also for their expressions of admiration for the police, fire and ambulance services, and for the many residents who live near the accident and came forward to help. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his acknowledgement of the Government's statement of appreciation of what the railwaymen have done in this particular circumstance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the former Member for Oxford City, I should like to express my personal distress at what has happened.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
3.58 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 19, column 4, at end insert—
("or
(c) for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause or to be likely to cause danger;
£400 in the case of an offence of carrying on a goods vehicle a load which, by reason of its insecurity or position, is likely to cause danger.")—(Lord Janner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 12, column 4, leave out ("£200") and insert ("3 months or £200 or both").—(Lord Janner.)
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I should like to support this particular Amendment, No. 40, rather than either No. 41 or No. 42. From what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble friend the Minister have said, it is generally recognised that magistrates do not imprison offenders for any offence unless from their experience there is no alternative. Also, I hope it is recognised that the vast numbers of motoring offences which are dealt with in the magistrates' courts make the members of the bench more experienced than, with the greatest respect, some learned judges in higher courts. The Amendment which I wish to speak to, No. 40, deals with reckless and dangerous driving generally, driving or attempting to drive when unfit through drink or drugs, and driving or attempting to drive with blood alcohol above a prescribed limit. My noble friend, the Minister, gave us some figures during the Second Reading speech which I believe prove that the power of imprisonment is necessary for the magistrates' courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think we may be in a bit of a muddle and it may be my fault. Amendment No. 40 is about driving uninsured. I think the noble Baroness is speaking on No. 41 at the moment, because she is
560
talking about alcohol, and I am wondering where we have got to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has called No. 40, but if it would assist the House I beg to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
4.2 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 20, at end insert ("or 4 months or both".").—(Baroness Phillips.)
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I am sorry. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As I was saying, my noble friend the Minister said that there were 8,439 findings of guilt for dangerous and reckless driving, of which only 113 offenders received immediate prison sentences and 131 received prison sentences which were suspended. In my submission, those figures surely show not only the tolerance of magistrates but also that there are people in our society whose conduct warrants imprisonment. The Minister said, in my view quite rightly, that imprisonment is not likely to improve a person's driving, but if that person has received a two or three months prison sentence which had been suspended for two or three years, that person is not likely to offend again within that period. I am quite certain that a suspended prison sentence is the best form of deterrent.
The Minister hinted that he might consider a non-custodial sentence. With the greatest respect, I suggest that a defendant who has perhaps three findings of guilt, one for careless driving, another for care less driving and a third for driving in a manner dangerous, is not going to be deterred from driving badly again by having to paint a senior citizen's sitting-room. May I take the hypothetical case of Mr. X, who has been found guilty of dangerous and reckless driving. Because of his past record, the magistrates think that a two months prison sentence suspended for two years is the best way to deal with him. If the Government do not allow this Amendment, he can only be fined and disqualified from driving. He could not go to a detention centre or an attendance centre. But if the magistrates feel that a suspended sentence is

561
correct, they will send him to the Crown Court for trial, where the learned judge will probably give him exactly the same sentence, two months imprisonment suspended for two years, thus wasting everybody's time and certainly the Crown Court's time.
There are two other aspects to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is that I think it should still be a person's right to be judged by a judge and jury if he so wishes. This would vanish if the Government's proposals are accepted. The second point is that, as my noble friend said, the case can go on indictment to the Crown Court but only the instructing solicitor for the prosecution can decide that without the magistrates having heard the case or the defendant having the right of choice. When we realise that magistrates can send an offender to prison for such comparatively trivial offences as keeping an unlicensed pet shop, three months; drunk and disorderly, one month; breach of regulations as to labelling pre-packaged food, three months; allowing a child or young person to beg, such as on Guy Fawkes' night, three months; and unlicensed peddling, one month, it would, I suggest, be seen to be weak if the magistrates' courts were no longer able to imprison for the far more serious offences that we are discussing to-day. The magistrates in this country, through our Association, would not be asking for these Amendments to this Bill without very careful consideration indeed. As one of those magistrates, I support these Amendments.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I venture to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, has said. I strongly support the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary in his view that people ought not to be sent to prison unless they are a danger to the community. I am of the opinion that, on the whole, too many people are sent to prison rather than too few. Therefore, I welcome the removal of the magistrates' powers of sending people to prison for minor traffic offences. I am concerned solely with the first Amendment, driving uninsured, and this Amendment, drunken driving. I am bound to say that I do not regard such people as not being a danger to the community. It is on this
562
question that a great deal of the difference of opinion has arisen. The noble Viscount, at the Second Reading of the Bill, said that if we cannot do this in the field of motoring cases, where can we do it? This is obviously to suggest that all motoring cases are relatively trivial offences. They are offences which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a few minutes ago referred to as relatively minor cases.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a misapprehension that I must dispel. I may have put it badly, but I was intending to say that where you are dealing with very short terms of imprisonment imposed by the magistrates, this seemed to me to be a good area in which to start. I agree that where there is a very bad case which is taken on indictment to the Crown Court, it is absolutely correct that there should be a term of imprisonment and, if necessary, quite a long one.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I agree with what is proposed so far as minor and trivial, and indeed most, motoring cases are concerned. What we are concerned with here is drunken driving. Nobody has answered one of the questions put in the letter to The Tines of November 23 from the Chairman of the Magistrates' Association and the President of the Justices' Clerks' Society, when they said:
"We have repeatedly asked, without any answer, what magistrates' courts could do with the occasional road traffic offender who has heavy unpaid fines and no job or prospect of paying, but who may now be fined up to £400 instead of up to £100!"
It is a real and practical question for them. In relation to nearly all motoring offences, I think that the proper answer is that this is not a case for imprisonment in any case; it is just too bad and there it is. But I cannot think that that should apply to drunken driving, The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that this has nothing to do with the James Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has got it entirely wrong. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was talking about the previous Amendment when I said that. The previous Amendment had only to do with a plainly summary offence which could not, in any circumstances, come

563
before the Crown Court. I told her because it was true, and she accepted it because it was true, that that had nothing to do with the James Committee.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am obliged; it was my misapprehension. I thought that the noble and learned Lord was talking about the James Committee in general. So far as the right to trial by jury is being removed, this is the very essence of what the James Committee was considering. I do not know that I necessarily agree with the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society when they say:
"The James Committee on the redistribution of criminal business between the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts is concerned with important issues, and our organisations consider it inappropriate and wrong that this attempt should be made to forestall its conclusions."
I am not prepared to say I think that in all cases it is necessarily wrong to change the law merely because it forms part of the remit of a Committee which is sitting. But this is the view which has been very much pressed by the present Government, particularly in this field.
The House will remember that in the Criminal Justice Act the Government—.and we applauded them for it—introduced a provision, which is now part of our law, that no criminal, however bad his record, however awful his offence, is to be sent to prison for the first time unless he has an opportunity of being represented. When I pointed out why we welcomed that provision it obviously remained quite inconsistent that thousands of people a year should be sent to prison for the first time, untried, unconvicted, because they had been refused bail.
The noble Viscount made no logical attempt, and naturally could not, to meet that argument, except that he said, "Oh, but the Home Office has appointed a Working Party on that, and once you have appointed any sort of a committee nothing ought to be done to change the law until it has reported". The House may remember that that is the working party of Home Office people which, although the effect of refusing bail to a woman with small children is quite different from that of a man, has typically, no women upon it. We were told that nothing can be done in this field until
564
this working party has reported. We have seen in the current statistics how many people now are sent to prison straight away, untried, unconvicted—some of them of course completely innocent—without being represented at all and where we still have no legal aid surveillance. All that was done in the sacred name that once you have appointed some sort of committee—it need not be a Royal Commission; it need not be a committee of the status of the James Committee, but merely a departmental committee—you cannot possibly change the law until it has reported. If that is right, and if that is the Government's view, then I think it cannot be right that in this field they should be seeking to jump the gun in relation to the James Committee.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, it is getting very late, and I shall not repeat any of the arguments which I tried to persuade your Lordships to accept before. But I feel strongly that in respect of this particular sort of crime there can be no question as to whether the magistrates' court should be entitled to imprison. It is all very well saying that it may carry very heavy penalties, but the magistrates' courts themselves have not inflicted very heavy penalties, and the two or three months' sentence is something which might be very appropriate in some cases. Why on earth do we not accept the fact that we have, I do not know how many thousand magistrates in this country—over 19,000—who on many days of the week are spending time in order to help the country and to deal with cases brought before them? They are dedicated persons who are not going to step wrong, and have not stepped wrong. This fact, I think, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, is itself the particular argument which should induce your Lordships to accept the idea that a magistrate should be allowed to continue to have this power of imprisonment. Again, remembering the fact that this Bill will now deprive the magistrates of power to make any of the other orders—detention orders, attendance orders, and all the rest—it is absurd because they will have no deterrent to put to the persons who have committed the offences: all they can do is to fine them. The results of some of these deterrent orders,

565
such as detention orders and so on, show that they have proved effective in the hands of the magistrates, because crime has been reduced by that type of deterrent.
Of course, we have not today used an argument which I am sure will be used at a later stage in another place and which has been used before; that is, the argument about depriving a defendant of his right to go to trial by jury if he so wishes. I am not going to go into that again today, but the fact is that that is a very important argument; and in respect of these particular crimes, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, I feel that the magistrates should have the possibility, not only of imposing imprisonment but of using the other remedies that they have in their hands at the present time, because without the power of imprisonment they cannot use them.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I shall not weary the House by delaying the debate. I have not spoken in any of these discussions so far, but I feel I must thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for the obvious trouble he has taken in fulfilling a promise that he would look at the question of the non-custodial orders—and that I appreciate. I did not accept his arguments, but that does not relieve me of the necessity to thank him for doing this. In addition to the arguments put so eloquently by noble Lords in various parts of the House, I would rest my case on a belief in the deterrent effect of quick punishment. I think the Crown Courts may very often delay matters so long because of the backlog of business that by the time the case finally comes up the whole incident is taken in a completely different context. I see the noble Baroness making some shrugging movement, so perhaps there is some point she wishes to make. I also feel that we have not had an answer to the question about what we (and by "we" I mean magistrates) are to do with the drunken driver or the dangerous driver who already has an unpaid fine and has no job. I think that during the passage of the Bill I asked for the figure of those fines which were unpaid, because I recollect that on one occasion when I heard both that figure and the number of people who had failed to pay their bond when called
566
upon to do so it was really rather frightening. It seemed to suggest that in some cases this was a purely academic exercise.
My Lords, I am not convinced by the arguments which have been put forward with such eloquence, but I should not like to go down in history as one of the "beat 'em and flog 'em" brigade. The magistrates want these powers, and however it is explained away by Her Majesty's Government, whether in the person of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack or in the person of the noble Viscount, I am afraid that it will appear both to the magistrates and to people outside that certain powers have been taken away. I can well recollect, when there had been a change of punishment in the schools, how quickly it got around. I have seen children say to a teacher, "There is nothing you can do to me". I strongly suspect that it will very quickly get around that there has been a change in this case, and that there will be a certain change in approach. My Lords, I am not at all happy about this. I recognise that the arguments which have been deployed are very eloquent, but I still feel that those which have been put forward by the magistrates have not been fully dealt with.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I know it is getting late but may I endeavour to clarify the issues here? First of all, let us look at the situation which will obtain if the Amendment is not passed and the situation which will obtain if the Amendment is passed. We are dealing with a variety of offences for which, broadly speaking, the penalty on conviction is, as the Bill stands, obligatory disqualification for more or less time, but probably 12 months. That is the first point to make, that the man, if convicted, loses his licence. If he is tried summarily, if the Bill is passed, he gets a greatly increased maximum fine and, I hope, a greatly increased actual fine. If he is tried on indictment, in addition to those possibilities he can be sent to prison, if the Bill is passed, for 12 months for the breathalyser offence, as it is inaccurately called, and I think for two years for the drunken driving offence. The difference that is made by the Bill to the existing law is simply that

567
if a man is tried summarily the magistrates have not the option to imprison for four months, and the Amendment proposes that the status quo should be restored.
What will the effect of that be? It will be, of course, that the right of trial by jury is maintained and the matter will go automatically to the Crown Court, if the defendant so elects. I seriously ask those who pretend that we are going soft on these offences to reflect on what I have just said. There will, I believe, be a greatly increased number of convictions and there will therefore, by reason of what we are proposing to do, be a large number of dangerous drivers properly taken off the road, some of whom will remain on the road if the Amendment is accepted. That is the first thing I want to say.
What does the Amendment propose to do? It proposes to give the right to magistrates on summary trial to imprison for four months. Why four months and not three? Simply in order to give trial by jury. What could be more fantastic than this? I maintain, and I should have thought that the first person to agree with me would be the noble and learned Lord sitting now below the Gangway, that the right course for Parliament, if it wanted to impose a penalty, would be to impose a penalty which the crime deserves. But to impose a higher penalty solely for the purpose of giving rise to trial by jury is to impose a penalty for some other purpose than punishment. It must be a fantastic piece of Gilbertian, Alice in Wonderland logic to try to introduce this into our criminal law; and to do it when we were abolishing it in an unusual fit of logicality is really for the noble and learned Lord to stand on his head. But now he says that we must not act because of the James Committee. I spend my time during the Committee stages of various Bills begging him from the Government Front Bench not to jump the gun of his own Law Commission, but he says that the James Commission is to be a sacrosanct organ which will preserve the status quo in its present Gilbertian form. It will preserve trial by jury to enable magistrates to impose a sentence which they would not otherwise impose except for the purpose of giving trial by jury to those who will not want to go before a jury.
568
That is the situation in which we are now, according to the logic of the noble and learned Lord. But let me clear the way about the James Committee. Before Lord Justice James was appointed to that Committee I made absolutely sure that he knew exactly what was proposed by the Government in relation to road traffic offences. I may not, of course, say what passed between us, but I think that I can legitimately say that if I had thought that as a result of anything that passed between us there would be the smallest embarrassment to Lord Justice James in what we are now proposing to do, I would have been the first to ask my noble friend to desist from what he was about. But, my Lords, that is not so, and it is not so for a very simple reason, apart from any other. Perhaps I may give a practical reason. I know of practically nobody connected with the administration of the law in relation to the breathalyser offence who really thinks that the case ought to go before a jury at all. There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo which juries are some-times asked to waste their time listening to, but the basic offence is a question of measurement only. If magistrates cannot try a simple question of measurement without a man going to trial by jury, well, my Lords, I am a Dutchman. The fact is that nobody who has any familiarity with the breathalyser offence, apart from those who have a vested interest in defending defendants for that purpose, seriously believes that the time of the Crown Court ought to be taken up with it at all, except if a serious penalty of imprisonment is likely to be imposed. In that case the prosecution ought to ensure that it goes there: and that of course is what we are proposing.
But the other, and basically logical, reason why Lord Justice James cannot be embarrassed is this. Lord Justice James is asked to decide, among other things, as a matter of principle, what cases ought to be tried by jury and what ought not. This is simply removing a maximum penalty, which has the side effect of removing the possibility in this case. If you want to give trial by jury, well, give trial by jury, but do not impose a ridiculous sentence in order to give trial by jury by a side wind.
My Lords, I only want to add this. The answer to the noble Baroness, who asked what we are to do with a man who has

569
not paid his fines and comes before the court again, is simply to send him to the Crown Court to get a proper sentence. But I beg the noble Baroness not to come to the House of Lords and say that three months is a suitable penalty for this offence. A lot of them need prison. They need up to 12 months; they need up to two years; but three months, two months or one month is ridiculous for the purpose, and magistrates do not have the power to give a suitable sentence. Send suitable cases to the Crown Court to be tried on indictment, and let them get a proper prison sentence if they deserve it, but do not fiddle about with tiny sentences

HORTICULTURE (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL COMMUNITIES MEETINGS
4.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
of imprisonment, under what I am sorry to describe as an inconsistent sentencing policy in different parts of the country. And do not confuse your mind by thinking that at the same time you are going hard on these offences, when the total effect of what you are doing is to give more people an option to put lying defences before a jury in the hope that their counsel may deceive them.
4.27 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Content, 43.

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Hacking, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B. [Teller.]

Janner, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Collison, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

de Cliflford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Diamond, L.

Monson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenway, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Amory, V.

Hailes, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Auckland, L.

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

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hood, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elles, B,

Lauderdale, E.

Ferrers, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Lyell, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Gowrie, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Grantchester, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Granville of Eye, L,

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

about recent meetings of the Council of European Communities. The Statement is as follows:
"There have been two meetings of Finance Ministers and one each of Foreign, Agriculture and Social Affairs Ministers.
"External trade agreements have been concluded with India and Brazil There has been further consideration of agreements with Mediterranean countries and with those former members of EFTA that have not acceded to the Communities, and of Community adherence to the International Sugar Agreement; work on the simplification of Customs procedures is to be pursued; the improvement of the CAP was discussed, as was a programme for consumer protection; the Community budget for 1974 was finalised at a level

571
slightly lower than in the current year but within the total figure the Social Fund has been increased by about £19 million (45 million units of account), as already agreed.
"This week's meeting of Foreign Ministers was dominated by the problems of Energy and the Regional Development Fund. No agreement was reached but the Council agreed to resume the discussion not later than January 7. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave a good deal of information on these matters to the House at question time yesterday.
"Finance Ministers agreed a series of measures defining the content of a second stage of Economic and Monetary Union to apply from 1974 on. A resolution on the move to a second stage was also broadly agreed but since it included references to the setting up of the Regional Development Fund and the work to be undertaken on energy matters, it was deferred until those issues were settled.
"The Council has agreed on a programme of action in the field of industrial and technological policy, in accordance with the decision taken at the Paris Summit. The Commission have been charged with submitting draft Directives.
"Social Affairs Ministers agreed on a programme of action to be embodied in a Council Resolution. The programme represents a major stage in the development of the Community Social policy envisaged at the Paris Summit."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful for this Statement In many ways it is rather like a Christmas tree in the pauper's house: dressed up but very little within it. We are very pleased to see that agreement has been reached with India and Brazil, and there is no reason to believe that those countries are not satisfied. It is also good to see that some new steps are being taken in the social affairs area of the Community and also in the industrial and technological policy. But the main concern must surely be, first of all, the failure
572
to reach an agreement on the International Sugar Agreement, because this is having a serious effect in the sugar producing countries. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give an indication of when she expects a decision to be taken here.
But, perhaps the main and most disturbing part of the Statement must be the reports that have been coming out, during the last two days, on the Council meeting in regard to the Regional Development Fund. Noble Lords on this side of the House always felt a sense of dissatisfaction with the terms under which this country entered the Community, but it was the Government who set great store, and persuaded both Houses, that the Regional Development project would provide great opportunities for this country. We were led to believe that there would be massive European money made available for regional development in this country.
Not only was this important in terms of our own development, but it was held to compensate for the very considerable sums of money which we ourselves now pay in to the Community, mainly through V.A.T. and to the French farmers. Therefore, we must press upon the Government that they must remain determined to see that there is a very substantial sum of money made available under the Regional Development Fund. If the Government fail to achieve this, it will have a disastrous effect, so far as they are concerned, and those who have supported entry into the Community, because it will look quite clear, in those circumstances, that we shall continue to be a net provider for the Community, withdrawing very little out of it. This is particularly emphasised when one sees the balance of trade between this country and the Community.
My Lords, I see that the next meeting on this matter will be January 7. I hope that the Government will give us a report on the first day we return after the Recess. We hope that it will be a report that will be acceptable to Parliament. If it is not, then quite clearly we shall require a very urgent debate in order to discuss this matter.
4.43 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we must certainly be thankful for small mercies, such as the small increase in the

573
Social Fund, and the other matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd referred. But would not the Government agree, would they not think that the situation now reached, in which, as we all know, we are blocking much-needed progress towards a common energy policy—to say nothing of a common monetary policy, which is extremely important from our point of view, because the Germans will not agree to give us what we want, or all that we want, in regard to the Regional Fund—is in itself deplorable? Would they not agree that it would have been much better if this Summit had not declared, as they did in their communiqué, that the Regional Fund would in fact be set up by January 1 next, only to find that the Foreign Ministers would not allow this to be done? Would it not have been much better for any impasse in this subject to have been referred to the Summit, rather than the Summit, in effect and ineffectively, referring it to the Foreign Ministers?
Finally, my Lords, would not the Government further agree that it is now essential for some compromise—and I repeat, some compromise—on the total amount of the Regional Fund to be reached at the next meeting of the Council on January 7? I think the noble Baroness, by error, said February 7, but I believe it is January 7. Even if we cannot get all we want, we must not, by undue insistence on what we think, perhaps rightly to be in our own national interest, run a considerable risk of breaking up the entire Community. That would not be in our national interests either.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would clarify the question of the date. I know I am getting old and senile, but I heard her say February 7. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said January 7. which is the date I thought it was. Did she mean February or January?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must first of all thank the noble Lords who have spoken. If I did, by a slip of the tongue, say February 7, I should like immediately to correct it, with apologies to your Lordships, because of course it has always been January 7—the earliest possible moment after Christmas and the New Year. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I understand that both
574
India and Brazil are happy with the agreements that have been reached. As regards the International Sugar Agreement, an attempt was made to agree whether the Community should join the I.S.A. Unfortunately, unanimous agreement could not be reached. This does not affect, of course, the question of 1·4 million tons of sugar from the Commonwealth, which I know that the noble Lord and I have very much at heart.
On the question of the Regional Development Fund, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it is perfectly true that we have at the moment temporary difficulties, not only over the size of the Regional Development Fund, but over the energy policy and the second stage of economic and monetary union. But I would suggest to the House that when long-term policies of this importance are under consideration, it is hardly surprising; and there is the convention in the European Community that one can stop the clock. Therefore, the meeting which takes place on January 7 is really a continuation of the meeting which has just ended and will be continued as such. It is important in many ways to have further time for reflection so that in the end we obtain the right decision. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we are guile determined to see that there is a fair policy on the amount which is contributed to the Regional Development Fund, as we have always thought that this was equally important to the Common Agricultural Policy.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness tell us whether it is the practice to keep a verbatim record of discussions in the Council of Ministers?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR, OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that there is a tape, but as some of these meetings are considered confidential this is not released.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness go a little further and perhaps be willing to answer this question? Since we are confronted by what has been described by high priests of the Community as a crisis in its affairs, and our information comes from ex-parte statements, whether British,

575
German, or whatever they may be—none of them complete, and some of them very brief, like the one that we have had this afternoon—might there not be a case for requiring publication both of the proceedings and of any votes that took place?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, no votes took place because it was desired to try to reach a decision on these matters by consensus. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said yesterday—and I quote—he thought it was desirable that matters of economic and monetary union and matters of regional policy and energy should all be settled at the same meeting; at any rate that considerable progress should be made; and this is the endeavour.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree, however, that there is something to be said for trying to get a proper publication of what takes place in this supreme organ of the Community to which we all belong, whose decisions have a binding effect on our citizens?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree that it would be quite fascinating to get a record of all the discussions which go on within the Council of Ministers. But what emerges, of course, are the decisions, and these really are the matters which will be binding on us, not the general discussion.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not appreciate that it may be that she knows what went on in the Council of Ministers, but we, who are Members of Parliament of both Houses, have only the newspapers to go by and the odd reports that one may have on radio or television on what the Ministers say in the corridors at Brussels. Our reading of the situation is that there was, and still is, a major crisis at Brussels within the Community. Whether you support the entry into the Community or whether you think we should withdraw, clearly it would be a matter of major consequence to this country and to Europe if the crisis were to develop in such a way that, as the noble Lord, Lord
576
Gladwyn, said, the Community was to break up. But would the noble Baroness not agree that if we had the Select Committee procedure in regard to the scrutiny that we discussed the other day this would be a procedure and a forum by which Parliament—in confidence, perhaps—would have a greater knowledge and understanding of what the crisis was about and what was the position taken by the British representatives.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I support the plea that has been made to her? It is perfectly obvious that Parliament should be in a position to know what attitude is taken by our Government, and possibly by other Governments, no matter what the decision may ultimately be. In these circumstances, unless we are aware, by some kind of record, of what is taking place, it is impossible for Parliamentarians, either in this House or in another place, to deal with the matter in the manner in which they might deal with it if they knew what arguments were being put forward by the various countries. Possibly the noble Baroness will consider that there should be some record, and that that record should be available to us.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I can understand the concern expressed by noble Lords, but I should like to put it to them that while it may have appeared as a crisis, as one of our Commissioners responsible for regional development policy, Mr. Thomson, said (I am not quoting his precise words), in his opinion this was an interim procedure within the Community. It is not unknown for the Community to have some very animated debates on all kinds of subjects. I think the general consensus at the end of his meeting—which was difficult, there is no doubt about it, because we have always thought that the Regional Development Fund was of great importance—was that there should be a temporary cessation during Christmas and the New Year and that there should be a resumption on January 7. In order to give, not the confidential proceedings but a general description of what was really at issue on the Regional Development Fund, I will say that the United Kingdom proposed 3,000 million units of account for the Fund, the Commission proposed 2,250 (all this over three years) and the

577
German Delegation proposed 600 for the same period. It is really this difference of opinion in regard to the amount which has been the cause of the difficulty.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if the noble Baroness thinks that this is only an interim crisis—and I agree with her—is she not aware that there is a strong movement in the European Parliament, and I think it extends to members of all the political groups, that when and if the Council of Ministers come into a real impasse, at that moment there ought to be a public debate between the Ministers and the representatives of the Parliament in order to try to resolve the difficulty? Does not the noble Baroness think that that is quite a genial idea?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am not so sure, to be quite honest. I think it might be better to consider this matter as a meeting which is only half concluded, and the rest will conclude on January 7.
I omitted to reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with regard to the Select Committee. As I understood it—and I read the report of that debate with the greatest of interest because I was in Nigeria at the time the idea really was to sift various instruments and to examine certain policies before a conclusion was reached. In this particular case I think that the Select Committee—as indeed the House—is well aware of what the United Kingdom's position is, and the position of the Commission. I am not sure, and I would not commit myself on this matter because no doubt the Government are to consider finally, in January, what to propose to the House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House further, but I would say to the noble Baroness that she should do her homework a little more thoroughly. She will see that the Select Committee was to go a good deal wider than she has indicated, and will meet the point that I put.
My Lords, the next speech will, I presume, be on the Motion, That the House do now adjourn. While I do not myself approve of speeches being made on the Adjournment. I should like to wish
578
the noble Baroness a very happy Hogmanay, and to other noble Lords who may be of that extraction the same. For the rest of us, I wish noble Lords a very happy Christmas. I wish I could add, "and a very prosperous New Year"—but we will keep up our hopes.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, I am the only incumbent left on these Cross Benches, but may I also wish the noble Baroness a very Happy Hogmanay and a very Happy New Year as well!
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I acknowledge the very gay good wishes. As a Scot, may I say that we also celebrate Christmas. I wish all noble Lords a Happy Christmas and a jolly good Hogmanay.

  G.L.C. FARM INTERPRETATION CENTRE PROJECT
  G.L.C. FARM INTERPRETATION CENTRE PROJECT
  WIMBORNE FOOTPATH SCHEME
  WIMBORNE FOOTPATH SCHEME
  E.E.C. SOCIAL FUND: AID FOR MIGRANT WORKERS
  E.E.C. SOCIAL FUND: AID FOR MIGRANT WORKERS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COUNCIL: WORKING PARTIES
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COUNCIL: WORKING PARTIES
  ULSTER MUSEUM ADMISSION CHARGES
  ULSTER MUSEUM ADMISSION CHARGES